Employment Rights Bill

Justin Madders Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Member has probably wilfully misinterpreted what I said. I am talking about the right for individuals to be represented by a trade union or by a qualified professional from another domain, such as a qualified lawyer.

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

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman—we are missing him already.

[Justin Madders]

I am glad to be back.

The shadow Secretary of State just talked about legal fees for firms when it comes to defending tribunal cases. If the right to be accompanied is expanded to include lawyers, the response of firms will be, “We had better get a lawyer too”, and that will just put up costs, will it not?

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Member has done a great deal of work on the Bill, and it is a great shame that he was cut short in his prime, but with respect the point is about choice for the individual. In many cases, the long-standing right will be to be represented by a trade union, but it could also be a mediator or a qualified professional in any other domain. The point is not to extinguish that choice, which is absolutely—he will know this—what the amendment would do. The Bill—from a Government who in too many domains are now tolerant of a two-tier system—creates a two-tier system for workers’ rights.

Lords amendment 1 is a typical example of where the Government do not understand or have failed to listen to businesses, particularly hospitality and seasonal businesses. What started as an attempt to ban zero-hours contracts has morphed into a chain around the necks of both employers and workers. The Government will no doubt cry about unintended consequences when the time comes, but I can tell them now that the consequences will be clear, and a cacophony of business groups such as UK Hospitality, the British Retail Consortium and the Federation of Small Businesses have explained this precisely to them. I gently say that if the Government feel so strongly about zero-hours contracts, the best way of putting their own house in order would be to start with tackling precisely those that operate in the armed forces reserves.

Lords amendment 48 would protect the countless businesses across the country that rely directly on seasonal work. From the coasts of Devon and Cornwall to Great Yarmouth, and from the Secretary of State’s and my own county of Sussex to Ayrshire, there are millions of workers employed in seasonal industries. Seasonal work often takes place in communities that are heavily reliant on tourism, both foreign and domestic, and that are competing in a competitive international market. The Government have already taken an axe to the hospitality and retail industries with the removals of relief. The amendment would be a very good way of going in some direction to support them.

In opposing Lords amendment 49, the Government are showing their commitment to ignore small business above all others. The Secretary of State says that he wants to listen to businesses, and I take him at his word, but why then oppose this amendment, which would codify precisely that? Countless small business will have a real challenge in dealing with this Bill, which is now 330 pages of red tape. Why on earth would the Government put their Members through the Lobby to oppose listening and consulting with small businesses?

We support Lords amendment 60, which has cross-party support, at the behest of millions of those who enjoy heritage railway attractions. If the Secretary of State has not yet made it to the Amberley museum, which is not that far from his constituency—[Interruption.] He knows of it? Well, he is welcome to come and visit and listen to how the volunteers who are gaining valuable experience will be affected.

I am perplexed about why the Government are so opposed to Lords amendment 46 on the protection of whistleblowers. It is genuinely confusing. Time and again Ministers on both sides of this House have come to the Dispatch Box to talk about Government scandals. We have seen brave people in organisations try to speak up and raise their concerns, only to have them dismissed. The Government claim that the Bill is about workers’ rights yet seem to have zero interest in protecting workers who try to reveal serious problems in the private and public sectors. I urge all colleagues to read that for themselves and to make up their own minds on where they think the right place to be is. Good luck to those who vote against that entirely reasonable amendment, which would protect people who do the right thing, and then have to try to explain to their constituents why they did so.

--- Later in debate ---

These are reasonable amendments. The Bill has had a great deal of scrutiny in the other House. I believe the Secretary of State is sincere in wanting growth in our economy and showing business that he does understand it, but rather than reading out the script that officials wrote for him, he ought to be standing up and talking about the amendments that he will support. The Opposition will always act in the national interest, which is why we will support the Lords amendments.

[Justin Madders]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes an election donation from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and my membership of the Unite and GMB unions.

I welcome the Bill’s return to the House and the opportunity to consider the amendments made in the other place. I also welcome the new Secretary of State to his place and thank him for his kind words. I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to her ministerial position—undoubtedly the best job in Government—and wish her every success in that role. I know that she will be a champion for workers and that she will be committed to introducing the “make work pay” agenda in full, as we promised in our manifesto.

