Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice]

Actually, the consequence of the Conservative party’s amendments would be to delay the vision and investment that is required, and therefore to increase the losses. That is why they should be ignored. If you are going to do a job, then for heaven’s sake, do it properly and get on with it. That is the difference here.

We need the blast furnaces to be refurbished and relined, and we need a plate mill. We need proper, committed investment. We need the Minister to have a pro-British steel procurement strategy at all levels of the public sector, from warships and the railways to even the planning conditions for a new Chinese embassy—let’s make it with British steel from Lincolnshire, not cheap Chinese steel from far away.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I am trying to understand how constraining Government powers in the three areas of concern would in any way lead to a delay. I do not think that any constraints imposed would stand in the way of this undertaking. In what way would there be a delay? I may not have sufficiently understood the linkage between such constraints on Government powers in other undertakings and how on earth those would impact this particular one.

[Richard Tice]

It is my judgment that the Conservative party’s amendment would prevent the Government from getting on and setting out the vision, placing the investment that is required, and giving the confidence to everybody that there will be a steel-making capability for primary steel. Once we get that investment in the core asset in Scunthorpe—with a refurbished, renewed blast furnace that is ready for the next 50 years—then, with brilliant management from the private sector, we will start to attract private sector capital, which we all want to bring in. This is a moment that requires the proper seed investment, the commitment and the courage from this Government to get on with it, which was so lacking in the previous Administration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill and comment on a number of the amendments. I do so as a Member of this House who represents a proud manufacturing constituency, which includes a number of industries that rely on steel in a variety of ways, from the rail industry and advanced manufacturing to the cluster of innovative defence and space-related companies at NETPark—North East Technology Park—in Sedgefield. Steel is not only used by some of those companies, but extensively used in their supply chain. It underpins manufacturing not just in my seat, but across the north-east and many other constituencies in the country, as we have heard. I have also campaigned successfully to protect sovereign supply of key materials in my constituency and the wider economy. Given the importance of steel to our national security and national critical infrastructure, it is crucial that we get our approach to steel right.

So what does this mean? First, as hon. Members across the House have said, we need to ensure that the Government can act quickly and with agility. That is why I have concerns about several amendments, which, as other colleagues have raised, could slow down the Government’s ability to act decisively. That appears in a number of amendments but, for example, amendments 2, 3, 18 and 19 and new clause 2 seek to impose additional requirements on Ministers before they can act using the provisions of the Bill. Others have gone into some of the specifics, but my concern is that when considered in the round, these proposed changes would have the cumulative effect of hampering the Government’s ability to act and to act swiftly. It is critical that Ministers can act because that is the key purpose of the Bill; that is why we are here debating it today.

Why is it important that Ministers can act quickly, and why might some of the amendments be a challenge? Because, as we are discussing, when a steel plant faces significant challenges and the Government are minded to intervene, Ministers need to achieve three things. First, they need to be able to provide certainty about the future of the business, which helps sustain the workforce and gives certainty to its supply chain and reassurance to its contractors. We have heard Members talk from their private sector experience—I myself worked in regeneration and housing previously—that when there is doubt about the future of an industry or a particular business, or there is a particular commercial concern, we know that when business confidence starts to fall, if action is not taken quickly, the lack of confidence in the supply chain and the contractor chain can do serious damage.

The second priority for Ministers must be to minimise risk. We know not just in this process, but in other similar processes undertaken by the public and commercial sectors that the longer the process, the higher the commercial and legal risk and the more likely it is that we will not get the outcome we desire. It was that desire to act swiftly and show significant national leadership that, as hon. Members mentioned, is why we were all recalled last year on a Saturday, to intervene quickly in the steel sector.

Thirdly, and crucially, the reason that speed is important is if this is agreed, it is important that Ministers have the powers they need to enact the will of Parliament quickly. Quicker intervention in circumstances like this, given the factors we have discussed, is likely to be more successful, particularly in complex cases as we see at British Steel in Scunthorpe.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point about the need for speed in these circumstances, but perhaps he could explain to the House why the endless resetting of a sunset clause, contradicting the whole purpose of a sunset clause, plays into the need for urgent action right now? Or does he agree that it is something that should be looked at again and does not need to delay any of the effective action for which he is calling?

[Alan Strickland]

Ministers will speak for themselves, but I think they are seeking the flexibility to act in the national interest and to do so appropriately. My concern is more with some of the clauses that add lots of prerequisites to what needs to happen before Ministers can act. My view is that in the limited, and hopefully rare, circumstances where Ministers do feel the need to exercise these significant powers, they need to be able to act quickly, and that is what we are discussing today.

Several of the amendments relate to concerns around value for money, which of course is an incredibly important consideration. It is important for all of us to remember that one of the key reasons we are here today is precisely because Ministers have said that they want to do more to ensure value for money for taxpayers delivered in the Government’s potential intervention in British Steel Scunthorpe. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry was clear in May that the Government intended to bring this legislation forward precisely because Ministers were unable to agree suitable terms with the current owner of British Steel that represented a

“responsible use of public money,”

so value for money has been a key driver of ministerial action on this matter and the reason we are debating it in the Chamber today.

I turn to new clause 5, which the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) was just describing. I am sort of slightly astonished that Reform, a party with no plan for steel, has put an amendment demanding a plan for steel. I am pleased to tell Reform Members who are here that we already have one. The Labour Government, as the Minister mentioned, published the UK steel strategy in March. It clearly addresses a number of the important points that the hon. Member rightly mentioned earlier, including specifically the need for the public sector to buy more steel. A year ago in June 2025, the Cabinet Office published guidance—procurement policy note 22—that required public bodies nationally and locally, and their executive agencies, to ensure that UK-produced steel is routinely considered in public procurement and that this is done at an early stage in the process, so the mention of public procurement around steel in that amendment is redundant. Ministers have already issued clear guidance on that some time ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

I rise to speak to amendment 23, tabled in my name, which seeks to strengthen the public interest test that decides when Governments may nationalise steel sites under the Bill. Specifically, it would ensure that nationalisation can and should be used to prevent the loss of jobs in Wales and to prevent the closure of 16 sites in Wales.

Why is this change needed? Currently, the public interest test notes three specific factors for when nationalisation powers may be used, two of which are

“the construction, maintenance and operation of critical infrastructure in the United Kingdom”

and to support

“the economy of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom.”

While those provisions could allow the Government to intervene to protect Welsh steel sites, they offer no guarantee that they will.

Welsh steel communities know all too well what happens when Governments choose not to act. We have experienced this before. Port Talbot stands as the most painful example, where the blast furnaces were allowed to close in 2024, resulting in thousands of job losses and devastating a community that had a proud history of making steel for over 100 years. Before the closures Wales had the largest steel workforce in the UK, with 9,300 people employed in the sector. The Labour party had several years in opposition prior to entering government; the Government could have developed a plan to nationalise Port Talbot to safeguard jobs, as they have done for British Steel in Scunthorpe. They could have acted, but chose not to. Port Talbot deserved equal treatment. Wales deserves equal treatment. The Welsh economy cannot afford a repeat of the calamity of Port Talbot.

The need for certainty is not theoretical. Only recently, last Thursday night, a major fire at Port Talbot caused significant disruption. We are so grateful to the emergency services for acting so quickly, evacuating the area so there were no casualties, but significant damage was caused to the steelworks. We have also learned that the installation of a new electric arc furnace at Port Talbot may be delayed for months because of an electrical connection issue. I believe that is a planning issue with the local authority. These events have not helped the precarious situation at Port Talbot. To safeguard the site and jobs, the Government should make it clear that they will step in to prevent closure or job losses, as a measure of last resort—a position Plaid Cymru has consistently called for.

