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.

Employment Rights Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

There are 5,310 businesses registered in my constituency of South Northamptonshire. Of those, 99.6%—or specifically 5,245—are small businesses. This Bill, among many of the Government’s policies, is a calamity for those small businesses. Not only are many of them rural, meaning that they will be affected by the family farm tax and now by the removal of the sustainable farming incentive, but as the chair of the Federation of Small Businesses has said, these small and medium-sized enterprises will struggle to adapt to the 28 major changes that the Bill makes to employment law.

First, it was the Government’s jobs tax, then it was their cuts to rate relief for hospitality businesses, and now they are smothering SMEs with red tape. Analysis published by the Department for Business and Trade says that this will impose a cost on businesses in the low billions of pounds per year, but that is not money that many of my small businesses can afford right now. This is why the Opposition have called for small businesses to be exempt from the parts of the Bill that would heap unsustainable costs on them.

Why do the Government seem to hate small businesses so much? Perhaps it is because the majority of the Cabinet have spent their careers in the public sector and have zero understanding of what life is like for the many entrepreneurs with SMEs across the UK, including in my constituency. We learned this week that, for the first time since records began in 2012, the number of companies registered at Companies House has fallen. Growth forecasts have been downgraded and the number of vacancies has declined. All this is a result of the choices the Government have made and continue to make in this Bill.

With all of this, the UK risks becoming a globally uncompetitive economy, particularly when other countries such as the United States are slashing regulation and unleashing their businesses to grow their economies. The Opposition have tabled new clause 90 for exactly this reason. It would ensure that when the Secretary of State makes regulations under part 4 of the Bill, he has to have regard to growth in the medium to long term. I join the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), in calling on the Government to support new clauses 89 and 90 to ensure that growth happens. Our economy is already struggling under the weight of Labour’s tax rises. Why are the Government opposing our efforts to ensure that they consider how burdensome regulation might impact on businesses?

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

A lot of people outside this place might feel that the answer to that question is that the trade unions have funded Labour Members—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), who is talking from a sedentary position, received more than £27,000 from two unions in the latest year of declarations and did not think it appropriate in this debate even to mention that number, which may well have influenced his thinking and led to the dire outcomes that my hon. Friend is explaining to the House.

[Sarah Bool]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I think all Labour Members must reflect on this because we need the public to understand truly why this legislation is going through.

That the Government have seen fit to table 87 of their own amendments at this stage alone is indicative of how uneasy they must feel about the Bill. We are even told by the media that the Treasury has warned the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State about the consequences for the economy of enacting these laws, yet they seem to have seen fit to plough them through anyway. As per usual, Labour is paying lip service to growth while sticking true to form with their socialist ideology. I was not born in the 1970s but it appears that I am going to live through the equivalent in the years ahead, as Labour plays Abba’s 1976 hit “Money, Money, Money” for its trade union paymasters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I am sorry that I am such a disappointment to the hon. Lady, but maybe she will get over it.

The Bill is a roll-back of the most important changes that we made when we were in government. It is no surprise that trade unions have warmly embraced the legislation, over 200 amendments having been hastily shoehorned in to satisfy those who line the Government’s pockets. Perhaps it is purely coincidental that their wishes have been granted, although one might wonder if the £5.6 million in donations the Labour party has received since July has something to do with it.

[Graham Stuart]

Despite her proud membership of trade unions, the last Labour Member to be called to speak, the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), did not mention the more than £9,000 that she received just in the last year, any more than the Labour Member who spoke before her, the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), mentioned the £24,000 plus that he received. If Labour Members were truly proud of the way that they have been bought and paid for by the trade unions, perhaps they would be open about how much they have received.

[Gregory Stafford]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

This Bill is not a modernisation of employment rights; it is a gift to the trade unions at the expense of economic growth, job creation and business confidence. The Government have failed to strike the right balance, and we will continue to oppose this legislation.

