Company Directors (Duties) Bill

Justin Madders Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on introducing the Bill and on squeezing in his remarks under the wire. He made some important observations. Clearly, we do not have the time we would like to explore the provisions in more detail, but I understand that I will be engaging with him—

[Martin Wrigley]

rose—

[Justin Madders]

I may have anticipated the hon. Member’s intervention; I will be engaging with him shortly on the Bill’s provisions. It is not a Bill that the Government will be able to support, but I do want to have further conversations with him about it. It is important that we recognise directors’ duties for what they are: a cornerstone of UK company law. They help to ensure that companies are run responsibly and, importantly, that directors act with integrity at all times.

We are really talking about section 172 of the Companies Act 2006, which the Bill seeks to amend. That is a key part of the directors’ duties framework, which was developed in the light of the major company law review commissioned by the previous Labour Government. I want to be clear that section 172 as it stands already places a legal duty on directors to have regard in their decision making to the interests of employees and the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment. It also requires directors to consider a range of other factors, including the impact of any decision on the long-term success of the company.

Whistleblowers

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate on the contribution of whistleblowers. I thank all the Members who have contributed to it. I join my hon. Friend’s tribute to those who blow the whistle, and I acknowledge the comments from various Members that the whistleblowing framework may not be operating as effectively as it could be. I welcome the many views expressed on potential reforms.

Whistleblowers play a valuable role in shining a light on wrongdoing. Workers who blow the whistle deserve to be taken seriously and not treated poorly by their employers for doing the right thing. The Public Interest Disclosure Act was considered world leading in 1998, when it amended the Employment Rights Act 1996 to introduce protections for whistleblowers. Those protections ensure that workers who blow the whistle on certain types of wrongdoing are protected from dismissal or detriment if certain conditions are met. That is known as a protected disclosure.

For a worker to receive protection, they must reasonably believe that a disclosure is in the public interest; the disclosure must concern one or more of the types of wrongdoing listed in the Act, such as a criminal offence or a danger to health and safety, and the worker must make the disclosure to their employer, another responsible person or one of the organisations prescribed in legislation. There are more than 90 prescribed persons that a worker may make a protective disclosure to, including many regulators that we are familiar with, such as the Financial Conduct Authority and the Health and Safety Executive. The list of prescribed persons is regularly updated and has been updated in the past 12 months. I hope that allays the concern of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who said that we are rolling back on these issues.

Our protections are strong, but it is fair to say that, after a quarter of a century, there is work to be done to modernise the framework. A whole range of issues have been raised about how we may improve things. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset asked whether there should be a duty on employers to investigate when a disclosure is made. Currently, there is no legal requirement for employers to investigate protected disclosures, which sadly enables some employers to ignore a disclosure or to fail to take the necessary corrective actions to address whistleblowing reports, although, as I have mentioned, there are a great number of external bodies that whistleblowers can report matters to, should their employer not take action.

We should acknowledge that many employers have policies and procedures in place that they follow in good faith to ensure that action is taken. That is particularly the case in some of the sectors that are heavily regulated. A general duty to investigate does raise questions about what that would actually entail: what would a good duty look like? Disclosures can be made on a wide range of issues, so we need to think carefully about how such a duty would work in practice. One of the structural issues with the legislation is that a disclosure can be made and investigated, but that does not prevent detrimental treatment or dismissal for the individual. The protections are effectively retrospective in their application, but that is an important point that we will consider further.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset proposed adopting the US model of financial incentives, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) raised a similar issue. We will certainly consider those matters. Hon. Members may be aware from the autumn Budget, as reaffirmed at the spring statement by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), that the Government will strengthen HMRC’s scheme for rewarding informants to encourage reporting of high-value tax fraud and tax avoidance. A new scheme will launch later this year, which will look to target serious non-compliance by large companies, wealthy individuals, and offshore avoidance schemes. It will take some inspiration from successful US and Canadian models, which were referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West. He mentioned that $50.4 billion had been recovered thanks to whistleblowers in the US. I am sure that the Chancellor would be very receptive to that kind of figure finding its way into her coffers.

I will look at the recommendations made by the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West mentioned. Importantly, he pointed out that companies facing a disclosure often look at it as a reputational threat rather than a wrong to be corrected. That is a very wise observation about the current deficiencies in the scheme. Actually, that issue is often about the culture in organisations rather than the legal framework. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) referred to the profound and effective cultural shift in the airline safety sector, which has helped people to feel empowered to speak up.

As always, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a strong contribution. He mentioned his friend Brian, as he has done previously. He said that for Brian, doing the right thing was the natural thing to do, but that does not mean it was any less courageous. I pay tribute to Brian and the hon. Member for Strangford for raising his issues. He astutely observed that the clue is in the name—these are protected disclosures, and at the moment, protection does not always follow disclosure.

The contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell), as we would expect, drew heavily on her legal experience, for which I am always grateful. She mentioned a recent EU directive about expanding the definition of those covered by whistleblowing. A number of arguments are being put forward to expand the current legal definition beyond workers, including calls to include the self-employed—as we know, there are a whole range of employment protections for which the self-employed do not have parity with workers or directly employed individuals—but also non-executive directors and charity trustees. I recognise that Protect has been working and campaigning on this issue for a good period of time. I met representatives of Protect earlier this year, and my officials will continue to engage with them on these important issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton also mentioned the question of legal tests. There is awareness in government that employers sometimes rely on reasons that are not, on the face of it, directly related to protected disclosure but are, as my hon. Friend articulately set out, very much related to that when we get underneath into the detail. That particularly relates to the idea that providing unwelcome advice is being classed as a performance issue. I recognise the characterisation of irretrievable breakdowns in the workplace, which can happen for a number of reasons, including when a whistleblower does not feel that their voice is being heard. I recognise those concerns.

Another point we need to reflect on is that there is not enough public awareness and knowledge of how whistleblowing legislation works. Many workers are unsure of their rights or how to make disclosures within the current framework. Indeed, when I was in practice, I recall telling individuals who had talked to me about their situation at work that they had probably made a protected disclosure. They had never thought about what they did in those terms, but the law was there to protect them.

The framework entitles people to bring employment tribunal cases to seek a remedy following dismissal or detrimental treatment, but that is often a slow, costly and complex method of redress. I was concerned to hear the statistics my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset gave about the success rates for those claims. If an individual is in an employment tribunal having made a protected disclosure, it is almost certain that that employment relationship has come to an end anyway. I also recognise that the framework does not actually require confidentiality or anonymity for whistleblowers, which can sometimes deter people for fear of retribution.

A number of Members asked whether we should have an office of the whistleblower. As the shadow Minister says, proposals have been made in the other place. My understanding is that such an office would not only protect whistleblowers, oversee whistleblowing processes and enforce compliance and reporting standards, but establish new criminal sanctions for non-compliance. It would be a significant change to the existing framework. There are a number of different suggestions about how it would operate in practice, but it is something we are taking an interest in.

The shadow Minister asked about the Grant Thornton review, which began under the Conservative Government. I can commit to that report being realised very shortly. It does not make recommendations for reform, but it provides some observations and insights into how the current framework operates. As one would expect, it has obtained stakeholder feedback and there has been a literature review. We will be able to build on it moving forward.

The shadow Minister also characterised—I think unfairly—our approach as regressive. He will know that the Employment Rights Bill includes additional protections for whistleblowers and those who speak up about sexual harassment. I do not expect he will support the Bill, even though it includes those measures. He mentioned the changes in the NHS framework. The freedom to speak up process still applies in the NHS. On the armed forces suggestions, the whole purpose of the Bill is to give a framework for people to be able to speak up about their treatment, including families of those in the armed forces.

The protections in the Bill, which is now in the other place, will signal to employers that workers who make protected disclosures about sexual harassment in particular must be treated fairly. Workers will have legal recourse if their employer subjects them to detriment for speaking up about sexual harassment. We have also committed to implementing professional standards for NHS managers to hold them accountable for silencing whistleblowers or endangering patients through misconduct. As we heard from the Prime Minister earlier today, we remain fully committed to introducing a Hillsborough law, which will include a legal duty of candour for public servants and sanctions for those who refuse to comply.

The recent Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) (Amendment) Order 2025 allows workers to make protected disclosures to relevant Government Departments or on suspected breaches of sanctions. These changes will help workers to qualify for employment protections when disclosing to Government information relating to financial, transport and certain trade sanctions, and seek redress should they suffer detriment or dismissal at work due to making a protected disclosure.

I appreciate that we need to consider many issues. A range of ideas has been put forward, and it is important that we take the opportunity to explore them further, so that we find the right solutions that work for everyone in the economy, and give whistleblowers the protection that everyone agrees they need.

Draft Subsidy Control (Subsidies and Schemes of Interest or Particular Interest) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Subsidy Control (Subsidies and Schemes of Interest or Particular Interest) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Turner. The regulations were laid in draft before the House on 2 June. The Subsidy Control Act 2022 came into force in January 2023. It was designed to balance the need for streamlined processes to ensure that public authorities can quickly and effectively give subsidies to support businesses where it matters with the need to ensure that subsidies are proportionate, represent good value for the taxpayer and do not unduly impact competition and investment. The Act also ensures that our international obligations on subsidy control are reflected in our domestic legislation.

When this Government were elected last year, we were keen to test whether the legislation had achieved the correct balance, or whether changes could be made to improve the functioning of the UK subsidy control regime. Following discussions with officials, feedback from affected public authorities and a public consultation, we have decided to amend the legislation.

