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.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Graham Stuart Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

We would say with confidence that there was never a danger to the pint, but because of the concerns that were raised in the other place and perhaps by some colleagues here, I am more than happy to have made the changes to assure everyone present and everyone watching that the pint will be defended and secured in the Bill. I have to say that I have received no entreaties from businesses that they wish to sell in imperial measurements. However, if the right hon. Gentleman believes that there is an absence of provisions in the Bill, he can write to me and I shall write back to him and hopefully be able to reassure him. I think he may be misplaced in thinking that that is a principal issue for UK businesses.

As all hon. Members know, the digital age in which we live has created significant growth opportunities. The consumer and technology landscapes that we have today are almost unrecognisable from those we had 20 or 30 years ago, so the products that we buy and the way in which we buy them are evolving rapidly. That means that the relevant rules and regulations must adapt, too. If we are to protect consumers and businesses, especially smaller firms, that is essential.

As we have examined in some detail, product regulation and metrology are policy areas that have largely been repatriated from the EU following our withdrawal in 2021. Since then the UK Government have simply not had the necessary powers to continue regulating these areas effectively. We have brought forward this legislation so that we can respond to anticipated changes in the global regulatory landscape. That is why, to be frank, I am somewhat bemused by the reasoned amendments tabled today.

The Bill will ensure that the UK is better placed to address modern-day safety issues. It gives us the power to better regulate items such as potentially dangerous baby sleep products and toys. It will enable us to reduce burdens on business and keep up with technological developments, for example by updating the outdoor noise regulations in Great Britain. It will align testing methods across the UK, which was overwhelmingly supported in our recent call for evidence, and it will protect the public from noise pollution from products like lawn mowers and power generators.

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

I have only closely scrutinised the Bill today, so I am just bringing myself up to date on this. It appears to give the Secretary of State the power to ban any product he wishes for whatever reason. We make law in this place not for when we are dealing with a Minister of the moral calibre of the right hon. Gentleman, but on the basis that we might have someone who lacks such qualities; that is who we legislate for. Is it true that this Bill would give the Secretary of State the power to ban literally any product, and that all that would have to be done is to notify this House?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his concern and his regard. I believe that if we were of the view that a product was a danger to the public, the right hon. Gentleman would expect me as Secretary of State in my Department to take action. If he is concerned about provisions in the Bill, he can look to the changes that have been made. It has been through an extensive scrutiny process in the other place, particularly in relation to the powers and delegated powers given to the Secretary of State. I think he recognises the case we are making for the safety of the public; indeed, it is why Opposition Members themselves recognise the need for a Bill of this kind.

The Bill will help to create a level playing field between the high street and online marketplaces. Critically, we are able to protect consumers by reducing the number of unsafe and non-complying goods that are sold online. This could include asking sites to verify third-party sellers before allowing them to list their goods or to have a product safety reporting function for customers on their sites. One example is e-scooters and e-bikes, which like many products are reliant on lithium-ion batteries. These batteries have been attributed as the cause of a number of fires in recent years, both in households and on public transport.

While we know that the vast majority of products are safe, in recent years we have seen some goods mis-sold by a minority of unscrupulous manufacturers and sellers. As a result, low-standard, high-risk products have been able to enter the UK market. Some people have paid for this with their homes and, in some cases, their lives. I think we would all recognise that that is unconscionable.

I want to pay tribute to the family of Sofia Duarte. Sofia tragically died when a bicycle that had been converted into an e-bike burst into flames. The bike’s lithium battery pack failed, causing a fire on new year’s day 2023. I know that the whole House will join me in recognising the bravery and courage of Sofia’s family in campaigning for change in memory of their daughter and in fighting for better regulation of e-bikes, along with the batteries and chargers associated with them. I also thank the London Fire Brigade for its campaigning on this issue in recent years. It has been on the frontline, seeing at first hand the devastation that has been wrought by some of these products.

This Bill is about keeping the public safe. The Office for Product Safety and Standards has taken action in this area already. It has issued 26 withdrawal notices on eight online marketplaces, two manufacturers and 16 sellers. This has removed two dangerous models of e-bike battery from sale, and I am glad that the legislation we are discussing today will allow us to consider further steps on enforcement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I find that when political parties go into opposition, all of a sudden they seem less keen on the Government having decisive powers to take action in a whole range of areas. We have listened carefully to the criticism from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and significant changes have been made to the legislation, which I am happy to take the hon. Member through. They relate to the number of Henry VIII powers, the consultation requirement and the additional affirmative resolution procedure. We are always seeking feedback.