[Graham Stuart]

The impact assessment states that these measures could have a £5 billion impact, in addition to the £25 billion impact of the national insurance contribution changes. Does my hon. Friend agree that what the impact assessment is missing is how much union funding the measures will drive directly to the Labour party as a result? We ought to know how many hundreds of thousands or millions extra will come to the Labour party and to Labour Members to make them support this growth-killing set of measures.

[Alison Griffiths]

It is a fascinating question, and we wait to hear the answers from Government Members.

[Graham Stuart]

The Minister will tell us, we hope.

[Alison Griffiths]

Indeed, perhaps the Minister will give us the answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregor Poynton]

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

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

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

[Graham Stuart]

Given that the measures we are debating will give so much more power to the trade unions, why has the hon. Gentleman not felt it incumbent on him to declare the thousands of pounds that he has received from trade unions in the last year?

[Gregor Poynton]

I thank the right hon. Member for highlighting that, because I am proud of the money that I receive from unions. I am also proud of the fact that entrepreneurs and business people donate to my campaign as well. The right hon. Member neglected to mention that when he brought the subject up. Because I am both pro-business and pro-worker, I want to see growth in the economy. I am proud to receive donations from employers and people who have created wealth in this country, and I am also proud to receive donations from trade union members in my constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Frith]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—

[Graham Stuart]

How much?

[Mr Frith]

If the right hon. Member listens, he will hear.

From my entry, Members will see that I am a proud member of the GMB and that my donations include those from entrepreneurs and businesspeople alike who are collectively sick of the 14 years of the Conservative Government. I will take no lessons from that party, given its record over those 14 years, and none of the speeches by Conservative Members have defended any achievements that were made in 14 years relating to this Bill or anything to do with our economy. That is the party of “Eff business”, of a striking NHS, of 60% furlough settlements for Manchester workers, of cash for covid contracts, of inflation highs, of Liz Truss, of the mini-Budget disaster, of zero growth, of the collapse of infrastructure, of public spending power disappearing, and of the state of our roads and of our prospects. It is for this reason that my entry includes a combination of GMB membership, given the members and the workers that we represent, and of the entrepreneurs who wanted rid of that lot over there.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Frith]

I will make some progress. The right hon. Gentleman has said plenty already, and he came in only halfway through the debate.

I am proud to stand on the Labour side of the House as someone who has founded a business, run businesses for others and run my own business. Fifteen years ago, I made a commitment to be the voice of experience for good small businesses in the proud Labour movement that we now have in government, not least to challenge the claim of the Conservatives that they alone represent business interests. I am proudly pro-business and pro-worker, just as this Government are. Fixing the foundations of our economy means fixing the foundations of our employment. Just as the Government are strengthening our economic base, they are now laying down stronger employment foundations.

Running a business is hard work. It requires an initial leap of faith, the courage to embrace risk, the ability to adjust, the resilience to overcome failure and the perseverance to celebrate success. The role of government is to improve life and living for everyone in this country. The role of good employment is exactly the same. Small businesses are at the heart of this effort. That is why the Government are right to focus on skills, value for money with public spending, opening up public sector commissioning to SMEs and challenger companies, and, crucially, the Bill making employment a more positive, rewarding experience. Insecure work leads to insecure living, and neither will improve life in Britain. We should highlight and support those employers who are already leading the way. Much of this legislation simply catches up to their high standards.

The weight of responsibility that comes with creating somebody else’s payslip cannot be overstated. It is humbling, sometimes worrying and never easy. It requires teamwork and the skills of others, but also leadership—sometimes lonely leadership. It means shouldering risk and sharing rewards. That is why the Government’s ambition for growth is the right one. The focus must be on net growth, locking in certainty for those in work by upholding rights for the many, while fostering new opportunities to expand our economy.