The regulations set out which subsidies face mandatory referral for scrutiny by the Competition and Markets Authority’s subsidy advice unit and which may be voluntarily referred. The CMA review process is designed to capture the larger subsidies, which have the greatest risk of distorting competition or investment. Once the CMA has accepted a referral, it must publish a non-binding report on the assessment of the subsidy’s compliance with the Subsidy Control Act within 30 working days. Using feedback from the CMA’s report, the public authority awarding the subsidy should improve the design of its subsidy or its assessment of compliance, thus reducing the potential harm caused by the subsidy. As the CMA’s reports are published, the referral process improves the transparency of subsidy giving, offering competitors the opportunity to better understand when their rivals are receiving subsidies and when they may wish to challenge an unfair subsidy.

The regulations update the existing regulations, changing the definition of a subsidy or scheme of particular interest, to which I will now refer as a SSoPI. A SSoPI requires mandatory referral to the CMA for scrutiny. The amendment to the definition of a SSoPI increases the threshold at which a subsidy attracts mandatory scrutiny. Currently, that is set at £10 million for non-sensitive sectors; the amendment moves it to £25 million.

This is being done in response to stakeholder feedback that the £10 million threshold was too low and captured subsidies that posed only a low risk of distortion, including subsidies for leisure centres and wellbeing hubs, which pose a comparatively low risk of harming competition or investment in the UK or trade and investment internationally. The new £25 million threshold represents a proportionate approach that will allow the CMA to focus its resources on the effective scrutiny of the larger subsidies that pose the greatest risk to the UK’s internal market and to international trade.

While we are adjusting the mandatory referral threshold, the voluntary referral threshold, currently set at £5 million, will remain the same. That will allow public authorities to voluntarily refer subsidies that would previously have faced mandatory referral if they consider that the subsidies would benefit from additional scrutiny. The rules around accumulating related subsidies will also remain the same, ensuring that the cumulative distortive effect of subsidies to a particular enterprise is still captured and scrutinised.

We will retain the existing list of sensitive sectors and the lower £5 million threshold at which subsidies in new sectors face mandatory CMA referrals. There is a strong rationale for effective scrutiny of those subsidies to mitigate the risk of trade distortion and international challenge. Scrutiny by the CMA does not prevent the awarding of those subsidies, but will give public authorities the chance to strengthen their assessment of compliance as well as their subsidy, and mitigate any risks. These sectors were previously deemed to pose a higher risk of international challenge, and at present there is little evidence to support amending the list. On balance, the evidence provided in response to our recent consultation did not point towards any amendment of it.

As I hope is clear, the intention behind the regulations is to update the thresholds for CMA scrutiny in a measured and proportionate way, reducing administration while retaining effective scrutiny where it matters most. I commend the regulations and invite the Committee to support the passage of this instrument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I note the shadow Minister’s comments and his position on this. I will try to give him some reassurance. The reason no impact assessment has been prepared is that the regulations are below the de minimis threshold for an impact assessment. They are merely about the familiarisation that public bodies will need to undergo to assess whether the referral process would apply to a particular subsidy. His concern that the regulations will lead to no scrutiny of public subsidies rather misses the point. A wide range of these public bodies have their own scrutiny processes, and lots of the referrals are from local authorities, which have well-established scrutiny processes. There will also be a CMA report next year that sets out the detail of how the scheme has operated in its first three years.

The shadow Minister is right to question the threshold. I am sure that he would expect me, as the Minister, to grill officials—on a hot day like this, grilling is appropriate—on whether the large increase is right. What I have gleaned from that is that the number of referrals to the CMA is significantly higher than was anticipated when the 2022 Act was brought in. Some of the subsidies that have been referred are not the sort that the CMA needs to be concerned about. For example, leisure centres and Arts Council England subsidies to the English National Opera are not matters that I consider to be of particular relevance to the CMA’s actions, and will certainly not distort international investment flows.

A wide range of bodies responded to the consultation, including local authorities, employers, business organisations and the British Chambers of Commerce. The suggestions made have been considered. As the shadow Minister pointed out, a number of different suggestions were made about the threshold—some were as high as £100 million. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be even more concerned if we had gone as high as that. We think we have struck the right balance to modernise and update the subsidy threshold. It goes without saying that construction costs have gone up year on year. This increase is not intended to be annual, so there is an element of future-proofing. As I said, the CMA will produce its monitoring report this year, which will give us all an opportunity to see how this has worked in practice.

The shadow Minister made fair challenges. I hope that I have given him some reassurance that we considered this matter carefully before bringing forward the regulations. I commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Parental Leave Review

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

I wish to make a statement on the parental leave review.

The plan to make work pay

This Government are committed to making life better for families. The current parental leave and pay system does not work as well as it could. We have already taken action to improve the system by legislating, in our landmark Employment Rights Bill, to make paternity leave and unpaid parental leave “day one” rights. The Bill will also put in place legislation that makes it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women, mothers on maternity leave, and mothers who come back to work for a six-month period after they return—except in specific circumstances.

We committed to a review of the parental leave system in the plan to make work pay, and through this launch today we are delivering on this commitment.

Review: context

The review will form part of delivering the plan for change, linking to two of the Government missions: to kickstart economic growth and break down barriers to opportunity. The work of this review will support our ongoing work to raise living standards, give children the best start in life and alleviate child poverty.

This review presents a much-needed opportunity to consider our approach to the system of parental leave and pay, giving due consideration to balancing costs and benefits to both businesses and the Exchequer. All current and upcoming parental leave and pay entitlements will be in scope of the review.

Review: lead Departments

This review will be co-led by the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Work and Pensions—the two Departments that have the main responsibility for the current parental leave framework. These Departments will work closely with other Government Departments on this cross-cutting and important policy.

Review: objectives

The current system does not have an overarching set of objectives and has grown gradually over time. This review presents an opportunity to reset our approach and the understanding of parental leave and pay and what we want the system to achieve.

We will assess the current system against the following objectives:

Our first objective is to support the physical and mental health of women during pregnancy and after giving birth to a child.

Our second objective is to support economic growth by enabling more parents to stay in work and advance in their careers after starting a family. This will particularly focus on improving both women’s labour market outcomes and the gender pay gap.

Our third objective is to ensure that there are sufficient resources and time away from work to support new and expectant parents’ wellbeing. This will also include facilitating the best start in life for babies and young children, supporting health and development outcomes.

Our fourth objective is to support parents to make balanced childcare choices that work for their families, including enabling co-parenting, and providing flexibility to reflect the realities of modern work and childcare needs.

Review: engagement

This will be an evidence-based review that reflects and considers the perspectives and experiences of those who engage with the parental leave and pay system.

There will be opportunities for stakeholders to contribute views and expertise throughout the review, including through a call for evidence that also launches today. This call for evidence seeks initial evidence specifically in relation to the objectives that will set the foundation for what we want our system to deliver.

Review: timeline

We expect the review to run for a period of 18 months. The Government will conclude the review with a set of findings and a road map and will set out next steps for taking any reforms forward to implementation.

[HCWS757]

Employment Rights Bill: Implementation Road Map

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

I am notifying Parliament today of the publication of the Employment Rights Bill implementation road map. The road map will provide clarity for workers and businesses, as well as parliamentarians, on how and when the Government will consult on the implementation of the Bill measures, and when they should expect these measures to come into effect.

The plan to make work pay is the Government’s ambitious package of reforms that will upgrade our employment rights framework, ensuring it is fit for a modern economy, empowers working people and contributes to economic growth. It will support the delivery of the Government’s plan for change by tackling the low pay, poor working conditions and poor job security that has been holding the UK economy back. The Bill is a crucial step in delivering these reforms.

We will continue to engage and consult comprehensively on the implementation of the measures in the Bill to make sure these changes work for all. While the Bill sets out the policy in primary legislation, key details of how many of the individual measures will work in practice will be consulted on, agreed, and then set out in secondary legislation and regulations, subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent.

The road map will allow employers, unions and workers to plan ahead to ensure that they can prepare for these important reforms. By engaging closely with our stakeholders, we will ensure our changes work for all.

[HCWS764]

Parental Leave Review

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s manifesto commitment to review the system of entitlements to parental leave.

This Government are dedicated to delivering more for working families, and our plan to make work pay is central to achieving that, with the mission to grow the economy, raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all. It will help people to stay in work, improve job security and boost living standards, which includes helping working parents and supporting them to balance their work and home lives.

Parental leave and pay entitlements play a key role in that. We know that the arrival of a child, whether through birth or adoption, is a transformative time in a family’s life. We also know that the current parental leave system does not support modern, diverse working families as well as it could. Parents’ groups and campaigners have long argued that our paternity leave is too short and compares poorly with other countries. While shared parental leave is available to families where fathers and partners want to take a longer period of leave, evidence shows that take-up is very low, with the parental rights survey reporting that 1% of mothers and 4% of fathers use this entitlement. The survey also showed that 35% of fathers do not take paternity leave for financial reasons.

We are committed to improving the parental leave system and are already taking action. Improving the system will have the added benefit of increasing workforce participation by helping employers to fill vacancies and will contribute to increased productivity, benefiting the economy.

The Employment Rights Bill is one vehicle through which we are improving the parental leave system. The Bill makes paternity leave and parental leave day one rights, meaning that employees will be eligible to give notice of their intent to take leave from their first day of employment. It contains a number of other measures that will improve the support that working families receive. It will put in place legislation that makes it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women, mothers on maternity leave and mothers who come back to work for a six-month period after they return, except in specific circumstances. It will also make flexible working the default, except where it is not reasonably feasible, and requires that all large employers produce action plans that contribute to closing the gender pay gap.