I am speaking a few rows back from where I had expected to be today. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned getting a short-notice cancellation payment—I am afraid that has not winged its way to me yet. However, I am delighted to be speaking in any capacity, because this Bill really is what a Labour Government should be delivering on. I was able, alongside my right hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), to take the new deal for working people—a policy programme carefully developed in opposition—and turn it into legislation that was laid before the House within 100 days of taking office, as we promised we would. While I started my ministerial role as I ended it—fired with enthusiasm—my hopes for the meaningful change that the Bill can deliver remain undimmed.

That we are here entering the Bill’s final stages is testament to the hard work and dedication of those who developed the policy programme both in opposition and in government. I place on record my thanks to those in the Department for Business and Trade who helped shape those manifesto commitments into the Bill. I also pay tribute to Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, who did a sterling job of guiding the legislation through the other place amid intense scrutiny and opposition, which of course we will talk about.

I will not go through every Lords amendment; I will just pick out a few of those I consider to be most damaging and undermining of the intentions that we set out in our manifesto about how we will rebalance the workplace to make it work for ordinary people. First, Lords amendment 1 completely undermines the principle, set out in our manifesto, of banning exploitative zero-hours contracts. The amendment would water down the commitment we gave to provide workers with an offer of a guaranteed-hours contract to a right to request guaranteed hours.

There has long been a misunderstanding—perhaps a wilful misunderstanding—of how the policy operates. It does not prevent those who want to remain on zero-hours contracts from continuing to do so, and neither does it prevent employers from hiring seasonal workers. It simply provides the opportunity for those who want certainty about the hours they work, week to week and month to month, to have guaranteed hours. We understand that not everyone will take advantage of that, but it might just be a lifeline for those who struggle to balance fixed costs such as bills, housing and childcare by taking out the stress of the potential variations that we see so often in zero-hours contracts at the moment. This is a very good thing for the Government to be doing, because one of the key principles in the Bill is the need to restore security and dignity at work, which would be damaged by the amendment.

I understand that the noble Lords argued that the wording of the amendment would prevent employers from rejecting guaranteed-hours requests. It is presented as a reasonable compromise that achieves the same outcome, maintaining workers’ rights to guaranteed hours while removing the employer’s requirement to make offers. I disagree with that analysis. It shifts the right from one that is passively applied to one that has to be actively invoked by workers. This means that an individual would have to know their rights and have the confidence to approach their employer in order to benefit from them.

As the Secretary of State said, those working on zero-hours contracts are some of the least empowered workers in this country, their contracts are inherently precarious, and those working on them are more likely to be younger, working part time and in low-paid sectors. There are plenty of examples out there of how the allocation of hours has been used by management as a tool of control and, in some cases, a tool of abuse. The Bill already sets out a number of anti-avoidance measures, because we know that that massive power imbalance has to be addressed, and this amendment would fatally undermine all that good work.

I have similar concerns about Lords amendments 6 and 7, which seek to impose 48 hours as a reasonable notice period. If passed, these amendments would remove any chance for workers or employers to make representations in a consultation process, and instead force an arbitrary cut-off of 48 hours. Throughout my time as a Minister, we were committed to consulting widely on changes and incorporating the feedback we received into our approach. I remember the Conservatives complaining during the original passage of the Bill that we were not consulting enough, yet now they lend their support to amendments that would chop that consultation off entirely.

That said, I must welcome the comments from Opposition Front Benchers in the other place, who indicated that they supported the principle of compensation for cancelled or curtailed shifts. I note that Lord Hunt of Wirral said:

“We are fully in agreement that workers deserve reasonable notice of shifts. That is a fair and modern expectation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 2025; Vol. 847, c. 1612.]

Quite how that fits with the Tory pledge to scrap the entire Bill, I do not know. Of course, it is to be expected, as night follows day, that they will object to measures that improve the rights of working people, but that would mean scrapping things that I thought even they supported, including ending non-disclosure agreements for victims of sexual harassment, a new right for bereavement leave for those who have suffered a pregnancy loss, and finally an end to fire and rehire, which they did so much to condemn while in government but did nothing of substance to deal with. That is the Conservative position on this, and it is something that the British people will completely and wholeheartedly reject.