Steel jobs in Wales are not just jobs: they are strategic assets. They are essential for the future of our economy, for major infrastructure projects and for the development of offshore wind in the Celtic sea. They are also the backbone of our communities from one end of Wales to the other. Alongside Port Talbot, Wales is home to the Trostre works in Carmarthenshire, 7 Steel in Cardiff, Tata in Llanwern and the steelworks at Shotton in the north-east of Wales. Each of these sites deserves the same level of protection that is being offered to sites in England. All deserve equality.

[Graham Stuart]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that the funds put in place by Government—£2.5 billion for the steel plan—are completely inadequate to match the enthusiasm of Members across the House for nationalisations? The National Audit Office suggests there would be £1.5 billion in losses from running the Scunthorpe plant alone, without any investment and without any compensation for Jingye, so the £2.5 billion would be rapidly gone. The truth is that this House and this Government are unable to put in place the sums of money that would allow Scunthorpe sensibly to be supported and invested in, let alone the long string of 16 sites in Wales that the hon. Lady so bravely speaks up for today.

[Ann Davies]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Some £500 million has been ringfenced for Port Talbot; that money is rapidly gone, with no benefit to the local community, but that is another issue that I will not talk about now.

We want an end to the double standard. Welsh steel must be given the same guarantees as English or Scottish steel. What we want is equality for all the sites across the UK; we want the same security and the same commitment to preventing closures and safeguarding jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

I worry that if we pass Opposition amendment 12, we will bake in instability and loss of control, and we will not allow some of the long-term issues to be addressed when Government intervention is needed to ensure long-term resilience in the national interest.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is giving a powerful speech and showing great expertise. Is he confident, as so many critics of the steel plan were not, that the £2.5 billion that has been found by the Treasury is sufficient to allow the interventions that he so enthusiastically supports? If it is not, is there not a danger that we will not invest in things, but just bleed out public cash on facilities that continue to be uncompetitive and do not get renewed? If we do not put the right resource in, as France and other countries have arguably done, we will be losing out and not winning.

[Luke Myer]

As a Back Bencher, I will always fight for more funding to modernise our steel industry. What I do know is that the current owners of British Steel are not responsible owners. We saw last year the crisis that was created when they failed to provide sufficient supply to keep the blast furnaces running. We cannot allow the current situation to continue if we are to protect our domestic industry. This Bill is about having the powers to nationalise and ensure that the national interest is served. Whether there is sufficient funding is a question on which I will continue to push the Government.

We are not focusing today on clause 58, but the freedom to make the necessary fiscal decisions to support operational stability and competitiveness is fundamental to the sunset clause we are discussing, as well as the potential for ongoing considerations on other critical assets that the Bill might be used for. It would be helpful to hear more about the Government’s intentions on issues like energy and procurement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) said. We had a positive intervention from the Cabinet Office last year and the ambition to increase domestic steel market share back towards 50% is right, but the test will be in the delivery.

For too long, we have had industrial strategies while approving publicly backed projects that import vast quantities of overseas steel. Taxpayers rightly expect public investment to strengthen British industry and British jobs. Mechanisms like contracts for difference and other subsidy schemes must align much more closely with procurement objectives, so that public money genuinely supports UK supply chains. The forthcoming defence investment plan is a major opportunity to ensure that we are using UK steel across the country in industrial communities to support national security. At the end of the day, economic security is national security. Britain cannot become dangerously dependent on overseas steel for critical infrastructure or defence capability.

While I support the shift to electric arc furnaces and the increased focus on how we use domestic scrap, which is welcome, Britain should seek to retain some primary iron capability. Other countries are investing heavily in technologies like direct reduced iron. We need only look at Luleå in northern Sweden, for example, where an operational hydrogen-powered DRI facility is already producing steel. That has not held the region back in any way. Economically, it has had the opposite effect of attracting inward investment in new industries, from data centres to clean power. I would like to hear a little from the Minister about DRI and whether we will be looking seriously at that, but I do not wish to stray too far out of the scope of the Bill.

The legislation was brought forward in the context of British Steel, but we should not pretend that British Steel is the only critical asset that may ever require Government action. There may be other sites, capabilities and parts of the supply chain where future intervention is needed to protect jobs, sovereign capability and the national interest, so my concern with amendment 12 is that it would make these powers too easy to lose. A future Government may not share the same commitment to active industrial strategy and may not be as willing to renew the tools needed to protect the sector, so we should not remove the extension mechanism now because we may leave workers and industry more exposed later on.

Opposition Members made the point that politicians should not run businesses, although of course the Minister for Industry did run a steel business for many years and did so very effectively. They may mean that politicians from this country should not run businesses. The Bill is before us because of the approach that Jingye has taken. The Chinese steel industry has long benefited from huge state subsidies, and cheap state-directed finance, energy support and overcapacity policies. Beijing did not leave it to the market; it used state power aggressively to expand industrial capacity, which is worth bearing in mind.

I will finish on this point. While the Government cannot say which assets they wish to use these powers for, it is evident that British Steel cannot remain in Chinese hands. I do not know what the long-term ownership structure will look like—perhaps it will be modernised and sold to a new buyer, or perhaps it will be taken into public hands and remain there, with steelworkers having some stake in the company that they built—but I do know this. When a Labour Government intervened to create the nationalised British Steel Corporation in 1967, Teesside enjoyed such high employment and high wages that it was classified as one of the best places to live anywhere in the UK. It brought stability to tens of thousands of families and built the second largest blast furnace in Europe.

In 1979, a very different Government took office with a very different theory of Britain—a small state and a blind faith in the global free market. In just five years, our region had the highest registered unemployment rate anywhere in Great Britain. By the end of Thatcher’s premiership, almost 250,000 jobs in our region had gone. They took a British industrial economy and turned it into a globalised service sector economy.

Today the Thatcherites are back, with a new logo and a new face. They will talk a big game on steel, but we have been here before. It is my belief that only a social democratic Government can truly protect our steel communities and equip them to face the future, because a social democratic Government recognise something that a foreign private owner cannot: the value of protecting sovereign industry, even when the going gets tough.

This issue is about our jobs, but it is also about our security. Will we be left exposed in a volatile world, or will we build for the future again? I hope that this Labour Government have the courage and ambition to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

Will the Minister give way?

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris McDonald]

I will take an intervention from the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness. Given that he was referenced, it would be helpful to give him the right to reply.

[Graham Stuart]

To help the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), I do not think I said anything about subsidising. What I am looking for, and what I think all of us across this Committee would like to see, is the continuation of steel, especially in a dangerous world. I was questioning whether we have a coherent strategy and sufficient funding to take the steel industry—the specific site in Scunthorpe and others—on the journey that the Minister set out, which requires intervention to take it back to being a thriving industry. I worry that there is not such a pathway or sufficient resource, so we could be in the worst of all possible worlds, where we just bleed public money without it leading to the restitution of a healthy steel industry in this country. That is what I am looking for an answer to.

[Chris McDonald]

Let me address that point. It is helpful for us to think about the potential options. There is agreement across the Committee that we want a successful and thriving steel industry, and the Government have made some serious financial commitments. We have committed £500 million to support the transformation of the plant in Port Talbot, which has attracted another £500 million of private sector investment. We have committed £2.5 billion through our steel strategy and an additional £400 million to support the Forgemasters operation, which is successfully under public ownership.

We have to think about the potential options. Given that the Government have put that money on the table and are seeking private sector partners to work with for all our steel plants, the alternative would be the closure and the loss of those facilities. This comes down to a judgment as to whether we think the UK is capable of having a successful, profitable and investable private sector industry.

It is the Government’s view that it is possible for the UK to have that, not least when we compare ourselves with similar advanced economies in Europe—we are not necessarily comparing ourselves with low-cost economies around the world—but it is a matter of ensuring that we have the right business environment to enable that to happen, and it is clearly incumbent on Government to arrange policy in that way. I think our steel strategy, in particular, and our trade measures provide that response, which is what gives us confidence that we have the resources to do that.

Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Joe Robertson]

I agree with all those comments. The Government should do all they can to support this sector. I say again that coastal communities face some of the biggest structural challenges, in terms of both demographics and geography, of any of our communities. That is why the Government should have a particular focus on these areas.

I will finish by speaking briefly about transport. A House of Lords Select Committee identified in 2019 and again in 2023 that poor transport connectivity is holding coastal communities back. The Isle of Wight knows that better than most places. The Government have made no specific investment plans for transport in coastal communities. Instead, for the Isle of Wight, the Government have increased the already rip-off costs of crossing the Solent by car—of course, the Isle of Wight is completely reliant on ferries for transport to and from the island—and have done that by introducing a new emissions trading scheme tax, which they have not applied to Scottish islands with smaller populations and have not applied in full to Northern Ireland with a bigger population. It is insulting and inexcusable.

The Government say that they want coastal communities to succeed, but a whole string of policies and tax-and-spend decisions do not support that aim. Indeed, many directly undermine it. I therefore call on the Government to support seasonal hospitality in coastal areas by scrapping their plans for the overnight visitor levy, introducing a national insurance holiday for businesses employing young people and those not in employment, education or training, and scrapping business rates for thousands of hospitality businesses up and down the country permanently. The Government should stop trying to convince businesses, whose rates are going up, that they are going down—businesses know what their rates are. They should urgently publish the promised visitor economy growth strategy and disapply the ETS tax on car ferry travel to the Isle of Wight, bringing it in line with every other UK island that will pay nothing.

Our hospitality businesses are resilient and have survived a great deal, but resilience has limits. I hope that the Minister can offer the House and my constituents some genuine reassurance this afternoon.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

We have a lot of wannabe speakers in this very short and time-constrained debate. I will set and stick to a speaking limit of three minutes, which might mean that we do not get everybody in, so if anybody feels like being shorter and punchier, that would be great.

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart.

Coastal hospitality businesses are central to communities such as mine in South East Cornwall. It is not a niche sector for us; accommodation and food services count for around 16.7% of our employment, which is more than double the UK average and shows how crucial they are for my community. It is important to recognise that they face very different challenges. They generate a majority of their annual income in a very short trading window, and a few weeks of poor weather, transport disruption, energy costs, labour shortages or antisocial behaviour during the peak season in Cornwall can really impact their year ahead.

One of the greatest challenges is workforce retention and recruitment, and businesses cannot function without their staff. Our communities are not sustainable if we do not have local people who can afford to live and work locally. I therefore want us to move away from the view that coastal communities’ economies function only in these short windows of time, and one way to do that is to invest in local people for year-round employment. Greater support for skills through apprenticeships and training can help to create opportunities, and I welcome the work of the youth hub in Liskeard, which was developed through a partnership between Cornwall council and the Department for Work and Pensions. Early results show encouraging improvement in retention and young people accessing work and training, including in hospitality businesses.

I also want to highlight that transport infrastructure is crucial for allowing people to get to work and continue a thriving community such as mine. The value of our local identity and heritage, with Cornish culture, language and food, adds an extra impetus to visit us and work with us in our local community, and we can strengthen that further by securing procurement opportunities with local providers wherever possible, which I know many of my pubs do.

The challenges are very real for hospitality businesses in South East Cornwall. I welcome the temporary reduction in VAT on children’s meals and family activities to 5% throughout the summer. As I have discussed, free bus travel for young people will really help them get to work. The extension of the 5p fuel duty cut, reductions in red diesel duty and increases to tax-free mileage allowances will help families, workers and businesses, and I encourage the Minister to visit us in Cornwall to see that in action.

However, businesses tell me about the pressures of VAT. This month, we will see the loss of valued venues. I held a meeting recently with local pubs and heard their concerns at first hand. Those concerns affect my community and are a part of a much-needed wider conversation about VAT rates and the campaign led by Tom Kerridge. Given that we want thriving coastal communities—I know the Minister does—will the Government set out how they are ensuring that policy on licensing, staffing, apprenticeships and business support reflects the realities of communities like mine? I look forward to working with her and the Government to deliver just that.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Admirably done. I call Richard Foord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. With apologies to Mr Shannon, I now call Seamus Logan as the final speaker and give the Liberal Democrat spokesman three minutes’ notice.

Employment Rights Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

Well no, I cannot, because there is a cap—the very cap that the hon. Member’s party is seeking to remove. I try not to be uncharitable about the complete absence of business experience in the Cabinet, but that level of question, together with that impact, is just embarrassing.

The Minister in her remarks—there was not much of an argument; it was really just a critique—blamed peers in the other place for the Government’s own failures. Notwithstanding how peers are doing the constitutional job we ask them to do, Lyndon B. Johnson said that the first rule of politics is to learn how to count. The Government lost the vote on its unemployment Bill last week by 24 votes, but 65 of their own peers did not want anything to do with the Bill—they did not turn up and did not vote. During the passage of the Bill, one Labour peer has even resigned his peerage and joined the exodus of wealth creators to the United Arab Emirates because of what he sees. The Resolution Foundation and the Tony Blair Institute have both criticised the Bill.

By removing that £118,000 compensation cap, the Government are not protecting the vulnerable. If that is what they wish to do, there are other ways to do that, but ordinary workers will never benefit from that. It is a genuinely mad world; I do not understand why we are having this debate.

This time last week, the Liberal Democrats agreed with me on this. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) has been campaigning for the boss of South East Water to be fired, but without a cap his payout could be millions. Is that really what they want? What changed, other than the appearance of five new Liberal Democrat peers?

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

I will do so briefly. After that, I want to conclude.

[Graham Stuart]

I am extremely grateful. My hon. Friend is setting out a powerful case. We are puzzled, because a system designed for ordinary workers that has a sensible cap is now being opened up to the very CEOs who, as has been highlighted, would not have previously used it. We have a Labour party in hock to the unions yet strangely proposing a measure that was not included their manifesto which can only help the rich. What happened to the Labour party?

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I will leave that hanging there and hope that Labour Members will address it.

In conclusion, I ask the Government at this eleventh hour to pull back from the brink and introduce a financial cap so that we can get this business done this week. They have no consent from business, and they sought no support for it in their manifesto. I have talked about youth unemployment and the level of redundancies. We Conservatives will get Britain working again. We will end the attacks on employers and repeal the job-killing measures in the Bill. For the sake of businesses, for the sake of the backlog and for the sake of Britain, the Government should accept the Lords amendment and drop their motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

May I first declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and donations from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers trade union, as well as my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions? I am not sure if we are on a ping or a pong now, but there is a whiff of stubbornness about the fact that we are back here again.

Last week, I called for the Government to make this place sit every day until Christmas to ensure we got the Bill through—it is a shame that the other place took that as an invitation rather than the contingency plan it was intended to be, but, if that is what it takes, that is what we should do. We are ready. It is wrong that an unelected house, where jobs are given for life, can dig in and push back on something that will give millions of workers rights that we promised long ahead of an election, and for which we have a decisive mandate.

I commend the Government and the Minister for not backing down. A deal was reached with the relevant stakeholders. It is a pragmatic compromise, and a deal they are publicly saying needs to go through. That is how mature, effective industrial relations are supposed to work.

I do not think that the Lords’ arguments are particularly substantial; they are certainly not reasons to delay the Bill again. Their point that we should not agree with the lifting of the cap because it fell outside the scope of manifesto commitments in this area does not really take us very far, given that the original concession made on qualifying periods was also outside the scope of the manifesto, and of course, that is all part of the same package. It feels to me that this is more about the Lords wanting to have the final word rather than having to deal with the substance.