I am pleased to announce that the Government are going further and taking another step forward in delivering improvements for working families. I am pleased to launch the parental leave review today, fulfilling our commitment in the plan to make work pay to review the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports working families. The review is part of delivering the plan for change, and links two of the Government’s missions: kick-starting economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity. The work of the review will support the Government’s commitments to raise living standards and give children the best start in life, and links to work being undertaken to alleviate child poverty. It presents a much-needed opportunity to consider our approach to the system of parental leave and pay, giving due consideration to balancing costs and benefits to both businesses and the Exchequer. I welcome the opportunity today to provide the House with more detail on the review.

The review will be co-led by the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Work and Pensions, the two Departments with the main responsibility for the current parental leave framework. There will, however, be close working across Government to deliver this review to reflect the wide influence the parental leave system has on policies in other Departments.

The current system has grown up gradually over time. The first maternity arrangements were set out in the Factory and Workshop Act 1891, which introduced the idea that women who work in factories cannot work for four weeks after giving birth. Subsequent entitlements have been added to support specific groups as needs have emerged, which has created a framework that does not always work cohesively as a whole. This piecemeal approach to parental leave and pay means that the system has never had an overarching set of objectives that it should deliver. This review presents an opportunity to reset our approach to and understanding of parental leave and pay, and what we want the system to achieve.

We will use the review to establish what Britain needs from a parental leave and pay system to support our modern economy and deliver improvements for working families. We have set out four objectives as our starting point, which we intend to test as we progress the review to ensure we are truly reflecting the needs of the nation.

Our first objective is to support the physical and mental health of women during pregnancy and after giving birth to a child. Our second objective is to support economic growth by enabling more parents to stay in work and advance in their careers after starting a family. This will focus on improving both women’s labour market outcomes and tackling the gender pay gap.

Our third objective is to ensure that there are sufficient resources and time away from work to support new and expectant parents’ wellbeing. This will include facilitating the best start in life for babies and young children, and supporting health and development outcomes. Our fourth objective is to support parents to make balanced childcare choices that work for their family situation, including enabling co-parenting, and providing flexibility to reflect the realities of modern work and childcare needs.

Three cross-cutting considerations will also be factored into our review. The first is to build a fair parental leave system between parents within a family, different types of parents and parents with different employment statuses. The second consideration is to balance costs and benefits to businesses and the Exchequer, as well as to examine how the system can support economic opportunities for businesses and families. As part of this, the review will consider opportunities to make the process surrounding parental leave simpler for both businesses and parents. The final cross-cutting consideration focuses on improving our society—for example, by supporting the child poverty strategy, and by shifting social and gender norms, including around paternal childcare.

All current and upcoming parental leave and pay entitlements will be in the scope of the review. This will enable us to consider how the parental leave and pay system should operate as a complete system to improve the support available for working families. This broad scope means that the review will consider the individual existing entitlements, and how best to ensure improvements can be delivered for working families, as well as related wider issues and themes. For example, the review will consider whether the support available meets the needs of other working families who do not qualify for existing statutory leave and pay entitlements, such as kinship carers and self-employed parents. It will also consider how the pay system works more broadly.

This will be an evidence-based review that reflects and considers the perspectives and experiences of those who engage with the parental leave and pay system. We welcome views from, and intend to engage constructively with, a wide range of external stakeholders, including groups such as trade unions that represent both parents and families, and employers or employer representatives. There will be opportunities for stakeholders to contribute views and expertise throughout the review, including through a call for evidence, which launches today. This call for evidence seeks initial evidence specifically in relation to the objectives that will set the foundation for what we want our system to deliver.

The review launches today. We expect it to run for a period of 18 months. The Government will conclude the review with a set of findings and a road map, including next steps for taking any potential reforms forward to implementation. This is an important step forward to ensure that our workplaces are fit for the 21st century, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

From personal experience—as a father of three—I understand the importance of fathers being able to spend time at home with their newborns and supporting mothers in those early days. Having experienced paternity leave both as a Member of Parliament in 2020 and 2021 as well as in very different circumstances in 2016 while self-employed, I am proud that the UK already offers some of the most generous maternity and paternity rights, but of course there is always room for improvement.

The Conservatives introduced shared parental leave, allowing new parents to spend precious time caring for their newborns. It is therefore with interest that we digest the contents of this ministerial statement today, but I do have deep reservations about both its substance and its timing. I understand that the Government pledged that this review would be done and dusted within a year—another broken promise—but it is curious that they have chosen today of all days to launch it.

I am in no doubt that today’s statement has been rushed into the Minister’s hands to deflect from what I suspect will be a difficult day of parliamentary business for the Government. That much is clear, as the Secretary of State was entirely incapable of confirming the current rates of statutory paternity pay on LBC this morning. I welcome the fact that he apologised to Nick Ferrari in admitting that he really should know—perhaps the Minister can set the record straight for his boss today.

I wish to take this opportunity to make it crystal clear that Conservatives are not opposed to increased parental leave, as long as it is proportionate, affordable and does not increase unemployment. Therein lies the problem, because this Government have left themselves no breathing room. Their political choices have imposed the most significant headwinds on business in a generation. Those choices have driven unemployment up by 173,000 since July last year. Businesses across the land are contending with taxes on jobs that Labour promised would never come, and now they are staring down the barrel of 300 pages of closely typed, union-led, red tape in the unemployment Bill, which will upset a carefully balanced and fair relationship between employees and employers that has spanned decades. Even Tony Blair and Gordon Brown refused to open that box. No real business supports that Bill. The five biggest business groups have warned against it. It will make hiring tougher, and force employers to take fewer risks on new starters, disproportionately pushing young mothers out of the workforce. Flexible working will be almost entirely eviscerated from Britain’s job market.

The reasonable measures from which employers and employees have benefited for years have allowed businesses to take a chance on new hires. We already know that businesses across the UK have had no choice but to cut jobs, reduce hours or put hiring on pause because of the Chancellor’s toxic treatment of enterprise. If it is helpful, I can spell this out for the benefit of those on the Government Front Bench. It really is quite straightforward: it is not possible to benefit from employment rights if people do not have a job in the first place. With that in mind, it deeply concerns me that the Minister’s statement made only a passing mention of the impact on businesses. That comes as no surprise as not one person around the Cabinet table has any real business experience.

The Government have admitted that this review, which they said would be squared away by now, will take 18 months. Over the next 18 months, we will watch the ravaging impacts of Labour’s anti-business policies transform from a drip to a deluge. With the jobs tax, the business rates relief cut, investment and capital forced overseas, the Employment Rights Bill and the family business death tax, unemployment will continue to rise, businesses will close and any chance of growth will be sapped from our economy. It is all well and good that the Minister announces this review in the House today, but let us be in no doubt that, when it concludes in 18 months’ time, Britain’s economy will have been stripped of all signs of life because of the choices Labour has made.

[Justin Madders]

I take it that the shadow Minister is not in support of the review. May I correct him on a few points? Of course it is not a coincidence that this is being announced today; our manifesto was clear that we would launch the review within one year of taking office, and, of course, this week we do celebrate that astounding election victory. On his point about statutory paternity pay, it is £187.18. We know from representations that we have already received that many do not think that that is the right level. He mentioned how Tony Blair and Gordon Brown refused to open this box, but it was their Government who gave us the right to statutory paternity pay and a number of other family-friendly rights, of which the shadow Minister himself has taken advantage.

I think we know where the Conservative party stands on these issues when their leader says that maternity pay has gone too far. I do not quite know what she meant by that, but I think it means that the Conservatives would be rolling back some of the well-earned gains in family-friendly policies.

The shadow Minister, as I would expect, does not miss an opportunity to mention the Employment Rights Bill. May I suggest that he has a word with his shadow Secretary of State who clearly has not read it? I refer to his recent open letter to businesses in which he mentioned a number of issues with the Bill. First, he complained that we are creating the fair work agency, conveniently forgetting that in both the 2017 and 2019 Conservative party manifestos, there was a similar pledge to create a single enforcement body. He referred to an introductory measure on electronic industrial action balloting. The Conservatives, of course, will be big fans of electronic voting given the number of leadership elections in which they have taken part in recent years. The shadow Minister needs to inform his shadow Secretary of State that that is not in the Bill. I do not know where he thinks that has come from. We are going to introduce electronic balloting, but it is not in the Employment Rights Bill, because we already have existing powers to implement it.

In that open letter, the shadow Secretary of State mentions, most curiously, that the Bill will include

“a trade union ‘right to roam’”.

I do not know if he was searching for a new mobile phone contract at the time, but no such right exists.

The shadow Minister talked about the effects on appointments, but he needs to keep up to date: the latest Lloyds business barometer says that business confidence is now at a nine-year high and that 60% of firms expect higher staffing levels in the next year. That is a sign that this Government are getting things done.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is great to see so many hon. Members, with almost every party represented but one: there are four empty seats where the Reform UK MPs sit. They like to bang on about family values, but when it comes to actually standing up for dads and for parents, they are nowhere to be seen.