I want to salute those businesses and entrepreneurs for whom much of this legislation emphasises the good practices they already uphold. In Bury, businesses such as the Lamppost Café, where—a declaration of interest, Madam Deputy Speaker—my daughter works part time, Life Store in Ramsbottom, Wax and Beans record and coffee shop in Bury, Bloom, Avoira, MSL Solution Providers, Ernill’s Bakery, Wallwork Aerospace Heat Treatment, and Hargreaves. These businesses, often family run, are the backbone of Bury, and so they build the backbone of Britain; rooted in their communities; providing stability, pride and good honest work for an honest day’s pay. Many stand ready to do more to grow, invest and create more opportunities.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Could he tell us which of that fine list of businesses have said that they support the Bill?

[Mr Frith]

I have had conversations with the vast majority of them. They support the general emphasis—[Interruption.] Actually, if the right hon. Gentleman has been listening, he will know that the argument I am making is that on much of the proposed legislation—giving rights on day one, being fair minded, making work pay—they are already doing that. The point I am making—[Interruption.] I have just named several. The most recent conversation I had was with MSL Solution Providers. Its challenges and arguments are around R&D tax credits, an argument I will make in due course. But the Conservatives’ claim of being the voice of small business and entrepreneurship is misguided, misrepresented and, frankly, out of date.

Once we have laid the new employment foundations, we must support them in building their businesses further. In particular, for some that means ensuring that AI enhances and expands prospects and prosperity in the employment market and the wider economy.

Lastly, I am proud to highlight my support for extending bereavement leave to those who experience a miscarriage—a compassionate and essential measure that I proudly support alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen).

The Bill is not just about a legislative process; it is about our values. It is about recognising that a thriving economy and a fair society must go hand in hand with tackling our inequalities. It is about ensuring that whether employer or employee, the foundation on which our employment is built ensures strength for all.

Draft Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment of Schedule A2) Order 2024

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 General Committees

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I had wondered whether it was necessary to speak, but given some of the comments I have just heard, I feel compelled to do so.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the Employment Rights Bill, on the back of the “New Deal for Working People”. The Bill will be the single and foremost change to working people’s terms and conditions in this country for more than a generation. It is long overdue. When I first saw this order, however, I got quite a shock. I thought, “Is this it?”, although I suppose a 25% uplift is better than nowt. But of course it has not come from our Front Bench, thank goodness; it is something we have inherited.

I want to look at this draft measure through the prism of fire and rehire—actually, not fire and rehire, but fire and replace—that we came up against in P&O Ferries and Peter Hebblethwaite. I was a member of the Business and Trade Committee that heard evidence from that chief executive. He made it abundantly clear that he was quite prepared to break the law of the land on consultation periods and to price it into the compensation, the pay-off, of his workforce.

All we got from the then Government was a wringing of hands, a condemnation and very little else. The draft order seems to be the sum total of their response to that travesty. I have to tell the Committee that the 25% uplift would be a doddle to the likes of P&O. It would not be impacted one jot. I am delighted that the Minister mentioned interim relief; when we go forward with our excellent Employment Rights Bill, I am sure we will discuss what that will look like.

I gently say that if we are going to be able to stop another P&O, we will need injunctive relief because trying to bring out interim relief after the horse has bolted will be no good whatever. I also gently suggest that the sorts of financial penalties that need to be imposed on the egregious behaviours of the likes of P&O will have to be significantly higher. There was discussion about unlimited fines being visited on those who had deliberately prepared to break the law for their own ends. We have to look at those issues very carefully.

In addition, now that we have the opportunity we have to reflect on the appalling record of enforcement across the piece. The number of tribunal awards that are not paid out by employers is legion, and the ability of people to then pursue their enforcement is sadly lacking. It is critically important that we should have rights and protections for our workforce and the powers to have those enforced. I will close with that; I just express my relief that we did not bring the measure forward—

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

You are bringing it forward—that’s what we are doing here!

[Andy McDonald]

I get the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but the legislation did not originate from the Government side. We are taking this first step, but I put the Opposition on notice that it is simply a first step.