Lords amendment 23 relates to unfair dismissal, which is something I know rather a lot about. It seeks to impose a six-month qualifying period for unfair dismissal rights rather than day one rights, which everyone on the Labour Benches has campaigned for. This is another brazen attempt by the other place to remove a clear manifesto commitment. I and other Labour Members were elected on a mandate to introduce basic rights, including unfair dismissal rights, from day one. How can we allow people who essentially have a job for life to prevent millions of people in this country from getting basic employment protections on day one? It is fundamentally wrong that workers can currently be treated so disposably, and that they can be dismissed arbitrarily with no legal recourse for two years. This is about fairness. A worker deserves to be treated with dignity, fairness and respect, no matter how long they have worked for an employer.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for the work that he has done and that the Department continues to do on this. One of the interesting things about this provision is that, in 2013, the Conservatives changed the period from 12 months to 24 months. They increased the amount of time that people were in an insecure position in the workplace. It is essential that we support working families and working people, so does he agree that this is absolutely the right step forward?

[Justin Madders]

I certainly do. In my conversations with employers, I did not come across any who were prepared to defend the status quo of a two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal, because they recognise that is an awfully long time to be in employment without any protection at all.

The Government are sensitive to concerns about hiring, however, and we have included provisions in the Bill to establish a statutory probationary period during which an employee’s performance and suitability can be established, and a lighter-touch dismissal procedure will apply during that time. This will mean that, to coin a phrase, if a new hire is not working out, an employer will be able to follow a lighter-touch procedure to dismiss them fairly. But crucially, there will still have to be a process; there cannot be an arbitrary dismissal without explanation, as happens far too often now.

We know that recruiting someone is an expensive and time-consuming business, if it is done properly, so why would we not expect the same care and attention to be put into determining whether someone had a future in the business at all? This country, to our shame, has one of the least regulated approaches to dismissal protection in the OECD, leaving an estimated 9 million workers vulnerable to dismissals without protections. How can someone plan their life, make financial commitments and so forth if they can be sacked at the drop of a hat? We believe that this must change. People deserve greater security and dignity at work, and they deserve to be treated fairly, not just as disposable commodities.

This Bill strikes the right balance, and although much of the detail is to be determined by consultation and regulations—I will come back to that later—it sends an important message that we will not accept the race to the bottom any more and that dignity and security at work start from day one. That is the lodestone of what a Labour Government should be about.

I am delighted that the Bill is on track to become law in a matter of weeks. It is a landmark piece of legislation that will end the race to the bottom and provide the biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation. We on the Labour side have long been clear that it will benefit everyone across the country. It will be good for workers and it will be good for businesses.

Passing this Bill is not, of course, the end of the matter. There is so much more that needs to be done outside the Bill, particularly on finally ending the industrial-scale exploitation that is bogus self-employment. We cannot have a Bill that massively increases protections for millions of people at work but fails to address the growing scandal of a deliberate manipulation of the law to deny people the same basic protections. Over the coming years, there will be a range of secondary legislation, codes of practice and guidance issued to implement the Bill’s provisions. I wish the new Minister every success in working through and navigating the 80 or so statutory instruments that will be needed to ensure that the Bill is implemented in full and that we stick to the road map that was published earlier in the summer. I welcome the Secretary of State’s comment that the road map remains in place in full.

However, given the volume and complexity of all this—the details of the consultations, the scope of the regulations, the language in the codes of practice and even the commencement dates—it goes without saying that there are plenty of opportunities for those who do not want to see workers’ rights improved in this country to chip away at the strong baseline that the Bill represents, and of course it is far easier to do that in some stuffy Committee Room away from the main Chamber. I do not think that is the Minister’s intention, but I am not sure that everyone shares our enthusiasm for improving the rights of millions of working people, so we will all be looking at this closely and encouraging the Minister to keep to our manifesto commitments that we all believe so strongly in.