[Graham Stuart]

We did not hear it from the Minister, so could the hon. Member please explain the case for removing the cap?

[Justin Madders]

I am glad that there are some Conservative Back Benchers here. Last week they were all somewhere else, but now we are hearing some contributions. I was not in the room when the negotiations took place, but I understand that that was the deal. I am afraid that there have been some wilful misunderstandings on the Conservative Benches about what lifting the compensation cap actually means. Compensation for unfair dismissal is calculated by defined heads of loss under the law, so lifting the cap will not change that one bit. If the claims are still necessary, they will be there. It just means that some workers—particularly older workers who might not be able to get another job and who may have substantial pension losses—will benefit, not the fat-cat bosses that have been talked about. It is important that we stress that point.

Also, I do not remember the Conservatives’ manifesto in 2010 promising to double the period for qualification on unfair dismissal. Neither do I remember a pledge in either the Tory or the Liberal Democrat manifesto to put a cap on compensation. None the less, the coalition Government pushed both those policies through. Those who claim that the lifting of the cap will see an avalanche of claims ignore the fact that the rationale used for introducing the cap in the first place was to deal with perceptions about levels of compensation people might recover—in other words, legislating on perceptions rather than on facts—and I have to say, we have heard plenty of those perceptions repeated again tonight.

The Opposition can complain about a two-year wait for tribunal claims, but I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for recognising his party’s culpability in that. It is important that this Government are working with the trade unions, businesses, the judiciary and ACAS to find ways of improving our system, so that we get justice more quickly, instead of just ignoring it as the previous Government did. This Government have shown flexibility and strength to negotiate a change in order to get a deal over the line. Workers in this country should not be made to wait any longer for these important rights.

It is worth reminding the House that the road map we agreed earlier this year shows that the following laws should be in place by April 2026: doubling the maximum period of the protective award; day one paternity leave and unpaid parental leave; whistleblowing protections; establishing the Fair Work Agency; day one statutory sick pay and entitlements for the first time for millions of people who have been denied them to date; and simplifying the trade union recognition process. These are not minor or trivial measures. They are substantial changes that will improve the working lives of millions of people. We should be proud that it is a Labour Government who are delivering them, and we should be determined to deliver them by April 2026.

Of course, that is just the beginning. Genuine flexible working, ending zero-hours contracts, banning fire and rehire—there is much more in this Bill that really matters to working people. And there is much more beyond the Bill: the reform of TUPE and parental leave and dealing with the epidemic of bogus self-employment are of huge importance. These are the sorts of things that a radical, reforming Labour Government need to tackle, because the world of work is changing. It is changing far faster than we can legislate for, but we can insulate our constituents against the worst excesses and unintended consequences of the tech revolution by putting security and fairness at the heart of every employment relationship, and we need to do that now. If we do not, we will have failed not only to deliver on the promises we made but to stand up for the very people we were elected to represent, so I call on the other place to agree with the will of the democratically elected Chamber and to deliver finally on our promise to make work pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that. I was coming to that in my speech. Perhaps he could listen with a little more attention.

Employers have finally been given the necessary clarity to make hiring decisions with confidence, and we have avoided the danger of unnecessarily slowing down the labour market even further, which would have deprived so many people of vital employment opportunities. That is exactly what the progressive Resolution Foundation think-tank warned of when it said there was a risk that

“employers would be nervous about hiring new workers or offering shifts, and this would make life harder for job seekers.”

As I pointed out last week, it is really disappointing that the Government decided to muddy this improvement by simultaneously abolishing the cap on compensation for unfair dismissal. Employers were not in favour of scrapping the £118,000 cap, and I once again point out that bringing in a change like this at the last minute is not how we build trust between Government and business. However, I note that employers and business groups have been equally clear that this last-minute change must not stand in the way of the far more important changes secured with regard to the six-month qualifying period. Above all else, business values pragmatism, and that is exactly why it wants to see this breakthrough protected and enshrined in law. That is what has guided our approach throughout.

Will the Minister confirm on the Floor of the House that the Government will conduct an assessment of the impact of the removal of the compensation cap, actively seeking views from businesses, as was indicated to the Liberal Democrats in the other place? On a broader level, will she give a cast-iron commitment that the Government will hold regular debates in both Houses to ensure that Parliament can scrutinise what work is being done to consult businesses and workers on all relevant implementation aspects of this Bill? How are the Government planning to support employers in order to ensure that they have robust policies and practices in place to navigate these changes to the unfair dismissal regime?

Lastly, to those in the Conservative party who have been trying to sabotage this crucial compromise on the six-month qualifying period, I simply say that they are acting not in the interest of British businesses but only in their own narrow party political self-interest.

[Graham Stuart]

On that very point, does the hon. Member believe that it is totally pragmatic to have disregarded her objections to the removal of the cap in return for additional places for the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords?

[Sarah Olney]

It is so revealing of Conservative Members’ mindset that they cannot believe what I am actually saying is the reason for our change, and that they assume instead that we must have sought some benefit for ourselves. It is so revealing that that is what the Tories think. It beggars belief that the Conservatives, having hammered businesses while in government, are now doing everything in their power to undermine UK plc from the Opposition Benches.

I note that the Government have taken steps to improve the clarity of the legislation with regard to seasonal work, introducing measures that will ensure that businesses relying on seasonal work and bodies representing seasonal workers will be properly consulted when secondary legislation is drawn up. Many businesses, such as those in the farming and agricultural sector, as well as thousands of pubs, cafés and restaurants, depend on seasonal workers, and any obstacles to hiring them could have a significant impact, exacerbating the long list of challenges they already face, so we must ensure that they are supported as much as possible. Small businesses in our local towns and communities are struggling with the Government’s unfair national insurance rise, high export costs due to Brexit red tape and a business rates system that is not fit for purpose. Struggling businesses mean fewer jobs and lower pay, so it is vital that we take steps to support high street businesses and all those who rely on them.

It is time that we listened to the business community, which is telling us that the best way forward is to look for balanced solutions through secondary legislation and to put an end to the uncertainty and avoid losing the six-month qualifying period, which we were happy to have helped secure. Continuing to delay the passage of the Bill at this late and protracted stage would risk further uncertainty for businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, and would jeopardise significant changes that will benefit workers, such as expanded protections against workplace harassment and improved paternity leave rights.

I urge Members to be pragmatic and to provide clarity to businesses and workers alike regarding an implementation timeline. That is critical for providing a stable operating framework so that businesses can plan ahead. We should now work together to ensure that this legislation can be implemented to benefit businesses and workers alike.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas]

I will make progress.

The idea that removing the cap will lead to anything other than a surge in cases is pure fantasy. This lack of understanding shows why the Government must listen to those who know how business works and recognise the devastating consequences that the Bill will have for companies and, crucially, for workers, rather than branding themselves champions of working people while advancing policies that benefit only high-fliers.

[Graham Stuart]

Labour colleagues shake their heads as my hon. Friend lays out the blindingly obvious. That goes to show why introducing a measure at the last minute during ping-pong is inappropriate and precisely why the House of Lords is right to say that we must consider this fully. It is quite obvious that Labour Members do not want to understand it; they obviously do not understand the implications.

[Bradley Thomas]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who makes his point eloquently, as usual.

The Government must abandon the measure. If they are really on the side of workers, the best thing they can do is abandon this measure—and abandon the Bill in its entirety.

Seasonal Work

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Bool]

My hon. Friend makes a valid and correct point. We have started to see a rise in unemployment in South Northamptonshire among 16 to 25-year-olds exactly because of that.