I will now go through some of the other amendments that were made in the other place.

[Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The question I always have for the right hon. Gentleman is: is it going to be good? I will give way one more time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

It will be brief. Forget the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; what about the Secretary of State’s colleague, Lord Leong? He said in the House of Lords that he did not think the Bill was right. In what way does it need to be improved? Will the Secretary of State look carefully at the extent of these powers? Even from this short debate, it is clear how wide-ranging and over the top they are.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

On Second Reading, we have a Bill that is even stronger than the one that started in the other House. Once again, I thank all our colleagues in the other place for their constructive feedback and contributions to the debate. I will not go through every change that has been made, but I will mention some aspects of the Bill that have been strengthened.

First, we have amended the Bill to ensure that there is more parliamentary scrutiny, and we have provided for a statutory consultation requirement to ensure that regulations are informed by those who would be impacted by them. There will also be that additional use of the affirmative procedure for regulations stemming from the Bill. Secondly, the Bill now includes a requirement for me, as the Secretary of State, to publish a statement setting out how my Department expects to identify and assess high-risk products.

Finally, contrary to previous suggestions from the Conservative party, the great British pint will clearly not be affected by this legislation, whether that is ale, cider or indeed milk. We do not believe that the Bill in its original form posed any threat to the pint, but we do not want to run the risk of colleagues thinking that my reassurances are small beer, so we accepted an amendment tabled in the other place that will give the pint statutory protection. That means, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in a few weeks’ time, when I hope you will confirm to the House that the Bill has received Royal Assent, we will all be able to raise a pint—protected under statute—to the Bill. I did inquire about whether I was allowed to bring a pint with me to the Chamber to illustrate the point, but that is apparently not in order; only the Chancellor has that ability. Given the week I am having, perhaps we will look at that at a later date.

To summarise, this legislation will finally enable the Government to properly regulate in areas where we have been unable to do so post Brexit. It will also give us the tools we need to better regulate modern-day consumer products. The Bill will help to create a fairer environment for high street shops and small businesses, support our growth mission and provide better protection for millions of consumers. For all those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am nearing a conclusion in any case. However, I do think that the issue of product safety—the rules and regulations that govern our economy, as the Secretary of State himself said—is intrinsically linked with trade, mutual recognition and growing the economy by removing trade frictions and barriers rather than erecting them and subjecting businesses to the tyranny of simply not understanding the corpus of rules and regulations.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he, like me, hope that the Liberal Democrats, despite their hobby-horse love of the EU, do not allow the EU flavouring of the Bill to blind them to the frankly illiberal Executive-enhancing, legislature-diminishing aspect of the Bill? If they genuinely aspire to being His Majesty’s Opposition, they will join us this evening in voting against Second Reading.

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope, as the Secretary of State slightly alluded to in his remarks about the ability of a country to make its own rules and regulations, that we will soon be back in the House with a Government statement at which we can celebrate the mother of all Brexit benefits: securing the ability to conduct our own trade. I look forward to hearing from the Liberal Democrats exactly how much they welcome that ability on behalf of their constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Wheeler]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I will happily admit to the House that I am not an expert on AI. I do, however, recognise that the fast-developing nature of AI as it relates to consumer safety and product regulation requires a rapid response, which is potentially not necessarily suited to a full debate on the Floor of the House.

[Graham Stuart]

Can the hon. Gentleman give a single instance of a Government at any time in the past decade not being able to take action on a seriously risky product? I cannot think of one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I declare an interest having spent 40 years in the toy industry and, in another life, having been the chair and the president of the British Toy & Hobby Association. It was a wonderful job—the second-best job. The best job is being the first ever Liberal Democrat MP for Wokingham.

[Graham Stuart]

And the last.

[Clive Jones]

I doubt that very much.

Nearly a decade since the Brexit referendum, this House is still grappling with what it means to be outside of the European Union. Away from the big headlines about trade deals and newly erected borders, the technical nitty-gritty of product safety and metrology is ever more important now that we must decide what we want our policies to be in this area. Our original framework, derived from EU law, must now keep up with fast-evolving technologies and consumer behaviours. Technological changes in the 21st century may have created new opportunities, but they have also left us exposed to new risks, such as AI, battery hazards and e-bike fires.