On that point, I know how enthusiastic Labour Members are about the Bill, and how enthusiastic many of the people we represent are about it, so let us see that enthusiasm replicated across the whole of Government. What better way to demonstrate that we are still the party of working people, and what better way to show that democratic politics can still make a difference than by championing the many ways that this Bill will improve people’s lives? From the shop worker on a zero-hours contract who for the first time will have a right to guaranteed hours, to the social care assistant whose voice will finally be heard through a national negotiating body, to the warehouse operative who will be able to have a trade union collectively bargain on their behalf, this Bill can be the antidote to the politics of division and despair. Let us not be timid in our backing of improved employment rights. Let us not apologise for at last restoring balance to the workplace. Let us be confident, and committed to all the good things the Bill can achieve, and let us shout them from the rooftops.

This Bill is Labour at its best. It shows us what can be done when the broadest experiences and the voices of our movement are harnessed together to deliver change. I am proud that I played my part in that, and I will do all I can to ensure that we deliver on the promises we made to the British people to truly make sure that work pays.

Draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025 Draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025 Draft Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 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 Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025 and the draft Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

[Justin Madders]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.

This set of regulations is part of the Government’s secondary legislation programme implementing the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which I will refer to hereafter as the 2023 Act. The 2023 Act is a crucial tool in supporting the Government’s aim to combat economic crime, improve corporate transparency and increase trust in the UK’s business environment. It delivers the most significant reforms to Companies House in more than 180 years. It was brought in by the previous Government, but we are pleased to carry on implementing its provisions. Companies House has already made significant progress in implementing the reforms since the 2023 Act became law, including by removing false and misleading data. For example, from 4 March 2024 to 31 July 2025, Companies House removed 113,300 registered office addresses, 88,000 officer addresses and 71,000 PSC—persons with significant control—addresses.

April this year saw Companies House launch its identity verification service. Hundreds of thousands of individuals have already successfully verified their identities. Reaching that major milestone has ensured that both customers and Companies House are ready for the introduction of mandatory identity verification in November. Identity verification is the centrepiece of the Companies House reforms. The statutory instruments before the Committee today will support the delivery of identity verification, and include other technical reforms that relate to the PSC framework.

First, the draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025 apply several of the reforms to companies contained in the 2023 Act to limited liability partnerships, or LLPs. In particular, the instrument introduces identity verification for LLP members and PSCs, and prohibits disqualified directors from acting as an LLP member. It removes the requirement for LLPs to keep their own local registers of members and PSCs. Going forward, LLPs will report their member and PSC information directly to Companies House. Extending company reforms to LLPs ensures that the law applies equally across different corporate entities. Not only will that minimise opportunities for LLPs to be misused by criminals; it will ensure that both LLPs and their customers benefit from a more transparent and reliable business environment.

The draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025 are largely technical, and will ensure the smooth implementation of key elements of the 2023 Act. The instrument makes necessary consequential amendments to primary and secondary legislation following the removal of the requirement for companies and other entities to retain their own local registers of directors, secretaries and PSCs. Instead of those local registers, there will be only one central register at Companies House. Searchers will therefore be able to rely on a centralised Companies House register as the definitive version.

The draft regulations will also introduce provisions to support the roll-out of identity verification through the mandation of unique identifiers. These codes are generated for each verified individual, and will be used to prove an individual’s verified identity status. Not proceeding with the instrument would mean that crucial parts of the Companies House reform package would not be able to operate properly. The draft regulations will ensure that the legislative framework is consistent, and prevent references to repealed provisions from persisting in law.

Finally, I move to the draft Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025. This instrument makes technical amendments to the PSC regime, the Companies Act 2006 and the Register of People with Significant Control Regulations 2016. It ensures that certain important information relating to PSCs, including additional matters that were previously recorded in local registers, is now reported to Companies House. These changes will maintain the completeness and accuracy of the PSC information on the register.

I highlight that the explanatory memorandum to this instrument contained a small error when initially published: paragraph 5.3 referred to the Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025 by the wrong title. I am sure that Members were about to intervene on me on that point. I confirm that it has now been corrected.