I thank the Minister for acting on the importance of shared parental leave. On paternity leave, as someone who had a caesarean section, I was so grateful to my husband’s employers for granting him more than two weeks’ leave; as everyone knows, mothers are not meant to lift even a kettle for six weeks after a c-section, which makes things impossible. However, we also know that not everybody is that fortunate, and that is especially true for self-employed people. The Women and Equalities Committee took evidence on parental leave and heard that nearly a third of self-employed dads and other parents did not take a single day’s leave following the birth of their child, so how will this review ensure that self-employed parents’ needs will be taken into account?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee for her contribution. She raises an important point and we are studying her Committee’s recent report on the issue with interest. It is important that we look at how people in different forms of employment are able to take advantage of parental leave, in one form or another. That is important not just for providing physical assistance in the circumstances that my hon. Friend mentioned, but because the parent should be there, if they can, to bond with the child in those early weeks, and the review will definitely consider that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to the much-needed review on parental leave. Every child deserves the best possible start in life and the opportunity to flourish, no matter their background or personal circumstances. Too often, parents struggle on inadequate parental pay and without good enough access to shared leave. Childcare costs are eye-watering, and the balance between family life and work has only become harder to strike.

The Liberal Democrats have been calling for an overhaul of the parental leave system, to give parents a genuine choice about how they manage their responsibilities in the first months of their child’s life. If I could gently correct the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), it was the Liberal Democrats who were proud to introduce shared parental leave in government. However, years later, millions of parents are still being denied the choice to spend more time at home, with around a quarter of fathers ineligible for paternity pay.

As we welcome this review into parental leave, I urge the Government to look more broadly into the prevalent inequality in caring responsibilities. What steps are they taking to support the millions of family carers who are looking after disabled or elderly relatives and who have no paid leave at all? Will they commit to a similar review into provision for unpaid carers and to make carer’s leave paid? Will they commit to reviewing the needs of carers and those of the families who have taken on kinship caring responsibilities? I welcome that commitment in the statement today, but do the Government plan to introduce statutory kinship care leave?

We call on the Government to use the review to finally deliver meaningful reforms that address the long-standing concerns of carers and their loved ones, as well as making changes to the circumstances of working families that can make parenting a joy rather than a burden, and end the dilemma of having to choose between work and family.

[Justin Madders]

I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ support for this review. The hon. Lady is right to point out that it was the coalition Government who introduced shared parental leave, although that is the first time in a long time that we have heard anyone admit that they were part of the coalition Government. She raised some very important points, a number of which will be covered by the carer’s leave review, which is also taking place. Kinship caring will be a part of that. I know that the Liberal Democrats have a long-standing policy on carer’s leave and pay, and the review will be cognisant of that.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

As I welcome the Minister’s announcement, I think of the HGV driver who I met recently who said that he was not able to take time off to be with his partner and their newborn baby. Will the Minister assure me and all my constituents that the new rights will work for working-class people as well as people on higher incomes in professional jobs? Does he agree that today’s announcement, along with our announcements on free school meals, childcare and housing, make it clear that the Labour party is the party of the family?

[Justin Madders]

One of the real achievements of the last Labour Government was to recognise that giving children the best start in life is fundamental to rebuilding our society, and that is at the heart of what we have proposed today. My hon. Friend raises an important point that these entitlements have an element of income inequality to them, which we will bear in mind. One message we heard very clearly is that many fathers would like to take more paternity leave but simply cannot afford to do so, and we will be looking at that as part of the review.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Having a child is a personal choice, and it is a blessing that I have enjoyed five times. Becoming old, sick or disabled are not personal choices, yet we have had cuts to the winter fuel allowance and we are about to discuss a controversial Bill that would remove a large element of the support that we currently give to sick and disabled people. What does that say about the Government’s priorities?

[Justin Madders]

The right hon. Member will know that the winter fuel allowance has been restored for many people in this country, and the Chancellor has given a clear commitment that any existing PIP claimants will not be affected by the measures in the Bill. As part of the review by Sir Charlie Mayfield, we are looking in the round at how we ensure that people are able to be supported to stay in work, and I hope that the Conservatives would support that.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. As a dad, I know from two very recent experiences how valuable paternity leave is for fathers. Good companies also know that, as Tesco and other good employers have already increased their employee paternity leave offers because they know that a good workforce is a happy workforce. May I encourage the Minister to actively pursue those companies to ensure that their data and insights are fed into the review, with a view to permanently increased paternity leave?

[Justin Madders]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent parenthood and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), who I understand is on paternity leave as we speak. My hon. Friend makes an important point about good businesses understanding the importance of treating their staff well. I draw the House’s attention to a quote from the chief people officer for Aviva, which operates a progressive parental leave policy. He said:

“The chance to spend more time with a new arrival during the important first few months has proved to be hugely beneficial for thousands of our Aviva parents. From supporting their partners, to the positive impact it has on mental wellbeing and engagement with family life, equal parental leave has been literally life-changing for our people.”

We want to encourage businesses to look at those sorts of things. I am sure some other firms will be doing equally well, and we are happy to hear any evidence on those matters.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

As someone who is about to welcome their second child into the world—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you very much. I am delighted to be discussing parental leave and I welcome this review. The Minister said that one objective of the review is to reset the relationship between men and women—I paraphrase—and to make that more equal. May I gently suggest that while the measures set out are necessary, they are insufficient? To get to the heart of that matter, we need to look at early years funding. When £6.12 is provided by the Government for early years provision, but providers, such as the Little Learning Tree in my constituency, say that it costs £7.50 to deliver, we have a problem. The parental leave review will not get to the heart of that matter, so will the Minister consider including the Department for Education in the review to get to the heart of equality between men and women?

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Member raises an important point. The Government have clearly done great work already in expanding the availability of affordable childcare, but there is always more to do. This specifically will not be part of the review, but I can confirm that we will be working with other Departments to see how their input can help to achieve the outcomes we want from the review.

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

The fathers who met me in Haslingden will welcome the review and the Minister’s announcement, but in conversations I have had I have been struck by the difficulties faced by some of our public sector workers, with teachers almost forced back perhaps a week—if they had been able to take that—after a holiday period, and police officers facing particular challenges with parental leave and paternity rights. Will the Minister reassure me that those important issues will be squarely within the terms of the review and that he will be looking to make progress on them?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend raises concerning issues about the culture of some employers who possibly do not see the value of parental and paternity leave. We all know that recruitment and retention is an issue in teaching, and in particular there are not enough male teachers. That is a challenge, and maybe one thing behind that is the cultural shift that we need to see. I am sure that those comments can be fed in.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

My constituent Christina Harris sadly lost her job when she had to take time off to care for her seriously ill daughter Skye, who I am pleased to report is now in remission. Christina started a parliamentary petition calling for employers to hold open the jobs of those parents who, through no fault of their own, have to take time off to care for a seriously ill child—a bit like maternity leave in principle. She achieved a debate in Westminster Hall in February, which the Minister replied to. He then kindly met her some weeks later and, if I may say so—I was there—he dealt with her incredibly empathetically and listened carefully to what she said.

As the Minister said, the review will have a “broad scope”. Can he offer any hope to my constituent Christina Harris with regards to her idea and to the approximately 4,000 parents each year who through no fault of their own find themselves in similar circumstances?

[Justin Madders]

It was indeed a pleasure to meet the right hon. Member’s constituent Christina. She raised an important issue, which we know is not isolated. As he will know, a carer’s leave review is being undertaken, and that is probably the more appropriate forum for this issue, but I know that he will continue to campaign passionately on this matter and I look forward to that further engagement.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

May I first pay tribute to the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary, along with many others, for leading from the front on the importance of their role as fathers? I truly believe that paternity leave is the single most important area where the Government can improve the lives of families and women, too. I hope that we can get to providing six weeks’ paternity leave paid by the Government at 90% of pay. Employee support, though, will be critical to making that a success. Does the Minister agree that the review is an opportunity to engage and provide clarity to businesses on how to work with paternity leave and parental leave?

[Justin Madders]

One thing that has become clear, not particularly in relation to paternity leave but in relation to shared parental leave, is that employers often find it difficult to navigate the system, never mind the parents. We will be considering and looking at that as part of the review.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Only 3% of women surveyed by Maternity Action had no financial worries during the course of their pregnancy. Given how awful that statistic is, will the Minister commit to listening to people with lived experience and co-producing the outcomes of the review with them?

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Member makes an important point. We will of course be taking representations from all interested parties. A call for evidence is now live and will be up for a period of eight weeks, and we encourage any bodies that have important things to say to feed those in as part of the process.

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

Alongside the Government’s actions on increasing the provision of affordable, available and accessible childcare, I strongly welcome this review as a real step forward. Does the Minister agree that, for many, the complexities of the system form a real barrier to accessing it, and that for low-paid workers in particular the provision of unpaid leave makes it simply unaffordable? Will he give a commitment that the review will have at its heart true system accessibility so that people can take proper advantage of it and benefit along with their children?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend, as a new father himself, will know about the system. He rightly referred to the complexity of the system and the lack of availability and opportunity, particularly for those in low-paid occupations, as well as those who are not directly employed. Those are all things that we will be considering as part of the review.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is of course to be welcomed that the Government are looking at how best to support families of all shapes and sizes in the early weeks and months of a child’s life. I know that the Minister is aware that there is currently a gap for those who are self-employed looking to grow their family through adoption, because he and I have corresponded on the matter. I listened carefully to his comments. He talked about adoption and about self-employment, but I wonder whether he could give constituents like Kirsty from Marple the reassurance she is looking for that an explicit stream of this work will look at self-employed adopters, who currently do not get any financial support from the Government.