Our online marketplaces and the complex digital commerce that facilitates them have reduced barriers to small and medium-sized enterprises sharing their products across the UK and the world, but the internet is still a wild west in many ways, leaving small businesses and consumers exposed. That is why the Liberal Democrats welcome aspects of this Bill. We fully understand and support the need to update the regulatory framework for the UK marketplace to give businesses and consumers confidence in their products. We welcome in principle the powers in the Bill to put new responsibilities on online marketplaces throughout the supply chain, and we support enhanced consumer protection for products that pose a safety risk.

The product regulations falling in scope of this Bill will have an impact on our country’s trade policy, and the Liberal Democrats are clear when it comes to trade: we believe the Government must pull the most powerful and readily available lever at their disposal to kickstart economic growth by urgently launching negotiations for a new UK-EU customs union. That would create jobs, boost our public finances and reverse much of the damage inflicted on our economy by the previous Conservative Government’s terrible trade deal with Europe. I take this opportunity to urge the Government to move in that direction and to commit that, as part of these trade negotiations, they will use the provisions in the Bill to facilitate a new customs union, which could have such a transformative effect on our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituents would be forgiven for thinking that the clock had turned back, so I will focus on the issues that they have asked me to raise, which are not political in the slightest, but relate to safety. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that while this is a small Bill, it is very important. It is of great interest to my constituents, especially the members of Torphichen community council in my constituency who asked me to speak in this debate. They back the Electrical Safety First campaign, and they spoke to me about the danger of fires caused by lithium-ion batteries in e-scooters and e-bikes and in everyday products. The lithium-ion battery safety campaign is calling for stronger measures, including improved enforcement efforts, particularly online; disposal guidance at the point of sale; and measures to ensure safer charging. I hope that the Ministers who are present will give strong consideration to those suggestions in due course.

Lithium-ion batteries are integral to many modern devices that most of us have in our homes, from e-scooters to laptops, but widespread use has exposed significant safety concerns, largely owing to the lack of oversight. Batteries have been linked to numerous fire incidents and pose serious risks of injury or worse. Thermal runaway is a dangerous phenomenon: battery cells overheat and catch fire, releasing toxic gases and often causing extensive damage. By their very nature, e-scooters are often left in town centres, walkways and communal areas in flats and hallways, putting other members of the public at risk in the event of thermal runaway. As we have heard, in London e-bike and e-scooter fires occur as often as once every two days. Worse still, I am aware of domestic incidents in my constituency, including one in which, sadly, a family lost their home and all their belongings as a result of an e-scooter fire.

The Bill introduces welcome steps to deal with those risks, creating a landscape to address the dangers associated with products that are so widely used. The mandates on safety standards for the storage, use and disposal of lithium-ion batteries will help to mitigate the dangers associated with thermal runaway. I also welcome the new powers to monitor compliance and enforce regulations effectively. It is critical that only safe and reliable products reach the market, and reach our homes. Such measures are essential to prevent incidents and protect people from serious harm, such as that which affected my constituents.

There is much in the Bill that has been long awaited at a local level, and I am glad that the Government are responding to people’s concerns in a timely and stringent manner. The danger posed by poorly maintained or unsafely stored lithium-ion batteries is too great to be ignored.

[Graham Stuart]

Is it the hon. Lady’s understanding that the existing regulations on lithium-ion batteries are insufficient? There is a British standard, and there are environmental and disposal regulations. There is a swathe of regulations relating to lithium-ion batteries, but if there is a failure to enforce them, that should not give Ministers carte blanche to decide on a whim what products, in this area or any other, should be available for sale in the UK without any recourse to Parliament.

[Kirsteen Sullivan]

I do not think that we want to rerun the arguments relating to Brexit, which is what this debate has largely been about so far. The Bill has clearly been introduced to address gaps that have left consumers exposed to great harms.

The prominence of online marketplaces is an established trend in our society. We all know from the pandemic how important essential—and sometimes non-essential—online purchases can be to our daily lives. They have become commonplace, and that trend is only set to continue. By the end of the decade, online purchases will be worth £156 billion. Nevertheless, many products are poorly regulated, faulty and—too often—dangerous. Whether it is the carbon monoxide alarms that do not work that have been used to kit out a cheaply renovated student flat, the faulty chainsaw attachments used by a neighbour or the faulty e-scooter sitting in a back garden, these faulty products have come about because the pace of change online has been poorly matched by regulations. We are now in a situation where regulations in the online world do not match the protections in the real world. Quite simply, if a product is too dangerous or fails the standards for those sold in shops, it should not be available in online marketplaces. As a society, we need to be protected in our increasing reliance on and use of the digital world; otherwise, the lack of online protections will have yet more devastating real-life impacts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

There are so many things to unpack there, not least the right hon. Gentleman’s recognition that our previous regulations as part of the European Union were perhaps not that bad. With rules on bicycle safety, for example, perhaps it was pretty sensible to say that if something was safe in the UK, our colleagues in Europe might also be looking at it and we could share the burden of working out good regulation. That is not what happened with the retained EU law Act or with divergence, and it does sound like he needs to look at divergence. Thankfully, I have some statistics for him—I know he will be delighted to hear them.