The business owner I spoke to said that the problem is that the business starts paying at a certain level, but that increase pushes up across all wages across all levels of the business. Suddenly businesses are finding themselves drowning in the amount of money they are having to pay. That will stifle the market. We even talked to some of my hairdressers—they have been mentioned numerous times to the Minister—who said that the impact of NICs means that, according to the British Hair Consortium, there will be no new apprentice starts in 2027. That is staggering and appalling, when the Government are talking about all the opportunities for the young.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

My hon. Friend may be aware that just across the channel in France, high regulation and high tax has led to consistent, long-term high youth unemployment. Speaking of Andy Williams, another song says that there is a “lesson to be learned” from this, and we do not have to look too far to learn it.

[Sarah Bool]

As always, my right hon. Friend makes a valid point. Andy Williams is getting a lot more airtime today than any of us imagined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The importance of the construction industry was mentioned earlier, along with the plan to give more construction apprenticeships and jobs to young people, but for those jobs to be offered, we need people to be investing in the first place. Companies are not doing that, because they cannot make those decisions. They do not know where the money is coming from. They do not know when the money will next be taken from them. We are not creating an environment in which they can grow. I do not see anyone on the Government Benches disagreeing with me on that, so I think my hon. Friend’s point is well made.

[Graham Stuart]

What seems to be missing on the Government Benches is any recognition of the growing anger among young people at the fact that they are being shut out of the jobs market. It is the most damaging time in someone’s life to be barred from work when they are young. The Minister does not seem to be an Andy Williams fan, but The Clash sang under a previous Labour Government:

“Career opportunities are the ones that never knock”.

Not under Labour.

[Sarah Bool]

Absolutely.

In Prime Minister’s questions earlier, I asked about the fair choices that this Government say they have made. I think those choices are fundamentally unfair. The Government are trying to introduce a digital ID scheme, unfunded by the Government, that could cost at least £1.8 billion, yet most of the public do not want it, given that 3 million people signed the petition against it. The Government then talk about inflicting tax hits on all our businesses. It is just madness. There is absolutely no sense of direction from this Government. This is not a pro-growth Chancellor but a no-growth Chancellor. That will be the legacy.

I never thought that a Christmas song could sum up a Government’s economic approach, but if we look at “We wish you a Merry Christmas”, it appears that we are in the “we won’t go until we’ve got some,” phase from this Government, whether they are demanding figgy pudding or, in this instance, tax. I am really hoping, though, that they will see the light and eventually help businesses to unlock, to reach their potential and to have a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

My hon. Friend is correct. In fact, what will probably happen is that many businesses will offer less work. That tells us that these regulations have been drawn up by people who have never run a business. When a farm, holiday park or festival operator knows that it might be legally required to provide fixed hours even when demand disappears with a change in weather or tourist numbers, the safest option will be not to hire so many people. It should not surprise the Government when that is what businesses decide to do. Seasonal workers could see fewer opportunities, shorter seasons and more competition for every shift.

Secondly, the strict advance notice rules and penalties for changing shifts might offer security for longer-term part-time workers, but seasonal work often depends on rapid, last-minute scheduling. If a grower cannot schedule pickers until they know the fruit is ready, or an events company cannot bring in extra hands until bookings spike, they may be forced to reduce the number of workers they engage at all.

The added liability on agencies will shrink the pool of temp placements, on which many seasonal workers rely. It is natural that agencies will become far more cautious about taking on temps. No doubt some will pull out of short seasonal contracts altogether. That means fewer people will be in short-term work, fewer people will be building experience in their first jobs and fewer people will have the stepping stones to full-time employment. The Bill will act as a hammer blow to seasonal work. Employers will hesitate to hire, and workers will lose the very flexibility that makes seasonal work viable.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and he is entirely right about the impact on seasonal workers, but we should always look beyond the producers to the consumers. What will the impact be at music festivals and at all sorts of events—community events—all around the country? We will see higher prices and there will be less competition and choice. It is socialism in action—everybody losing, including society as a whole.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point with which I agree.

The combination of extra costs and extra regulations means that it becomes incredibly burdensome for small businesses to afford to take on staff. The above inflation increases to the minimum wage add further pressure, and that all has a disproportionate effect on industries such as hospitality and tourism.

My constituent Kathy owns a shop in Burnham-on-Sea, which she has run for 20 years, but the recent changes imposed by the Chancellor are making it harder and harder for her to operate. Kathy currently employs three 16-year-olds. Increases in the minimum wage and future changes to employment law will force her to stop the practice of giving youngsters their first job. There are only so many tasks someone of that age can be given, but now the salary increases and other changes will be prohibitive. Two of the three will be leaving, and Kathy tells me they will not be replaced. Is it any wonder that youth unemployment is rising? Many businesses will think, “Why risk it?”

Every Labour Government leave office with unemployment higher than when they started. Last July, unemployment was 4.4%; it is now 5%. That 0.6 percentage point increase may not sound like much to Labour Members, but it is an extra 282,000 people out of work and claiming benefits. I fear we have not reached the peak because while unemployment is rising, business confidence is falling. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor cling to their jobs, telling their nervous Back Benchers that it is them—and only them—who the markets trust. I have to say that that boast is not all it might appear. What it really means is that the alternatives are so awful that they would tax, borrow and spend even more if Keir and Rachel disappear—

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair.

We have heard from Members from across the House who understand a fundamental truth: that the hospitality sector is the cornerstone not only of our economy but of our society. It is a great strength of our parliamentary system that we all represent unique districts that are all, in one way or another, replete with high streets and hospitality businesses—pubs, restaurants and hotels—which we all wish to support. Members on both sides of the House have observed the importance of binding our communities together, giving people a warm place to stay—a refuge from loneliness—and keeping our high streets vibrant. Those are places where life happens.

As we have also heard, hospitality performs a vital and arguably unique role in providing the next generation with that vital first step on the career ladder. I imagine that many of us had our very first experience of the world of work—that priceless exposure that helps us become world-ready—in retail or hospitality. I certainly did, and we have heard many other such examples. The sector does that precisely because it is a feature, not a bug, that it provides flexible seasonal work that allows young people to earn their first wage, combined with other responsibilities or opportunities, and, in so doing, to learn the important dignity of labour.

As we have heard from my right hon. and hon. Friends, pubs, hotels and restaurants in particular are hurting as a direct result of the Chancellor’s choices, not just in last year’s Budget but once again in this year’s Budget, which was delivered from the Dispatch Box just a few weeks ago. More than a dozen venues from my South Downs constituency have contacted me in the last 24 hours alone, having heard about this debate. Ruth and Martin at the Cricketers in Duncton described to me how their rates are going up by £4,500 to £5,000 a year—that is money that they do not have. The Fox Goes Free in Charlton has been a public house, continuously serving the community, for over 400 years. Like every pub, it makes a huge contribution. Its business rates bill will increase by more than £13,000 next year. The House should bear that in mind when Labour Members talk about how they have introduced permanently lower business rates. That is a laughable idea. I have heard similar stories—and worse—from the Murrell Arms in Eastergate, the Half Moon Inn in Northchapel, the Labouring Man in Coldwaltham and the Onslow Arms in Loxwood.

[Graham Stuart]

Tom, the landlord of the Kings Head in Hedon, heard on Budget day that business rates would be cut for businesses like his. Instead, the rateable value of that pub, which provides such an important service to the people of Hedon and the surrounding villages, has gone from £9,000 to £32,000.

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I would not want to incur wrath by accusing anybody of misleading the House, but that is exactly the same story that I have heard from the Bridge Inn in Amberley, the Star and Garter in East Dean, the Bricklayers Arms in Midhurst and the Black Horse Inn in Byworth. That surely cannot be a coincidence; these cannot be isolated examples of those “permanently lower” business rates—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

It is a pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the Government.

Let me start by saying that I will take absolutely no lessons on running the economy after what the Conservatives did during 14 years in government. Given that there have been so many references to songs and music today, I want to suggest a song that Conservative Members might want to reflect on. It is an Elton John classic: “Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word”.