I stress that all these regulations are needed to make the UK a safer and more transparent place to do business. Businesses, the regulated sector and other users of the company register will benefit from more accurate and reliable data to inform their transactions. I commend the draft regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I welcome the shadow Minister back after the summer recess. It is a little disturbing—discombobulating, possibly—to hear the Opposition arguing against legislation that they introduced when they were in government, although it is not the first time, I suppose. I think that there was cross-party agreement in the previous Parliament that it is important to clamp down on economic crime by ensuring the integrity of the Companies House register and that it is accurate and up to date.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I share my hon. Friend’s discombobulation. I had a career in countering financial crime before entering this place. Shell companies are rampant, and Companies House needs these powers. Ultimately, when it comes to fraudulent claims against the public purse, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and others across the public realm are all dependent on Companies House reform. Director identity verification is necessary and proportionate, and as my hon. Friend said, it is discombobulating that the Opposition oppose it.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I think that is now three references to “discombobulating”. That is quite a record for this early in September. Members have been pretty clear about the value of this legislation and the draft regulations that we are debating today, and it is disappointing that we have heard them wrapped up in an argument about red tape.

The Companies House data is currently valued by business users—the people who actually invest in business in this country—at between £1 billion and £3 billion a year. It is a hugely important tool for investors and other businesses to understand the business environment, so the reliability of that data is paramount. These reforms will ensure that people know who they are dealing with, that those people’s identities have been verified, and that we do not have the plethora of fake companies that have been set up on the register in recent years. We all know the consequences of that.

The shadow Minister mentioned enforcement, and made reference to the burdens on it. The Insolvency Service is generally responsible for any prosecutions under the legislation, but between September 2024 and August 2025, 99% of the entities that were required to record a PSC did so correctly at incorporation. It is quite often the case that those that have not responded are not doing so because the companies simply are not active any more and have been taken off the register.

Part of the new landscape is that the fees that are charged by the various bodies for registering are meant to be on a cost-recovery basis, and the number of fines issued and prosecutions pursued are part of that overall landscape. It is important that there is proportionate but effective enforcement. The shadow Minister asked what we will be doing in terms of outcomes. We will certainly expect Companies House to do regular reports on the numbers of companies that have incorporated, and where there are issues with people not providing IDV or details of the PSC. I have given some further information about progress to date, but when the full system goes live in November, I fully expect Companies House to provide regular updates to Members about progress on that. On that note, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT ECONOMIC CRIME AND CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT 2023 (CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) REGULATIONS 2025 

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025.—(Justin Madders.)

DRAFT REGISTER OF PEOPLE WITH SIGNIFICANT CONTROL (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2025 

Resolved, 

That the Committee has considered the draft Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025. —(Justin Madders.)

Product Regulation and Metrology Act

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Written Statements

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

The Product Regulation and Metrology Act (the Act) received Royal Assent on 21 July 2025. The Act will preserve the UK’s status as a global leader in product regulation, supporting businesses and protecting consumers.

The powers set out in section 1(1)(a) of the Act allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that seek to reduce or mitigate the risks presented by products. Section 1(4) of the Act sets out that, for the purposes of the Act, a product presents a risk if, when used for the purpose for which it is intended or under conditions which can reasonably be foreseen, it could:

endanger the health or safety of persons;

endanger the health or safety of domestic animals;

endanger property (including the operability of other products); or

cause, or be susceptible to, electromagnetic disturbance.

Section 1(5) of the Act requires the Secretary of State to make a statement setting out the process relating to the identification and assessment of risks in products.

Today I have published an overview of the product risk identification and assessment process that I would expect to be followed. This can be found in the updated product safety code of conduct, which sets out the legislative and non-legislative safeguards around the UK’s product safety framework, including the use of the powers in the Act. The annex entitled “Risk identification, assessment, and response” explains the process of identifying and assessing risks, as well as consideration of regulatory and non-regulatory responses. The code of conduct will be kept under review and updated as appropriate to reflect any future changes or updates to the safeguards. The updated code of conduct is available on gov.uk and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS881]

UK Internal Market

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd 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, Dr Huq. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), for giving me ample time to respond to the many issues that have been raised. He may be keen to take a phone call as a result of the shadow Cabinet reshuffle; maybe there is a promotion or relegation in the offing. I know that he has been keenly checking his messages all afternoon.

[Andrew Griffith]

You’re stuck with me.

[Justin Madders]

He is staying in place.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) on securing this debate. He referred to not having a great deal of luck in applying for debates; perhaps he is right that he has not faced as much competition because this is the last day before recess. But he is also right that this is an important issue. Given the number of Members here today, there are clearly things that people wished to raise. I want to address as many of the points as I can in the time that I have. If I do not get around to all of them, I will ensure that the relevant Minister responds.