Before we move on, let me just say this. Opposition Members have not spoken for British business today, although I accept that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), did try, and I recognise his expertise in toy manufacturing. He will recognise that we are talking about thousands of British businesses that are affected by regulations. What rules will those businesses have to follow to be able to sell in a market that makes their business sustainable? Some 12% of businesses in this country will be affected by this legislation, not because there are new rules, but because if we start to diverge from existing regulations, they will face a choice. Do they continue to follow European legislation so that they can sell into a larger market, or do they try to follow UK legislation, EU legislation and maybe Japanese legislation as well, with all the paperwork that comes with that?

[Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Ms Creasy]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman; I can see that if I do not, he will have a heart attack.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I shall survive. Given the time that she has spent in this House, I am surprised that, like some newer Members, she may have been taken in by the Government’s wording. The Bill gives Ministers such blanket powers. Sure, they can align more with EU regulation, as she desires; equally, another Government or Minister could go the opposite way and do all the damage she is talking about—needlessly differing from Europe purely out of ideology—and the House would have no say in it. Surely, the hon. Lady must be more like the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) and share with her colleagues the need to restrict Ministers’ powers.

[Ms Creasy]

I tried in vain to make exactly such arguments to the right hon. Member when he was a Minister telling me that European legislation was not good enough for this country. [Interruption.] I now ask him to let me finish my speech, because I want common sense in this legislation, as I think Ministers do. We need to stand up to those who puff and spout about Europe as though somehow it is a bad thing to make it possible for British businesses to trade with our nearest neighbours post Brexit. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an argument about rejoining the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that was one of the areas to which he paid a lot of attention in the transport brief. I am sure that as the Committee continues to look into this area, it will build on that work. As he says, this is an issue that comes up time and again in my constituency. We might not ever be able to get every single one of those vehicles off the road, but we need the powers to bring more of them off our streets where they pose a threat to people’s safety.

To illustrate the seriousness of the challenges the Government face and the need sometimes for very swift progress, we need only to look to the scale of technological advancements in the field of hybrid warfare and the implications of those advancements for dual-use civilian technologies. I note that clause 1(4)(d) draws specific attention to products that can

“cause, or be susceptible to, electromagnetic disturbance.”

In Ukraine, the two adversaries are locked into a cycle of innovation and reaction in drone warfare and electronic countermeasures that are escalating at a blinding speed. Some of those developments have implications for the potential misuse of civilian drones in this country. To suggest that primary legislation is capable of keeping pace with that is not realistic.

Similarly, in respect of intangible products, again an issue on which the House of Lords spent a large amount of welcome scrutiny time, there is a case that primary legislation cannot cover enough eventualities in good time, especially in the age of artificially generated code. I think back to the Volkswagen emissions scandal 10 years ago, when so-called “defeat devices” were intangible in nature.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is making a brilliant speech and he has focused on some of the key issues in ways that not every speech has. He makes a powerful case, but why does he think that those arguments have not persuaded, in three different attempts in three different reports, the cross-party Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which provides expert insight into precisely such proposed legislation?

[Laurence Turner]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, although I do not agree with his characterisation of the speeches we have heard today. I think hon. Members have brought a wide range of perspectives, and that even though there has been some disagreement across the House—and, on occasion, on the same Benches—all Members have made their points sincerely.

I have read the reports the right hon. Gentleman references and the Minister’s evidence. My reading of that report is that the Committee held a very strong view on the principle of skeleton delegated legislation, but the point it made is that the case must be made for the use of such powers. My view is that the case has been made in this instance because of the seriousness of the matters we are discussing.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. We have had excellent speeches from across the House. I think the whole House agreed on the brilliance of the speech made by the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), and—perhaps I would say this—great speeches have come from Opposition Members in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) got to the heart and the nub of the critique of the Bill.