I noticed yesterday that the Conservatives produced a Christmas video in which they claimed that Santa’s elves were seasonal workers—you couldn’t make it up! May I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), on his somewhat alarming AI skills? I would gently point out that if the Opposition’s reference point for the modern economy is Father Christmas’s workshop, that does explain a lot; although, frankly, I am not surprised. On Monday, the shadow Secretary of State repeatedly quoted figures on the supposed cost of the Employment Rights Bill from the Growth Commission. However, that commission boasts a Ms Elizabeth Truss as an adviser, so he will forgive me if I take any of his economic advice with a large pinch of salt.

Let me be clear. We on the Government Benches do not believe in pitting employers and employees against each other. No one wants a business to succeed more than the workers who rely on it for their livelihood. This Government will not indulge in the scaremongering so beloved by the Conservatives, and I will take this opportunity to clarify some of their misleading claims. But first, I want to acknowledge how difficult the past few years have been for small businesses, particularly in the hospitality, retail and leisure sectors. These sectors were disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, by a botched Brexit, and by a cost of living crisis that has robbed the British people of their disposable income.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kate Dearden]

I will carry on and make some progress.

Let me respond to the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). As many hon. Members reflected on this point, I will clarify that we are not seeking to return to or rejoin the customs union; we are focusing on trade deals with countries such as the US and India. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) demonstrated that so clearly in relation to our trade agreement with the US, which guaranteed thousands of jobs under Jaguar Land Rover. I will come to the point made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park about the youth guarantee later in my speech and respond to her reflections.

First and foremost, I pay tribute to all those running and working in small businesses, especially in such important sectors as hospitality and retail. I know from my own experience and my family’s experience just how hard that is. My first job was in a café in the hospitality sector; it was where I developed through my first opportunities. I became a manager there, and I absolutely loved my job. It was a really important aspect of our community, including for local people’s livelihoods.

My dad worked in the printworks growing up, and he was made redundant by his bosses under the watch of the Tory Government. I worked with my mum and dad, and took the opportunity that the hospitality sector provided to them. It gave my dad the opportunity to set up a small business and run a café successfully for 14 years, and our family are so proud of that. He gave an opportunity to more young people in the community I grew up in, and the business was a really important aspect of our lives. I now have so many excellent businesses in my Halifax constituency, which I am proud to champion at the Dispatch Box and in government. That is why this Government were elected: to provide economic growth that will raise living standards and support vital sectors across our economy.

As the Minister for Employment Rights, I should say that this Government were also elected on a promise to make work pay. The UK’s employment laws are mostly a product of the 20th century. They have not kept pace with how businesses now employ people, nor with how people experience working life today. The world of work has fundamentally changed in recent years; it is no longer the norm for employees to stay in one company or even a single sector for their whole career. New technology continues to rapidly transform how we work, where we work and when we work, and the rise of the gig economy has changed the certainty and stability that employment used to provide. The Employment Rights Bill takes steps to fulfil our commitment to bring employment rights into the 21st century.

Lots of hon. Members have spoken passionately about the Bill and its importance to them, as well as the experience that they bring to this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) spoke powerfully about his personal experience of working in hospitality and about how he stands up for his constituents in the sector. He demonstrated the importance of the Bill in providing job predictability and security as a baseline.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) spoke about the fair pay agreement and her experience standing up for care workers in her constituency and across the country, as well as about the importance of statutory sick pay for thousands more people across this country and the importance of the fair work agency. It is essential that we get this Bill on to the statute book and ensure that people can see the benefits it will bring to them, particularly through setting up the enforcement powers of the fair work agency. My hon. Friend also mentioned overseas recruitment. What matters in UK employment law and enforcement is where the worker is based; if they are based in the UK, then in general they have access to UK employment law, and enforcement agencies can and do take action no matter where the employer is based. I would be happy to talk to her if she has any further questions about the set-up of the fair work agency.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) for her support. She made a passionate and to-the-point case for the importance of the Bill, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury. I agree with every word that they and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) said about the importance of this legislation to working people and to brilliant businesses across the country.

The Employment Rights Bill will strengthen workers’ rights and lead to growth. Many British businesses already offer their employees benefits and protections that far exceed what is in the legislation. The Bill will encourage those seeking employment, including young people looking for their first job, giving them security that they will be treated fairly by their employer. As we have said, we are not springing these changes on businesses; we are working very closely with them as we implement these changes gradually over a number of years. We will be consulting and working with them closely.

Lots of Opposition Members mentioned zero-hours contracts. Many people in the UK value the option to work flexibly, but some employers have taken advantage of that flexibility. We are determined to tackle the issue of one-sided flexibility, which can leave people unclear about when they will next get paid work and how much time they need to keep available for work. Of course, some businesses—including those in the hospitality, retail, agriculture and tourism sectors—experience fluctuating demand across the year. There are ways for businesses to plan their work that gives their workers a degree of security, which is why flexibility is already built into the Bill to address issues of seasonal demand. There are several ways in which an employer could approach this issue while complying with the new right to guaranteed hours, depending on their circumstances.

The right to guaranteed hours does not force companies to make seasonal workers permanent, nor does it force them to give unnecessary hours to employees; it gives workers the right to choose certainty and stability in their contracts where they want it, and helps them to budget and plan for their lives. I recently visited a brilliant business in Manchester and heard from one of its employees about the difference that guaranteed hours made to him and his work, allowing him to plan his bills and family finances and giving him stability in his livelihood. Having guaranteed hours was absolutely vital to him; it changed his life, and this legislation will change the lives of many other people across the country who are looking for that certainty and stability.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kate Dearden]

I have lots to make progress on, but I will give way very briefly.

[Graham Stuart]

Would the Minister like to apologise to the more than 280,000 people who are not in work now, compared with the level of unemployment last year, and could she spell out how a business that, for example, provides catering at summer festivals and then ceases to have any festivals to service can guarantee hours to a workforce it does not need any more?

[Kate Dearden]

I have heard lots of Conservative Members reflect on unemployment. What they fail to mention is that the average unemployment rate over their 14 years in government was 5.4%, which is substantially higher than the current unemployment rate. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from Monday’s debate, we have committed to consult on seasonal work. We will work with businesses, trade unions and all other stakeholders to get the legislation right—I will continue to listen and to work with them on the details. It is so important that we pass the Employment Rights Bill, so that we can consult and stick to our road map for implementing it. Many working people and businesses across this country want that certainty; they want us to crack on.

I will try to make some progress, as we are pressed for time. Several hon. Members—including the hon. Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) and for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage)—raised the subject of business rates reform, as did the shadow Secretary of State. This Government are determined to remove barriers to investment, helping our businesses to succeed, our high streets to thrive and our economy to grow. We are introducing permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000 from April next year. This will give long-term certainty and support to the high street, in marked contrast to the previous form of relief, which created a yearly cliff edge and had to end entirely in April next year. We know that this tax cut must be sustainably funded, which is why from April next year, we are applying a higher rate to the most valuable properties—those with rateable values of £500,000 and above. Let me be clear: those properties represent less than 1% of all properties, but they include the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by online giants.

Some Members have spoken about the raising of employer national insurance contributions in last year’s Budget. I have already mentioned the state of the finances we inherited from the Conservative party. That meant that we had to take difficult decisions to get the nation back on track, and one of the toughest decisions was to raise the rate of employer national insurance contributions, but we are protecting the smallest businesses from these changes, including many of those in the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors. These difficult but necessary steps will protect our public finances and ensure that we can to continue to fund our essential services, such as the NHS and social care, and to invest in the economy.