I start by stating the current position. In January, we announced that we were reviewing the UK internal market, a move that would be quicker and broader than was required in statute. We published a public consultation on the operation of the UK Internal Market Act 2020, and at the outset of the consultation the Government made it clear that they would not repeal any part of the Act, as it contains important provisions relating to the Windsor framework and the unfettered access of qualifying Northern Ireland goods to Great Britain. It is important that we have that in the back of our minds when debating these issues.

Upholding Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market was a key manifesto commitment, and we are determined to fulfil it. At the time, the Government stated that they were not minded to weaken the protections offered by the market access principles in the Act. Those protections facilitate the free movement of goods, provision of services and recognition of professional qualifications, resulting in real benefits for businesses and people across the whole of the UK.

We recognise, however, the concerns—and hear them again today—about how the UK internal market has been operating in practice, particularly for businesses. The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lothian East (Mr Alexander), made a written ministerial statement to the House last week with the Government’s response to the review and the public consultation. The review made clear that businesses across all sectors strongly support the UK Internal Market Act’s market access principles to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade.

[Jim Allister]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justin Madders]

If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mind, I have an awful lot of responses to get into, so I will not eat into that time with interventions.

The Department has been very much guided by businesses in developing the response to the review and the consultation, and in designing the changes and improvements we will make. We also believe that growth and prosperity are supported by devolution—a belief no doubt shared by hon. Members here. The outcome of the UK Internal Market Act review has been carefully crafted to ensure that unnecessary barriers to trade do not arise within the UK, while maximising the scope to realise the benefits of devolved decision making.

We want to work with the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure that businesses and the Office for the Internal Market are more involved in discussions about the management of the UK internal market. We are confident that the changes we announced in our response to the review represent a more balanced and proportionate approach to managing the UK internal market than that pursued by the previous Government.

Our approach seeks to avoid the imposition of unnecessary new costs on businesses, while respecting devolved competence. Those reforms are part of our broader plan for change, which has shaped both the UK’s trade strategy and industrial strategy to make the UK the best place to do business, while respecting devolved powers and delivering prosperity across the nations. We are keen to work with devolved Government Ministers to implement those improvements as soon as possible and put in place the necessary changes to the UK internal market in an effective way for the benefit of all our citizens.

Hon. Members have spoken passionately, as we would expect, about the Windsor framework. I hope it goes without saying that this Government are wholly committed to the Windsor framework. It forms part of the withdrawal agreement between the UK and the European Union, and it supports the peace and prosperity brought about by the Good Friday agreement—one of the proudest achievements of the previous Labour Government. It also plays a vital role in ensuring the smooth flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is why we supported the Windsor framework in opposition, and we continue to support it in government.

I recognise that the framework does not operate perfectly for everyone. Concerns raised by hon. Members today show that there is more to do in this area, but more than 10,000 traders have now signed up to the UK internal market scheme, and more than 1,100 operators are registered for the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme and Northern Ireland plant health label. Indeed, Northern Ireland is now one of the UK’s fastest-growing regions.

We also recognise the importance of ensuring that the right advice and guidance is available to businesses when they need it. We will continue to work on those issues. I heard what was said about the Federation of Small Businesses survey. We will speak to the federation and work with it moving forward—there were some pretty damning critiques from hon. Members today about what that survey found.

Our own surveys have found that customer satisfaction with the trader support service is running at 90%, so there is a significant disconnect between what our surveys are finding and what the survey from the Federation of Small Businesses has discovered. HMRC trade statistics published on 17 July showed that 11,400 businesses were associated with Great Britain and Northern Ireland customs processes in 2024. That was actually up 200 on the number for the previous year. I therefore suggest that the picture is not quite as apocalyptic as has been suggested by Members today, but we want to understand some more detail about why that survey showed such dissatisfaction with the current arrangements.

In taking forward commitments made in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper last year, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has established the new body Intertrade UK. That body is independently looking at promoting trade across the whole of the UK, and at how we can guide and encourage businesses to trade more, invest more and grow more.