We have also heard many good speeches, including the last one, about issues of product safety and the need to have a system that can keep up. The speech that addressed both that issue and whether the Bill is appropriate—it was the outstanding speech by a Government Member—was made by the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner). He did not like my praise of his speech in so far as it disparaged in any way anybody else’s, but he faced up to the issues directly. He did not just say, “Well, there are these problems with products and product safety, and here’s a Bill that could do something about it.” He dealt with the fact that the Bill gives enormous power to Ministers. As colleagues across the House have pointed out, the purpose of this honourable House is to hold the Executive’s feet to the fire, hold them to account and hold them in check, and ensure that we champion the will of the people who sent us here. As has been said, not only the Minister but, back in 2018, the Secretary of State warned the House that

“the use of delegated powers carries a risk of abuse by the Executive”.––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.]

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) is not here, so I will try to be more polite than I would have been if she was, but if Brexit derangement syndrome is a condition, it is one that affects not only people who are maniacally in favour of Brexit, but those who seem unable to think rationally from the other side. The point that I tried to make to the hon. Lady in an intervention—I would make it again—is that giving such untrammelled power to Ministers is frightening, regardless of whether we prefer closer alignment with the EU. She said that we need common-sense alignment, but these powers would allow a super-ideological future Minister to come in and seek, entirely for ideological reasons, to stop any alignment with the most sensible of EU regulations purely to have some Brexit difference. That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

rose—

[Graham Stuart]

I will press on a little, but I may come back to the hon. Lady.

I understand that, following the loveless landslide that brought the Government to power, the Government, and Government Members, have done an about-face. They now delight in more powers for the Executive, so much so that the Bill’s very first subsection gives the same Secretary of State I just referenced the power to make regulations anywhere in the UK, without consulting Parliaments in Westminster, Holyrood, Cardiff Bay or Stormont, on more or less anything he likes.

I was so pleased that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim raised the devolution question. I was a Minister for eight years, and such is the complexity of the devolution settlement now that even with thousands of civil servants working on primary legislation, Ministers can come to the House and suddenly it gets pointed out to them that they are in breach of the Sewel convention and ignoring how Northern Ireland has a slightly different environmental or energy regulatory environment from Scotland or Wales. They find that the situation is more complex than they first thought. Now, we are giving powers to Ministers who will not have to go through any of that rigmarole. They will not get to find out how they are trampling on the devolution settlement, and that is a serious issue.

We on the Opposition Benches can make the arguments, but what we must really do is engage Government Members and get them to recognise that they are not here just to back the Government. They need to question these things, and not just ask whether the powers could be used for good. The hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield gave a brilliant speech with examples of the speeding up and pace of technological change—I think he spoke about the drones in Ukraine. Even though Opposition Members may maintain that the system that we had worked perfectly well, he made the case that perhaps we need something speedier going forward, and I can see that he made a strong argument. None the less, is the answer just to hand to Ministers, in this skeleton Bill, all the powers in the world? I suggest that it is not.

I know the Minister and the Secretary of State are decent people, and I hope that we will see, as the legislation proceeds through this House, ways to curb some of the powers while allowing us to have a regulatory system that can speedily respond to inappropriate products. None of us wants to see parliamentary pride getting in the way of an effective system; we have to find a way of making things work. This Bill, however, goes too far the other way. That is why the cross-party experts on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee have looked at it and said that they do not feel that the case has been made to justify such massive powers.

Some parallels were raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, and I think it is fair enough to say, “Look at the way that Henry VIII powers and delegated powers were taken by the Government in the last Parliament.” Quite rightly, people questioned it, but that was about implementing Brexit; it really was something enormous that had to be done at a reasonable speed. Those of us involved were cognisant of the fact that we did not want it to set a precedent; we did not want Government to take the unique conditions of implementing Brexit and take it as a new way of governing. To the comment from the hon. Member for Erewash about rebuilding the world that the ancient Egyptians had, they were very good at centralising authority and I do not think that that is an entirely good thing. That is exactly what the Bill does, so I agree with him on that.

I am sure the Secretary of State is an excellent judge of things such as the safe operation of a laptop, say, for a trainee solicitor, but he will now have the power to regulate any product for sale in the UK on the basis of safety or functionality. The immense power given to him will allow him to decide what is and is not sold in the UK, without consulting this place and by merely providing a written statement. The Bill goes further, with Ministers acquiring the power to give inspectors the right to enter somebody’s home to seize any product that the Minister has decided, on the basis of non-compliance. That can be imposed on manufacturers, marketers, installers, importers or people who run an online marketplace, the definition of which, by the way, can be altered on a ministerial whim and at any point.