[Justin Madders]

As the hon. Member said, she has raised this very important point before. Having had some recent involvement in the adoption system myself, I understand that it does not really fit into the current rights system. It is important that we look at that in the round and, as I have mentioned, those currently excluded from the system altogether because they are self-employed or in some other working relationship that does not fit within the statutory parameters will also be considered.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I very much welcome the review. I think most people in the Chamber—with some exceptions—recognise that supporting families and children is in our national interest, and I am very pleased to hear the Government recognise that parental leave is just not enough right now, particularly for dads, and to give a commitment on that. I am concerned about the timescale for when we will be able to make progress on the issue and the implications for mothers, who may face more discrimination if they have protected rights and dads do not. Given that there is a general consensus that we need to do more to support fathers, will the Minister accept as a holding measure the amendment tabled in the Lords by Baroness Penn on introducing the Women and Equalities Committee’s recommendation to bring in by the end of the Parliament a right to six weeks’ parental leave for the second parent paid at 90% of salary, so that we can make a difference for every parent within this lifetime?

[Justin Madders]

If I was to accept specific recommendations at this point, that would be rather pre-empting the review, but I do hear the arguments that have been made. Obviously, the other place will decide how it wants to proceed with various amendments to the Employment Rights Bill—I just hope that it hurries up with it.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

May I add my voice to welcoming the review as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fatherhood? It is a step in the right direction in correcting a decade of Tory failure on this issue. The Tories thought that giving dads two weeks of paternity leave and allowing them to break it up into one-week chunks was progress.

I note that fathers were not in the four objectives announced by the Minister. Does he accept that we cannot achieve those four objectives without better paternity leave and pay? For example, we cannot achieve good physical and mental health of women after birth without addressing the rights of fathers and birthing partners. If he accepts that, will he agree to meet the APPG throughout the review?

[Justin Madders]

I am of course happy to meet the APPG as part of the review. The hon. Member said that there was no explicit reference to fathers in the four objectives, but I suggest that our general references to parents do include fathers. For example, the second objective is to support economic growth by enabling more parents to stay in work, and the fourth objective is to support parents to make balanced childcare choices that work for their family situation, including by enabling co-parenting. I believe that clearly addresses his point.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

As the father of twins, I saw the impact of that, with increased complexity from children being born early or with disability and the mental health aspects of leaving your loved one at home with multiples when you go back to work. In the wider review, could we look at the mental health aspects for mothers, particularly in cases of multiple births?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I have not considered whether there needs to be an additional approach for multiple births, but I am happy to see any evidence that he submits on behalf of that particular group as part of the review.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Everyone will know that I want to see life-affirming laws restored to the United Kingdom. Therefore, underpinning the birth of a child with adequate parental leave is of the utmost importance, given the important needs before and after birth. Will the Minister confirm that the review will look at the issue of premature births and at ensuring that mums and dads who are blessed to have a premmie baby are not disadvantaged? Will he also ensure that learning here is related to Northern Ireland and the devolved Assembly, so that it too can make progress in that regard?

[Justin Madders]

We of course want to work with all devolved nations on such important matters, and it is fair to say that we hope that any changes or improvements that are made are spread throughout the nation.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

welcome the review. We should also recognise that the journey to becoming a parent is not straightforward, with the equivalent of one child in every UK classroom born through IVF. As he knows, and as we have discussed, there are glaring gaps in employment law, with no statutory right to fertility treatment. Will the review look at that and recognise that sometimes we also need leave to become a parent?

[Justin Madders]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s comments and her long-standing campaign on the issue. IVF is much more commonplace than it was when these laws were originally introduced and the process of securing pregnancy in those situations is a very different issue. I am afraid that it is not part of the review because we are looking at what happens at the point of birth, but I am happy to continue to engage with her on the wider points.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

A key barrier for many women returning to the workplace after starting a family is the challenge of balancing work with feeding their child. There is a lack of facilities in many workplaces, with no provision for expressing or storing breast milk. Will the review consider improving provisions for breastfeeding parents and the need for individuals to be given breaks to do so?

[Justin Madders]

That is an interesting point that is slightly outside the scope of the review, because it is more about how people are dealt with in the workplace. This is really about ensuring that we have the structures in place to ensure that people can balance their parenting needs with the ability to carry on in work and make the most of those opportunities. However, I am happy to correspond with the hon. Lady on the matter because she raises an interesting point.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

As a supporter of The Dad Shift campaign, I wholeheartedly welcome this statement. One of my constituents told me that after the birth of both his children, his wife had complications. The first time around, he was able to take only two weeks off and then had to return to his 40-mile commute, leaving his wife to recover while caring for a newborn. The second time around, his employer had been bought out by a Belgian firm, so he was able to take far longer off to fully support his wife. Does the Minister agree that boosting paternity leave entitlement would go a long way towards closing the gender pay gap?

[Justin Madders]

I have met The Dad Shift and held an event in my constituency. The group puts forward an articulate case as to why paternity leave is falling down. I reflect on my own experiences some time ago. My first child was born before paternity leave was introduced—yes, I am that old—and my second was born after paternity leave had been enabled in law. The experiences were like chalk and cheese, and that speaks to the importance of enabling fathers to have some of that time off in those early, crucial weeks.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I welcome the review and, in particular, the fact that it will look at leave for kinship carers. The Minister knows that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have long campaigned for statutory paid leave for kinship carers, given their sacrifice and given how many fall out of the workforce when they take on those responsibilities. May I press him that within the 18-month timeline for the whole review, he might look to fast-forward kinship care leave? The economic case, both short and long-term, is so strong that, frankly, he ought to be able to move on that aspect quicker than some of the others he has to consider.

[Justin Madders]

I recognise the consistent campaigning on that particular issue and pay tribute to the work that kinship carers have done to take on those responsibilities. There is an articulate case made about their contribution to society as a whole. However, it would not be appropriate for us to short-circuit the review by dealing with particular groups; we need to look at the system as a whole. In fact, one of the deficiencies in the current system is that it has been built up piecemeal over many years and does not have the holistic approach that we are now seeking to introduce.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

It is 55 years—over half a century—since the Equal Pay Act 1970, yet women are still paid less than men. The phrase I read 20 years ago about childcare being “catastrophic for women’s careers” could still be quoted today. The Employment Rights Bill that this Government have brought forward ensures that businesses do not just publish their gender pay gap; they will now have to do something about it, with mandatory action plans. Will the Minister tell us how today’s parental leave review will help further reduce the gender pay gap and finally deliver equality for working women?

[Justin Madders]

May I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her consistent campaigning on this issue? She is right to point out that the Employment Rights Bill has important advances in that area. The review will also, I hope, have a positive impact on the gender pay gap. In particular, the review’s second objective is to ensure that we enable parents

“to stay in work and advance in their careers after starting a family”.

That will focus in particular on the women’s labour market and its outcomes, and of course on tackling the gender pay gap.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Today’s statement is positive and I thank the Minister for it. The fact that parents cannot share leave leaves a sense of there being one primary caregiver, which is not an accurate picture of most households in this day and age. Indeed, more than 50% of households in Northern Ireland are dual income, meaning that childcare needs are shared. Will the Minister and the Government, in the pilot scheme, consider ensuring that mothers and fathers can use the leave between them as needed, as opposed to the leave being used by one parent solely? Will he commit to that being part of the review?

[Justin Madders]

As always, it is a pleasure to hear from the hon. Gentleman. He raises an important point about how the current shared parental leave system is not working. We have seen that the percentage of people taking advantage of that is in the low single figures. We are aware of that and will be looking at it closely as part of the review.

[David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the review, as I know will families and dads in St Helens North. I am also sure that Jay White, who runs the Dad Matters organisation in St Helens, which supports new dads and is doing a great job, will warmly welcome it as well. With dads across the country and, as we have already heard, across the Chamber, I have been supporting The Dad Shift campaign, saying that two weeks are not enough. I know from personal experience, and from speaking to dads across St Helens, that it is not enough. Will the Minister confirm for the benefit of dads in St Helens North and elsewhere that the current state of paternity leave, including consultation with employers, will be a key focus for the review?

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify the current paternity leave measures as being of concern to fathers and, indeed, to all parents across the country. That will certainly be a large focus of the review.

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that, as well as being good for parents and for children, ensuring that dads are able to spend an appropriate amount of time off with their newborn children would be good for our economy, good for productivity and good for businesses too?

[Justin Madders]

Yes, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s proposition. Indeed, we have consistently said through the passage of the Employment Rights Bill that treating the workforce well, giving them proper support and ensuring security at work, is the way to prosperity in this country.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

Having raised with the Minister the need to do more on paternity and kinship leave in particular, I very much welcome today’s statement and the upcoming landmark review. I recently had the pleasure of hosting a number of parents at the Victoria pub in Hitchin to talk about the challenges caused by the current paternity leave framework. It was particularly heartbreaking to hear one man’s story. He was an expectant father and he talked about the impact it was already starting to have on him. Ahead of the birth, his wife was a high-risk case, so he was already having to take significant leave in advance of the birth. He was worried that this would deprive him of his ability to be there in those crucial days after the birth—with the family, with his child and with that new mum who would desperately need his support. That cannot be right, so can I invite the Minister to Hitchin to have a pint and speak to local parents about the impact that this review could have on cases such as this?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend certainly knows how to get me to attend a constituency—with the offer of a pint—and I look forward to taking him up on that. He has raised an important point about medical issues. Obviously, there have been some recent changes in neonatal leave and care, which is a huge step forward, but we ought to discuss pre-delivery issues further, so I look forward to having that pint and that conversation.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

In his statement, the Minister mentioned the very low level of take-up of shared parental leave. Would he agree that that is partly due to the gap in pay between men and women, and that if we can normalise paternity leave in our society, that will help to make sure that both mams and dads have equal pay?