Moving swiftly on, many Members have mentioned the visitor levy. Our mission is to kick-start economic growth and to devolve fiscal powers, and the levy is critical to that. Introducing a visitor levy provides mayors with a new lever that they can use to raise funds for reinvestment locally. We launched a consultation at the Budget so that the public, businesses and local government can shape the design of the power to introduce the levy that will be devolved to local leaders. They will decide how to introduce the levy and how it will be used to drive growth in their region. That is a historic step for English devolution.

I will reflect on some of the comments of the hon. Members for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), and for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool). I do not share their lack of enthusiasm for continued investment in this country under this Government.

Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Power Station: Wylfa

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is a huge champion of the nuclear industry, and I have learned a huge amount from her in my time in this post. I am sure the whole nuclear industry is grateful for her work on the all-party group on nuclear energy, and in other activities throughout the House to ensure that these issues are always top of the agenda. Great British Energy Nuclear has been charged with driving forward our ambition for nuclear, and the SMR programme is a key part of that, as are Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, and we are also looking at what future potential we need.

Our country’s energy needs will clearly only increase in the coming years, and we will be looking at the future of that energy mix, and the mix of renewables with nuclear. The Secretary of State has charged Great British Energy Nuclear to look at what more projects there will be. I take my hon. Friend’s point about a road map to give some certainty to that, and I am sure that the Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, Lord Vallance, will have heard that comment, as well as Great British Energy Nuclear, and I am sure they will work with her on that.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Like the shadow Secretary of State I welcome the announcement on moving forward with SMRs, but like the Minister’s extremely knowledgeable hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), I am concerned about gigawatt scale. Wylfa is truly the best site for a gigawatt-scale nuclear development. When we build in such a way we create a lot of jobs in north Wales, whereas bringing in a modular pre-made SMR will do less of that. Why was the decision made to put SMRs on Wylfa, when Wylfa is practically unique in its attributes for large-scale gigawatt nuclear production, and many sites could host SMRs? Will the Minister please explain that to the House, because I genuinely do not know the answer?

[Michael Shanks]

I am grateful for a genuine question in the House of Commons—always appreciated. As I said earlier, the decision was made that Wylfa was the best possible site for SMRs. This is a hugely important project for us, starting with three SMR units, but with potential at Wylfa to increase that, which is a huge opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that Wylfa would also have hosted at gigascale, but after a great many years of Wylfa being promised lots of things, the option on the table was either a project with funding now, and a clear pathway to delivery on an important site that will deliver the outcomes we need as a country, or a potential wait for another spending review where we might make a decision about future nuclear. We are ambitious about what the future of gigascale nuclear would look like, but right now funding has been confirmed for SMRs. It was right that Wylfa, which is a significant site and has a skilled workforce, takes advantage of that after a significant amount of time of things being promised but not delivered. As I said, we have not set that as the limit of our nuclear ambitions, and we will say more in due course about what future sites might look like. Great British Energy Nuclear is looking at those now.

Employment Rights Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I refer him to my answer to the previous point of order. It is not a point of order and not a matter for the Chair, but it is a matter of debate.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Can you confirm that it is a point of order?

[Graham Stuart]

It is, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that a Bill was presented to Parliament only this week that provides for a duty of candour for public servants. It is not enough simply to tell the truth; there has to be a duty of candour. Can you, Madam Deputy Speaker, share with the House whether the sponsoring Minister, the Justice Secretary, has decided to remove himself as the sponsor of that Bill?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order; it is not a point of order, but a point of argument.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s passionate question. As he will know, we have struck a trade deal with the EU and reset the relationship with it. We will continue to build on that to deliver for all parts of our economy.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

T2. The Conservatives brought in a national guarantee of 11,500 post offices in the network. Labour has promised to scrap that. What assurances can Ministers give to people in Middleton, Lockington, Leconfield, Cherry Burton, Aldbrough, Walkington, Tickton, Hedon, Wawne, Skirlaugh, Sproatley, Beverley, Roos, Ottringham, Keyingham, Withernsea, Easington and Thorngumbald that their post offices will be retained?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Stuart, please—we do not read out the phone directory, and trying to do so in a topical does not work for you or me.

North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I agree with the hon. Lady on the wider point, which is that—as I outlined in my opening answer—Petrofac has not had its troubles to seek. She has outlined a number of those troubles, but I reiterate that the UK arm of that business is successful and growing. We want to make sure that that continues—that there is a buyer, or another solution, so that it can continue long into the future. Others will seek to politicise this news for the sake of their own political narratives, but it is incumbent on all of us to send as positive a message as we can to the workers, suppliers and customers of Petrofac—the message that the UK arm continues to operate as normal, and that we want that to continue.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Every month, 1,000-plus people lose their jobs in North sea oil and gas. Contrary to the case that the Minister presents, the industry says that this declining basin still has 4 billion additional barrels that could be extracted, if only there were new licences. He tells the House that that oil and gas will be needed for decades to come, yet he cuts off all new supply, mortally damaging the whole supply chain, of which Petrofac is part. The Minister cannot deny responsibility, and he needs to persuade the Chancellor—if not his Secretary of State, who is probably beyond persuasion—that we need to move to a practical policy that includes new licences. We need to optimise this, because green and fossil fuels do not need to be in tension; we want the transition, but we must keep those jobs for now.

[Michael Shanks]

First, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s recognition—which we seldom hear from his party’s Front Benchers these days—that this is a transition, and that we want the economic opportunities of oil and gas and those of renewables. It is a delight to hear him say that; his Front Benchers should say so more often and talk up the phenomenal renewables industry, which the Conservatives should take a bit of credit for. Over the past 14 years, they built up so much of that industry across the country, but they have turned away from that now.

Turning to the licensing point, I cannot remember at what stage the right hon. Gentleman was in the Government, but of course, the previous Government said that they would not issue new licences. Later, they briefly did; then they recognised that that was the wrong policy—I think it was the Liz Truss years in which they changed around. A tiny fraction of the licences that have been issued have ever resulted in extraction from the North sea. We will manage existing licences for their lifespan, and will take a pragmatic view on the future of the North sea, which we will announce in the coming weeks, but the long-term future of the North sea does not lie in oil and gas; it lies in renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alan Gemmell]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am having some import-export issues myself, as my first book, a provocative and racy thriller, is being published in India in July.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

What’s it called?

[Alan Gemmell]

It is called “30th State”.

May I congratulate the Secretary of State and former colleagues on this deal, which is great for whisky distilleries such as Lochlea in my constituency. When I was trade commissioner, Conservative Ministers were clamouring for a trade deal with India. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how he has managed to do it one year after they failed miserably?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend is right to say that this is not just an issue for our high streets, such as those mentioned by our hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), but a concern up and down the country. The National Crime Agency and Home Office colleagues are seeking to take action against illegitimate businesses, and my hon. Friend will recognise that the announcement in yesterday’s spending review of additional police officers, with more to come over the spending review period, will help us with that activity.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

If the book that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell) has written is a political thriller about fighting for small business, I am sure it features five heroes on the Government Front Bench doing everything they can to promote small business. But readers will ask, “Who is the villain of the piece?” Is it not obvious that it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is doing everything possible to undermine business, with 276,000 people having lost work since the autumn statement, and 109,000 in the month of May alone? When will the Ministers—the heroes of this story—fight against the Chancellor, who is getting so much so wrong?