We have heard about dangerous and often unpopular electric bikes and scooters, but the powers in the Bill allow a future Secretary of State—we have had some eccentric ones in the past—to decide to ban bicycles because he considers them to be dangerous. He might look at the figures on that. After publishing a statement, he could instruct anyone he likes to enter the house of every bike owner and every bike shop to seize every bike in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State could effectively end cycling in the UK without coming to Parliament. He could create legions of cycle inspectors who could enter people’s homes or businesses and seize their property before disposing of it. And the Government want to hide this act under the innocuous name of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. It is a massive power to give to the Secretary of State.

I say this to the many new Labour Members: I am not very keen on any Government, even the one of which I was a member. It was Lord Acton who said:

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Well, there is an element of absolute power in this Bill, but we have an opportunity both to recognise the powerful case made by the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield for an appropriate system and by his colleagues talking about different challenges, and to make sure that we limit and reduce those powers as the Bill goes through the House. I know that my cycle example is a little extreme, but it is also true. It would not require the Government to return to this House; they would be able to do it.

The Prime Minister has told us that the No. 1 mission of this Government is growth, yet his Ministers, not satisfied with taking the fastest growing economy in the entire G7 and bringing it to a shuddering halt, have introduced what may be the most tediously named but potentially dangerous Bill in the history of Parliament. We can look at what the Government have done for business so far. They have ended the rate relief for hospitality, made part-time workers too expensive to hire, hiked the cost of employing people through next week’s jobs tax, strengthened the trade unions and made it impossible to fire new workers. I would not want to exaggerate this Bill’s role, but in a crowded field, it takes the biscuit in many ways. Businesses are struggling to cope with all these things already, and now we will have greater business uncertainty caused by the fact that Ministers can, on a whim, choose which products can and cannot be sold. This will provide the exact opposite of the certainty that Labour Members suggested the Bill could bring, in a way that has no logic behind it.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Every single one of the measures in that infamous list that my right hon. Friend just went through required a vote in this House, and Labour Members had to put their name to each proposed legislative change. They will not have to do that under this legislation, will they?

[Graham Stuart]

They will not. The Secretary of State—not the current wonderful, benign, insightful and genial Secretary of State, but a future rather less palatable one—could wake up one day and impose new regulations on business that effectively strangle and bring red tape to every business in the land. Remember how close we were in 2017 to having a Government that would have been very different from the one that is opposite us today, or indeed from the Conservatives.

Why are the Government doing this? I cannot look into a man’s soul, but I have an idea, because Labour spent years fighting the UK’s attempts to remove the burden of regulation on business after we left the EU. At every turn, Labour tried to cling to nurse rather than let businesses innovate and sell their goods. This Government are seeking to undermine and erode the freedoms we have won over the last few years. Indeed, that is in black and white in the Bill. The Secretary of State may reimpose EU law on products without the requirement to come to this place and ask our permission to do so.

I am not saying that this is the worst thing the Government have done. As I have said, there is quite a packed list, including cutting the winter fuel payment for pensioners, the farm tax, the jobs tax, imposing stamp duty on first-time buyers, which comes in, I think, today—[Interruption.] Suddenly someone wants to buy a house. There is also the hospitality tax. I could go on, but executive powers are at their most pernicious when they have no limits. This legislation is not about metrology or about the better regulation of products; it is about giving the Government the power to do what they like, when they like, for reasons they do not have to explain, and then impose it as they see fit. The fact that we might like, and even trust, the current Secretary of State is no reason to give powers like this to Ministers about whom we know nothing now. I hope that Labour Members will join us in opposing this Bill.

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I am very much looking forward to the meeting with my hon. Friend’s constituents, who are an important part of the steel chain. He makes an important point: we make many different products and have many different assets in the UK that we need to protect, beyond the big six steel companies.

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

It is now clear that domestic virgin steel production is a national security imperative. Acting on it is not acting on a whim. Will the Minister respond to her hon. Friends and to Conservative Members by recognising that domestic virgin steel production is a national security imperative? Whether it is through nationalisation, golden shares or the other ideas that have been suggested, if it is a national security imperative we must act, regardless of technology. Will the Minister please tell the House that she agrees with that?

[Sarah Jones]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will recognise the conversations that we are having from your experience as Minister of State in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The Opposition seem to have a new-found enthusiasm for virgin steelmaking that in government they did not have at all. We will make sure that we are doing the right thing. [Interruption.] I do not have time to go into this conversation at this point, but I will be very happy to have it with the right hon. Gentleman. There are some important points to note, including that we make a lot of our steel for defence not from primary steel but in electric arc furnaces. It is about getting the right mix. That is what we will make sure we do.