[Justin Madders]

That is an important point, and I expect we will be examining it as part of the call for evidence. I referred to the work that Aviva has done in this area. That organisation has clearly seen a culture shift, whereby it is now completely normal and acceptable—indeed, it is encouraged—for both parents to take their share of leave. We can all take lessons from that.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I welcome today’s long overdue review of parental leave. The UK currently has among the lowest paternity leave in Europe, and that is not just a statistic; it is a real-life struggle for families up and down this country. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the review will look not only at the amount of leave but at the amount of salary provided during the period in order to protect those on the lowest wages? How will he go about ensuring that the voices of fathers, campaigning groups like the Dad Shift, and trade unions are heard in the review?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about the financial implications of this measure. Of course, we will engage with all the relevant organisations. The cost is important, and we have to balance the objectives we are trying to achieve with the cost to the Exchequer and to businesses. The review will be considering that in some detail.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement and the launch of the review. I recently held a dads’ drop-in event supported by the Dad Shift, where I heard from dads about examples of excellent employers doing the right thing, but also frustrations among the self-employed and those who run small and medium-sized enterprises about how complex and confusing the system can be. Can the Minister confirm that the voices of businesses of all sizes and of dads will be at the heart of this review? Also, can he give a message to his Government colleagues that Government Departments and organisations often lag behind the best of the employers in this country?

[Justin Madders]

This Government should be leading the way in these areas. If there are specific examples of where we can do better, I would be interested to discuss them with colleagues in other Departments. My hon. Friend is right to reference the complexity of these issues. We have heard that businesses, particularly small businesses, sometimes struggle to navigate all the paperwork, and that is something that the review will also be considering.

Draft Protection and Disclosure of Personal Information (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Protection and Disclosure of Personal Information (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mrs Hobhouse. The regulations are part of a secondary legislation programme implementing the reforms of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. Combating economic crime remains a priority for the Government. At the same time, it is crucial that we ensure that the UK lives up to its reputation as a country in which legitimate businesses can thrive. The reforms in the 2023 Act strike that balance. As the implementation of the 2023 Act continues at pace, I am pleased to present the Committee with these new regulations as part of the next wave of reforms.

As a quid pro quo for running a limited liability company, those controlling them have to register their details publicly at Companies House. That provides transparency for members of the public, so they can find out who those people are. At the same time, it means that the owners and controllers of the company can be held to account for the company’s affairs. However, the Government are conscious that by having personal information on the public companies register, individuals can be subject to increased risk of harm, including the risk of fraud and identity theft, and other matters such as stalking. The regulations aim to ensure that the register does not become a tool for abuse, and to strike the right balance between transparency and privacy.

Currently, it is possible for an individual to protect their residential address from the public register in certain limited cases. When I say protect, I mean that the register cannot display the addresses publicly. That does not mean that the address has gone away entirely; Companies House retains the address and can share it with those who have functions of a public nature, such as law enforcement, if required to do so.

The new regulations deliver another instalment of the reforms to enhance the protection of personal information on the register. They build on regulations that came into force on 27 January this year. The previous regulations expanded the circumstances in which an individual can apply to protect their residential address from the public register.

The regulations will expand that existing protection regime further still. They will allow individuals to apply to protect their business occupation, signature and date of birth. They will also make it possible to protect a residential address in even more cases than is already allowed. The only exceptions will be where it is not possible because the company names make it so, and in certain charge-related filings. That is because of the importance of those filings for due diligence purposes. The Government will keep those exceptions under review.

We believe that the reforms align with the Government’s mission to kick-start economic growth. They will encourage enterprise and entrepreneurship, giving prospective directors greater confidence that their personal information can be protected if they decide to start a company or accept an appointment as a director.

The regulations will also remove the requirement for certain community interests, company documents and statements of solvency to be signed. That means that those documents can be authenticated via printed name, bringing them in line with other company-related filings. By reducing the number of signatures on the public register, the measure will reduce misuse of the register for fraudulent purposes, including identity theft.

In addition, the regulations will remove the requirement for directors of overseas companies to provide a business occupation. As the 2023 Act will remove the requirement for UK company directors to provide their business occupation, the regulations ensure consistency with the requirements for overseas company directors.

Further, the regulations expand an existing protection mechanism for people with significant control. They can currently make an application to request that the registrar refrains from disclosing their usual residential address to a credit reference agency. The regulations allow a person with significant control over a company to make applications in more cases—for example, where they are at risk as a result of being a partner of a limited partnership. The regulations make other minor amendments to secondary legislation relating to people with significant control, which are applied to limited liability partnerships and eligible Scottish partnerships.

The regulations apply the changes that they make to company law to the law governing LLPs and unregistered companies, such as companies formed by royal charter. This will ensure that the framework for other entities aligns with that of standard companies.

I reiterate that the regulations strike the right balance between privacy and transparency. They mark a further step towards the successful implementation of the 2023 Act, and I therefore hope that the Committee will support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s support. As she rightly pointed out, we can all understand why this sort of issue is important—I am sure we all have constituents who have been affected by it—and she asked a series of perfectly reasonable questions.

We do not have in mind a specific period for processing applications. It will very much depend on the level of demand and whether the information is provided in the correct manner in the first place. I understand that, because a similar process has already been set up under previous regulations for certain circumstances in which people can remove their information, the systems are in place and there are staff ready to go. The people at Companies House have assured us that they are confident they will be able to manage the demand.

There will be a fee, and I understand that it is currently £30. Of course, Companies House can recover fees only on a cost-recovery basis, so there will be no element of profit making—it will simply cover overheads. I understand that there is a wider review of Companies House fees, which will clearly be informed by the progress of the roll-out.

The application itself is straightforward. It can be done via email or on paper, and must contain the information that the applicant wishes to protect and the list of documents. There will be no need for individuals to justify why they need the information to be removed from the Companies House register. If the correct information is provided, the process will be fairly straightforward. I understand that Companies House will issue guidance shortly on how the process will work.

On the wider point about how the changes will be communicated to individuals who are on the register, I will come back to the shadow Minister if there is any further information. I will also do the same if we are able to provide estimates of how many people the changes will protect. With fraud, criminals often take information from a number of sources, so it is about limiting the scope for fraudulent activity, but if we can put a number on it, we will certainly do that. A number of actions have already been taken to prevent incorrect information from being put on the register under the new powers in the 2023 Act.

That probably covers the bulk of the shadow Minister’s questions. I will write to her with more information if I can give any more detail. A lot of this relates to the processes and the internal workings of Companies House. We have confidence that the people there will be able to deal with the change, as they have undertaken similar projects recently. I thank Members for their support for the regulations and commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Companies House: Public Measures 2025-26

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

I have set Companies House the following measures for the year 2025 to 2026:

82% of customers are satisfied with Companies House.

All incoming calls into our contact centre wait for no longer than five minutes in the call queues, on average.



Digital services are available for a minimum of 99.5% of the time.

Deliver 4% efficiency, in comparison to 2024-25.



We will use our new powers to enforce the registrars’ objectives by taking action in relation to 150,000 companies.

Implement compulsory identity verification for all new directors and people of significant control and begin the transition period for existing directors and PSCs during the second half of the financial year. We will publish quarterly performance information, commencing from the mandatory period on both the number and the percentage of appointments that comply with identity verification.

[HCWS701]

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

20. What steps he is taking to help reduce employment costs for employers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

The Employment Rights Bill is the next phase of delivering our plan to make work pay. The Bill is both pro-worker and pro-business, and will see significant benefits for employers. For example, increased worker wellbeing could be worth billions of pounds a year. The Bill will also reduce workplace conflict, which, according to a report published by ACAS in 2021, costs employers around £30 billion a year. The Bill will level the playing field so that those employers who are engaged in good business practice are not forced into a race to the bottom.

[Harriet Cross]

Yesterday, Scotbeef announced the closure of its abattoir in Inverurie in my Gordon and Buchan constituency, with 90 job losses and another blow to agriculture in north-east Scotland. It blamed rising costs. In April the increase to national insurance contributions came in—a huge tax rise on businesses—and the Office for Budget Responsibility has shown that 109,000 jobs were lost in May, which was the highest monthly figure in five years. It cannot be a coincidence that that happened the month after the NICs increase. How is the Minister’s Department supporting businesses and jobs in sectors such as agriculture, which are having to deal with huge cost increases because of his Government’s decisions?

[Justin Madders]

I am very sorry to hear the news from the hon. Lady’s constituency. It is the case that 667,000 more people are in work compared with this time last year, and 300,000 fewer people are economically inactive. I am rather surprised that she mentions the national insurance hike, because the Leader of the Opposition was on the radio this morning and was repeatedly asked to confirm whether that hike would be reversed. She failed to do so, and it seems to me that the Opposition are in opposition to themselves.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

The Minister seems to be in denial. As a former entrepreneur, I visit lots of businesses in my constituency, and I talk to them about their fears. Not a single one has anything positive to say about the Employment Rights Bill—indeed, they are concerned that it will reduce employment, not increase it, and it has been estimated that it will increase costs by more than £5 billion. The Minister has been asked this before, so he has had a lot of time to think about it: can he name a single business that publicly supports the Employment Rights Bill?

[Justin Madders]

I can certainly name a number. I also refer the hon. Member to Hansard on Tuesday 11 March, column 953, where I named a small business. A number of other businesses have been in support: Centrica, Co-op, Richer Sounds, Nationwide, Adept, One+All, Pedal Me, Inkwell—there are many businesses that we talk to on a regular basis and that understand that treating staff well is a good thing for those businesses. It is a pro-growth, pro-worker measure.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

On 12 June 1996, a Conservative Minister stood at the Government Dispatch Box and said:

“Labour’s minimum wage would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs”.—[Official Report, 12 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 248.]