[Gareth Thomas]

It is a little while since I have been called a hero by the right hon. Gentleman, but I am glad that I have finally had some recognition from him. I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a villain at all; indeed, I think the spending review she announced yesterday will help to unlock investment in our high streets and our small businesses up and down the country. The record investment in research and development and in infrastructure, and the additional capacity for the British Business Bank, will help to unlock billions of pounds of new investment and many more job opportunities across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that he will do what he can to promote his constituency, and the extra funding for the British Business Bank will really support his area.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

T3. In the US trade agreement, the Prime Minister gave access to the UK market for 1.4 billion litres of US bioethanol. The Secretary of State will know that that is the entire size of the UK market. Yesterday, apprentices came here from Vivergo in my constituency. The hundreds of people directly employed there, and the thousands in the supply chain, wonder how this Government, on the verge of producing an industrial strategy, can want to abandon the nascent bioethanol industry in this country entirely. What will he do to stop that?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I understand the prominence of the issue in the right hon. Member’s constituency. We already import a significant amount of ethanol from the US: 860,000 tonnes of bioethanol. We recognise the competitive pressures that the US trade deal will bring—it is obviously not yet in operation—and have met the companies affected and continue to negotiate with them. They are already very distressed and lose significant amounts of money, so what they really need are regulatory changes from the Department for Transport for the market as a whole. I can assure him that we are working on that.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

To be clear, where there is a transfer of ownership to the state, we would always pay the fair market value for the assets. In this case, the market value is effectively zero, so I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point entirely. I would say that the intention of Jingye has not been to engineer that situation; its intention has been to keep the downstream mills, which colleagues will know are fundamental to our construction and steel industries, and supply them from China, rather than from Scunthorpe; that is the situation.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Is it now the view of the Government that primary steel production in the United Kingdom is an overriding national security issue?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know—we have had this exchange at the Dispatch Box before—I believe that the capacity for primary steel production is important. The steel strategy looks at new ways of ensuring that, and at not just protecting the past, but at what the future may bring. Direct reduced iron technology is of significant potential interest to us for the future. However, this situation—involving the last remaining blast furnaces, and the proposition put to us—is exceptional and unique, and I need all colleagues to recognise that.

The legislation ahead of us today is therefore a proportionate and necessary step. It allows us to take control of British Steel’s blast furnaces, maintaining steel production and, by extension, protecting the company’s 3,500-strong workforce. The Bill does not transfer ownership to the Government. We will have to deal with that matter at a later date. I took the decision that given the exceptional nature of a recall, it would be better to limit the powers in the Bill, which are still significant, rather than introduce more complex matters of property rights and public ownership at this time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

I will talk about the difficulties facing steel around the world, but let us just be clear what is happening today: the British people must not have lost their winter fuel allowance and their disability benefits in order that China can walk away from its liabilities, leaving British taxpayers to pick up the bills.

Steel needs energy, and energy needs steel. No one denies that steelmaking has been difficult for some time, but Scunthorpe is the victim of a dishonesty that pretends it is better for the environment to ship coke halfway around the planet than from down the road, and of an energy policy that has driven costs higher than in any competing nation. No one is more responsible for this than the Energy Secretary and the Prime Minister who appointed him.

[Graham Stuart]

Will my hon. Friend give way? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind Members that those who keep intervening will go down the list, so that everybody gets a fair chance.

[Graham Stuart]

I assume that applies after the warning, Mr Speaker.

We have a Government who, I believe, are shipping coking coal just off the Lincolnshire coast today from Japan, when it was perfectly possible to have the world’s greenest production of coking coal in Cumbria, with thousands of jobs. Is it not a disgrace that this Government turned their back on jobs in Cumbria and, indeed, in the North sea because they put ideology ahead of practicality and even ahead of the environment?

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is sad to say that Scunthorpe is the victim of exactly that policy: putting ideology before British interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I add my thanks to everyone who has enabled us to be here this afternoon, but the fact is that this is a bungled way to do parliamentary legislation, following a bungled set of negotiations, and we are likely to end up with a bungled nationalisation. The Labour Government have landed themselves in a steel crisis entirely of their own making. They have made poor decisions and let the unions dictate their actions. The fact is that the union-led Labour Government have bungled the whole negotiation, insisting on a Scunthorpe-only deal that is not viable.

Frankly, the Government should have seen this coming. In fact, instead of addressing it 16 days ago, when British Steel announced its plans to close the site and Parliament was sitting, their incompetence has led to this last-minute emergency recall. Colleagues including my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), the Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen and Councillor Rob Waltham of North Lincolnshire Council have been warning about the issues at British Steel. But no: Labour Ministers thought they knew better. The British public can now see the Government scrambling for a solution to a problem they created and could have resolved months ago.

[Graham Stuart]

The Government give themselves powers in the Bill to compensate steel undertakings, yet the Minister has told us nothing about the scale of that or the estimate of it. The Secretary of State tells the House that he has no trust or abiding faith in the company, but he is giving himself powers to give whatever sums he deems appropriate to the company. Do we not need more answers before we pass this legislation?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I wholeheartedly endorse what my right hon. Friend said. All new Government Members should be aware that the explanatory notes to the Bill, which have only just been circulated to colleagues, make it very clear—[Interruption.] I hear cries of “Shame!” from behind me. On the financial implications of the Bill, the explanatory notes say that there has been no impact assessment of the effect on the country’s finances, and nothing has been prepared for this House while we make this decision today.

The Bill is a sticking plaster for a Government who, in opposition, had years to come up with a plan, but they have dithered and delayed. Ultimately, nothing will change for UK steel until the Government understand the damage that unrealistic and impossible “net zero by 2050” targets have done to British business and industry.

We have heard a range of really excellent contributions from my hon. Friends. From the Father of the House, we heard an excellent exposition of the importance of this industry to his constituents in Lincolnshire and the impact of energy costs on the industry. We heard from the great champion of the industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham, who has regularly brought this issue to the forefront of Members’ consideration. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who raised incredibly important issues to do with tariffs and China. We then heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who raised some important legal questions.

If I may in the time available to me, I would like to raise a few further detailed questions for the Minister to respond to when she gets to the Dispatch Box. The Secretary of State has said that he does not want these powers indefinitely, so why will Labour Members not back our amendment to implement a sunset clause for this Bill?

We have heard from a range of voices in the debate about the confusion over the territorial extent of this legislation. It makes it very clear that the territorial extent applies to England and Wales only, yet clause 2 refers clearly just to England. There is another thing I would like the Minister to make clear at the Dispatch Box: if a new provider came into the UK and decided to set up a new steel-making enterprise in England or Wales, would that new enterprise be covered by this legislation?

Can the Minister also tell the House what the Attorney General has advised on compliance with international law, including article 1 of protocol 1 to the European convention on human rights, the World Trade Organisation subsidies agreement, and the trade and co-operation agreement, particularly with reference to state aid?

The Secretary of State was unable to tell the House this morning how much this intervention will cost. We are being asked this afternoon to sign off on a bottomless pit of money. How often will this House be given an update on how much taxpayer money is being sent into this bottomless pit? Families across the country are already being hit in the pocket every day. Can the Minister give the House a ballpark figure from the Dispatch Box? Are we talking about £100 million a year? Are we talking about a billion? Are we talking about more than a billion?

It is a fact that the Government themselves have made the situation worse for the steel industry with their determination to impose higher energy prices, higher taxes and higher business rates. Where is the steel strategy that they have had nine months to develop? What we can say with certainty about today’s legislation is that this is no way to govern the country. Whenever Labour negotiates, Britain loses. We can see for ourselves that this is a Government controlled by events; they are not in control of events. Yet, according to the Secretary of State, it is everyone else’s problem and nothing to do with them. This Government have treated Parliament with disdain. We have had nine months of dither and delay for these workers at Scunthorpe. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. I look forward to hearing the answers to all those questions from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is right that procurement has a key role to play in our industrial strategy in steel and beyond. We are working with colleagues in the Cabinet Office to ensure that that is the case. I speak to the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) about these issues regularly, as does the Secretary of State—

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is reported that Jingye management has been turned away by workers and the Humberside police today, so will the Minister tell the House whether the Government’s policy is to bar Jingye management from going on to the premises?

[Mr Speaker]

As the right hon. Member knows, that is great information but not a point of order.