They were wrong then and they are wrong now. With particular focus on the Teesside region, what steps are the Government taking to bring more well-paid jobs to people to make sure they can spend more in our local economy?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there are so many echoes of the minimum wage debate, it is uncanny. As time has shown, the minimum wage has raised living standards in this country and it is something we are very proud to have implemented. We are looking to bring more investment across the economy. Recent surveys have shown that business confidence is increasing as a result of decisions made by this Labour Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) made clear earlier, the ONS statistics are very clear: 109,000 fewer on payroll in May alone and 276,000 fewer since the autumn Budget. As UKHospitality points out, the NICs changes were

“felt most intensely by foundational sectors like hospitality,”

which “necessitates an urgent review”.

My question to the Minister is simple: where will his red line sit? How many more jobs have to come off payroll before the Department for Business and Trade will stand up to the Treasury on this? Another 100,000? A million? Where is the line?

[Justin Madders]

Again, it is interesting that those on the Conservative Front Bench do not seem to be in agreement with their own leader any more about the national insurance hikes. I will just point out some statistics to the hon. Member: the International Monetary Fund has predicted that growth will increase this year and the Lloyds business barometer found that business confidence was up. We are putting money back into people’s pockets and investing in this country. We are doing things that the Conservatives failed to do for 14 years and that is why they are out of power.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

5. What steps his Department is taking to encourage small businesses to export.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

T6. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. A local manufacturer and a number of residents in my constituency have raised concerns that products, such as cosmetics or first aid kits, sold on e-commerce sites like Temu not only undercut local producers but may fail to meet high UK quality and safety standards. What is the Department doing to ensure that products sold by online retailers continue to meet high-quality UK trading standards?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question; she is absolutely right to raise it. UK product safety law is clear: all products must be safe before they are placed on the market. As she sets out, goods sold via online marketplaces are becoming a significant problem. That is why we introduced the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which will allow the introduction of clear obligations for e-commerce businesses, in order to ensure consumer safety and a level playing field. We intend to consult on product safety requirements for online marketplaces very shortly after Royal Assent.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

T7. Will the Secretary of State accept an invitation to engage with the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and trade unions on the Spirit negotiations, a joint venture to safeguard Northern Ireland jobs at Short Brothers, which will impact my constituents in Strangford?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Our farmers and growers can survive only if there is a functioning supply chain, but since the creation of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, they complain bitterly about continuing poor practice and the risk of de-listing. Does the Minister not agree that it is time to beef up this organisation, and to amalgamate it with the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator?

[Justin Madders]

We had a Westminster Hall debate last week in which a number of these issues were raised. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are undertaking our fourth review of the GCA. I encourage him and other hon. Members to contribute to it. We are considering the points made in that debate, and we will welcome any comments in the review.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the Dad Shift campaign organised hundreds of dads to come to Parliament to campaign for better paternity leave. Does the Secretary of State agree that better paternity leave can give dads more security to spend more time with their babies, support the development of children and help gender balance in the workplace? Will he tell the House whether the issue will be covered in the upcoming parental leave review?

[Justin Madders]

I am sorry that I was not able to meet the Dad Shift campaigners yesterday, although I have met them previously. I can assure them and the House that the Government are committed to ensuring that parents receive the best possible support to balance their work and home lives, and we recognise that parental leave and pay entitlements play a key role in that. We know that the leave system needs improving, which is why we are committed to conducting a review, which will look at paternity leave and pay and the length of leave available to fathers and partners. More detail on the review will be set out before the summer recess.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

The chief executive of UKHospitality estimates that there will be an extra £1 billion of costs on employers for new workers—774,000 of them—coming in to the national insurance contributions regime, on top of £2.4 billion in other costs. If, by the next Budget, it turns out that the previous Budget is crushing the hospitality sector, will the Government consider tax reliefs in order to power our hospitality industry?

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Justin Madders Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

And yet there have not been significant changes in Committee. I therefore recommend that the House supports our amendments in the Lobby this evening.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

I thank all hon. Members for contributing to the debate—my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), for Harlow (Chris Vince), for Erewash (Adam Thompson), the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the shadow Minister the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin). I will address many of the points they raised during the debate.

I welcome the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to her new role. I do not know whether it is a promotion or demotion, but I welcome her all the same. As always, it was a pleasure to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash and his great technical insight. Indeed, we have our own Professor Yaffle in his House—those of a certain age will know who I am referring to. His expertise was greatly appreciated in Bill Committee and again today.

Amendments 9, 11 and 12 would remove clause 1(1) from the Bill. Of course, that is the central power to keep consumers safe and our product regulations updated. As I said in Committee, our product regulation framework is extensive. We have hundreds of often technical regulations. Removing clause 1(1) would freeze our regulations in time. We would be unable to respond to new risks, products or business models. I cannot accept an amendment that would stop us from protecting consumers and businesses from product-related harm.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

The Minister talks about protecting consumers. That is exactly what new clause 2 would do by making them aware when a product gets smaller but the price remains the same—shrinkflation—so will he work with us and get that clause into law?

[Justin Madders]

I will address new clause 2 in due course. That is a more a consumer-related issue than a product safety one, but I understand the intent behind it.

We have heard a lot of concerns—many of them misplaced—about the breadth of powers contained within the Bill. In the other place, we did increase the measures that will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We removed several Henry VIII clauses and added a statutory consultation requirement. We also published a code of conduct, available in the Library of the House, which sets out exactly how the powers under the Bill will be used. I now believe the Bill strikes the right balance of appropriate parliamentary scrutiny without clogging up parliamentary time with highly technical product regulations. Gutting the Bill by removing the central power would leave consumers unprotected.

Amendments 10, 14 to 17, 25 to 29 and 32 all relate to EU law. I want to be absolutely clear yet again that the powers in the Bill give the UK the flexibility to manage its own product regulatory framework. Part of that is, of course, ensuring that the UK can respond to relevant developments in EU law. It does not mean that the UK is beholden to EU changes, and all regulations will be subject to Parliament’s oversight. I also wish to reassure the House that the Government remain committed to our obligations under the Windsor framework. The reason the Bill explicitly references the EU rather than other jurisdictions is that most of our product regulation is, of course, inherited from EU law. The UK continues to recognise certain EU product requirements—a policy that was, of course, enacted under the previous Government only 12 months ago.

The Bill’s powers allow us to continue or end such recognition based on the UK’s interests on a case-by-case basis. Decisions on whether to diverge or align will be made as they come along and will only be implemented by laying a statutory instrument in Parliament. Recognition of EU product requirements would be stated in UK law and could only be enforced by UK authorities. The Bill does not grant jurisdiction to foreign courts. I find amendment 15, which would prevent CE recognition, an odd amendment to be pushed by the Conservatives given that they introduced regulations only a year ago that did the absolute opposite.

New clauses 8, 14, 16 and 17 and amendments 13, 31 and 33 deal with themes of EU law, parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. These amendments duplicate the robust safeguards already in the Bill and the statutory and non-statutory controls that we have published in our code of conduct. Those include the statutory requirement for consultation and assessments under the better regulation framework. The Government value Parliament’s role in scrutinising legislation, so we will continue to consult all the devolved Governments as appropriate to ensure that regulations work for the whole of the UK.

Let me turn to amendments 1, 12, 18 and 30, on parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill as introduced already applied the affirmative procedure in key areas, including the creation of criminal offences—contrary to what has been said this afternoon—and amending primary legislation. However, in response to matters raised by the DPRRC, we have added additional areas, which are set out in clause 13(4). For the avoidance of doubt, I can confirm that the affirmative procedure applies to the following: the creation of criminal offences; the first use of regulations covering online marketplaces; the first time duties are imposed on a new supply chain actor; regulations conferring powers of entry, search or inspection; regulations to disapply requirements in response to an emergency; regulations covering the sharing of information between persons; regulations on cost recovery; regulations amending or repealing the Gun Barrel Proof Acts; consequential amendments to primary legislation; and regulations amending the definition of online marketplaces.

[Dr Gardner]

Does the Minister agree that online marketplaces should have a greater responsibility to ensure the safety and authenticity of the products they sell, just like a retailer on our high streets?

[Justin Madders]

I absolutely agree, and that is one reason why the Bill has been introduced. We absolutely need to keep up to date with developments in the online marketplace world, which is why we have introduced this legislation. It is not, as has been suggested, an unbridled use of powers; it sets out a clear set of principles and provides for the use of the affirmative procedure in most cases. There are already a number of regulations that will be transposed as they stand—there are about 2,500 pages of product regulations, including to do with noise levels emitted from certain types of machinery and the ergonomic design of personal protective equipment. Increasing the list of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure to cover such matters risks miring Parliament in a level of technicality that I think only my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash could follow. I do not think that is a good use of parliamentary time, and I believe the Opposition used to think that too, which is why the powers in the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which is similar to what we are dealing with today, remained in place under successive Governments.

I will deal now with new clause 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. She raised some important points, and I thank her for setting out the rationale behind her new clause so clearly. First, I reassure the House that we are not looking at the same level of regulatory change that was necessitated when we left the EU. We anticipate no more than half a dozen uses of the powers a year. That is because the fundamentals of the regulatory framework are already in UK law—thousands of pages, as I have referred to, and many of those provisions have been through previous scrutiny processes. The majority of future changes using the power in the Bill will be smaller and technical.

I recognise the concerns raised, though. When we were a member of the EU, directives enacting major regulatory changes were regularly transposed into UK law using the negative procedure. Our Bill contains many more safeguards than were in place before, meaning that the affirmative procedure will be used far more often, as I have set out. Careful consideration was given in the development of the powers to ensure that we struck the right balance between good use of parliamentary time and the processing of highly technical changes. We listened to the concerns raised by members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and went further, broadening the areas requiring scrutiny, as I have set out.

As Lord Pannick said, the practical reality is that technical regulations of the breadth and complexity that will be produced cannot sensibly be enacted by primary legislation. If we used primary legislation every time we wanted to do something on product safety, we would have little time for anything else. However, to provide maximum transparency in this space, we also published a code of conduct setting out the statutory and non-statutory guardrails in place before regulations can be made. That included a statement on how we will engage and consult with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that their views are considered. We will continue to review and update the code of conduct, and of course we will be happy to take suggestions on how we can be clearer about Parliament’s role in the scrutiny of regulations.

Given those assurances, I believe we have struck the right balance between scrutiny, the appropriate use of parliamentary time and the flexibility needed to keep our product and metrology regulations up to date. I hope that gives my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow some reassurances.

[Ms Creasy]

I thank the Minister for setting that out. It is incredibly helpful and reassuring to many of us to hear that in this instance just a handful of regulations would be affected. I hope that Business Ministers have heard the wider call for us to look at the issue across the piece; in fact, I am sure that the Minister will want to feed that in. What he said is very welcome and I am sure that all hon. Members who supported my new clause will be reassured accordingly.

[Justin Madders]

I am sure that Ministers across Government will have heard the important points that my hon. Friend has made today.

Amendment 7 on consumer protection could have unintended consequences as product safety is not one-dimensional; it requires consideration of multiple risks and consumer and business needs. For example, we are undertaking a significant programme of work considering furniture safety and the balance between fire risks and the possible effects of exposure to chemical flame retardants. Were the amendment adopted, we would be open to challenge by any interest groups unhappy with how regulations balance those factors. Indeed, when I gave that example in Committee, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson), said that it was a compelling reason for not accepting the amendment, so I hope the hon. Member for Richmond Park will not move that amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This Bill will help to preserve the United Kingdom’s position as a global leader in product regulation, supporting businesses, protecting consumers and ensuring a fair and level playing field across our economy, whether on the high street or on online marketplaces. It is designed to future-proof our approach to product regulation and metrology, ensuring that we can respond effectively to emerging technologies, tackle modern-day safety challenges and create the conditions for safe innovation and sustainable economic growth. By strengthening the system that underpins confidence in our goods market, we are reinforcing one of the core pillars of a productive and competitive economy.

As hon. Members will know, the majority of the UK’s product safety and metrology laws have their roots in EU legislation developed over the past 40 years. That framework served us well in many respects, but, of course, we have left the European Union, so we have a responsibility and an opportunity to tailor our rules to the UK’s own needs, circumstances and ambitions.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

We have heard arguments today, as we did in Committee, that this measured Bill is some mysterious route back into the EU. Does the Minister agree that, far from discovering a Trojan horse, the Opposition are trying to flog a dead one and that their arguments have been made up on the hoof?

[Justin Madders]

I give my hon. Friend 10 out of 10 for ingenuity. I have heard so many references to horses during the passage of the Bill that at times I felt I was at the Aintree racecourse. We can be clear that the Bill will not lead to dynamic alignment by default.

[Chris Vince]

We have heard a lot of myths about the Bill. The other myth that has been parroted is that the Bill will see the end of the great British pint. Does the Minister agree that actually it secures the great British pint? I look forward to enjoying one with him in the next few months.

[Justin Madders]

Indeed, the Bill does secure the great British pint; thanks to an amendment in the other place, it will hopefully be enshrined in law. I look forward to joining my hon. Friend in enjoying one at some point in the not-too-distant future.

The pace of change in both consumer behaviour and product innovation is only accelerating. From connected devices and artificial intelligence to new materials and manufacturing methods, the nature of risk and regulation is constantly shifting. We must ensure that our regulators are equipped with the right tools to act quickly and proportionately so that we can both manage and harness the hazards and the economic potential of new technologies. The Bill provides the powers to do just that. It gives Parliament the ability to update and strengthen product regulation and legal metrology in a coherent, consistent way.

[Adam Thompson]

Does the Minister agree that the Bill is instrumental in keeping the UK at the forefront of science internationally?

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—he has certainly got the measure of this Bill. [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] I will not give up the day job—and we will not have a Division on that, either.

This is a framework that supports businesses by reducing unnecessary burdens, supports consumers by keeping dangerous goods off the market and supports the UK economy by making our regulatory system more agile, more responsive and more transparent. In short, the Bill will help to ensure that every product on the UK market, whether made in the United Kingdom or imported from abroad, meets the expectations of safety, fairness and quality that the public rightly demand.

[Gareth Snell]

The Minister rightly points out that the Bill will allow for new regulations to come on board to keep us safe, but the safety element of that comes about through the enforcement of those new rules. Can he say a little about the conversations happening across Government to ensure that our enforcement agencies are properly resourced to enforce the new regulations that are so vital?

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will be primarily responsible for enforcement at the local level, but the Bill also increases the powers of local trading standards to enforce measures.

The Bill affects the whole of the UK. We have worked closely and constructively with devolved Governments on policy development through regular engagement and throughout the Bill’s passage at both ministerial and official level. I therefore thank the devolved Governments, Ministers and their teams for working so constructively with us.

In Committee, we tabled an amendment that placed a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the devolved Governments where regulations contain provisions within their devolved competence. We believe that provides for the most effective and appropriate role for the devolved Governments in a way that respects the individual devolution settlements. I am pleased to report that the Senedd passed a legislative consent motion for the Bill yesterday. I have also had constructive discussions with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and both have recommended legislative consent to their respective legislatures. We will continue to work collaboratively with those bodies to develop product regulation that best supports businesses and consumers across the whole of the UK.

I will provide a quick recap of some of the changes made to the Bill by the Government since it was introduced last year, in addition to the devolution amendment, because there has been some misconception about what the Bill does and does not do. We have added a statutory consultation mechanism to ensure that stakeholders can shape product and metrology regulations. We have extended the affirmative procedure to parts of the Bill to further boost parliamentary scrutiny; for the avoidance of doubt, they are detailed in clause 13(4). The affirmative procedure therefore now applies to: the creation of criminal offences; the first use of regulations covering online marketplaces; the first time duties are imposed on a new supply chain actor; regulations conferring powers of entry, search or inspection; regulations to disapply requirements in response to an emergency; regulations covering the sharing of information between persons; regulations on cost recovery, which I have already referred to in my response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central; regulations amending or repealing the Gun Barrel Proof Acts; regulations on consequential amendments to primary legislation; and regulations amending the definition of online marketplaces. As Members will be aware from the responses on Report, there were a number of reasons that we want flexibility with regard to online marketplaces, which we believe will develop in ways that we cannot predict.

I can confirm that aviation safety products are exempted from the Bill as they are covered in existing legislation.

The Government have published a code of conduct that sets out the statutory and non-statutory guardrails to ensure that regulation made under this legislation is proportionate and well designed. It is also worth addressing the criticism that this is a skeletal Bill and pointing out that the proportion of skeletal Bills tripled in 2016-2023 compared with 1991-2015. Indeed, in the former period, some 19 separate Bills were described as skeletal by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that, far from being a skeletal Bill, this legislation provides an adaptable framework for product regulation and consumer safety?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is right; indeed, this goes well beyond the measures in place when we were in the EU when it comes to parliamentary involvement. I will briefly refer to contributions made by hon. Members during the passage of the Bill.

I thank my counterpart in the other place, Lord Leong, for shepherding the Bill through the Lords, with support from Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I also thank the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, who has been alongside us throughout the passage of this Bill in the Public Bill Committee. The hon. Members for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for Chippenham and for Richmond Park, who represented the Liberal Democrats in Committee and in the Chamber, are a trio that we will never forget. I hope that the short passage of this Bill is not a reflection of the high turnover in Liberal Democrat spokespeople—they have engaged with the Bill in a constructive manner.

I thank hon. Members who engaged in the Bill Committee and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz), who chaired that Committee with great expertise. It is probably worth mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central again. He has championed the ceramics industry both today and on Second Reading, and we recognise his great contributions.

Finally, I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), who, as the first elected metrologist to this House, has brought a deeply technical and knowledgeable perspective to our debates, which we all appreciate—although I do not think we could ever be asked to take a quiz on the finer details of his work.

[Adam Thompson]

On that point, could the Minister elaborate on how the Bill supports the advancement of British science?

[Justin Madders]

I suspect that my hon. Friend would be far better at doing that himself. His speech on Second Reading was a fantastic example of how we explain legislation matters and practice. It is important that we have certainty and consistency in how we measure things and that we have a clear legislative framework for the measurements that underpins all science. He gave us a historical sweep of those issues when he spoke on Second Reading.

It is important for me to pass on my gratitude to all those officials who have supported us in the passage of the Bill, as well as the parliamentary staff who have enabled it to come through swiftly and smoothly. It will return to the other place for consideration of the amendments we have made in this place, and I am confident that—in the spirit of constructive scrutiny and co-operation that has characterised its progress so far—it will continue on its way. This legislation is an important step in strengthening our domestic regulatory regime and ensuring that it is robust, future-facing and fit for purpose in a post-Brexit economy. I look forward to working with colleagues in the other place to ensure that the Bill finally reaches the statute book as swiftly as possible.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.