It is also important that we take the opportunity to look ahead at the broader benefits that businesses across the UK will yield from the common understanding that we are taking forward with the EU. This new partnership in agrifood, emissions trading, electricity and other issues, will remove barriers for businesses trading with our nearest neighbours. We hope it will also help smooth the flow of trade to the advantage of Northern Ireland, reflecting our commitment to the UK internal market.

On our commitments, I take issue with the comments made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim about the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who I believe is an honourable man. He is committed to Northern Ireland, and I do not accept at all the characterisation that he is disdainful or could not are less about Northern Ireland. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The right hon. Member for East Antrim also raised the issue of the duty reimbursement scheme. I understand there have been issues with that. We are seeing increased use of the scheme. HMRC processes claims quicker now than it previously did, with an average processing time of 14 days, but clearly there is more to do in that regard.

The right hon. Gentleman also raised the example of custard—clearly not a trifling matter, Dr Huq, if you will pardon the pun. The Northern Ireland retail movement scheme simplifies the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, based on UK food safety standards. In return, it was agreed that the “Not for EU” labels would be applied to some retail goods eligible to be moved by the scheme, but through the SPS agreement with the EU we will ensure that there is a consistent regulatory framework for SPS, and therefore expect “Not for EU” labels and checks to diminish significantly.

DEFRA is working closely with traders to ensure they are clear about where goods need to be labelled to be eligible for the scheme and has published detailed guidance to support that. Where possible, enforcement is proportionate, with only non-compliant goods removed, the rest of the consignment continuing on to its destination. The majority of NIRMS shipments pass into the Northern Ireland area without any issue or delay, but if there are specific examples of where things have gone wrong we would certainly be grateful to hear more detail and whether we can do anything more. However, we are making progress.

In terms of other issues raised, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) asked about Lord Murphy’s report. I can pass on to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the eagerness of Members to see that; I am sure he will be hearing those messages already. There is a commitment to publish the report in the UK Parliament and in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am sure the Secretary of State will be keen to deliver that as soon as is practical.

I need to give the right hon. Member for East Antrim a moment to respond. I apologise for not having covered every issue that has been raised. To conclude, the Government are committed to protecting the UK’s internal market and delivering for all UK citizens and businesses. We need to work together to understand where the issues are so that there are no unnecessary barriers to the flows of goods and services. Like all members of this Government, I am committed to working with hon. Members from across the House to ensure that that is the case.

Insolvency Service Annual Plan 2025-26

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Written Statements

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

The Insolvency Service is the Government agency that delivers public services to those affected by financial distress or failure by providing frameworks to deal with insolvency and the financial misconduct that sometimes accompanies or leads to it.

The Insolvency Service aims to deliver economic confidence through a fair corporate and personal insolvency regime that gives investors and lenders confidence to take the commercial risks necessary to support economic growth. It has a crucial role to play in supporting businesses and individuals in financial difficulty or facing redundancy owing to their employer’s insolvency.

This year, the Insolvency Service has reinforced its commitment to supporting businesses and citizens. It is delivering the Government’s plan for change with investment and reform to deliver growth; putting more money in people’s pockets and helping to rebuild Britain; and giving business and investors the certainty, simplicity and stability they need. This will ensure that the UK is a key destination for investment, with a regulatory regime that is fit for purpose and achieves value for money for the taxpayer. In particular, I have asked it to focus on:

Extending its commitment to tackling money laundering, working closely with partners to increase our ability to identify and disrupt illegal activity.

Working towards implementing the insolvency regulatory reforms outlined in the response to the “Future of Insolvency Regulation” consultation.

Launching the new case management system INSSight, enabling it to deliver better services more effectively and efficiently.

Delivering cost reductions to improve the organisation’s efficiency and help deliver value for money.

The Insolvency Service’s annual plan for 2025-26 is published in full on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS862]

Unpaid Internships: Call for Evidence

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Written Statements

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

The Government plan to make work pay is a core part of our mission to grow the economy, raise living standards across the country, and create opportunities for all. This will help tackle low pay, poor working conditions, and poor job security, all of which have been holding our economy back.

In our plan, we committed to banning unpaid internships, unless they are part of a formal educational or training course. This Government believe that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay and employers must pay their workers the pay they are entitled to.

Today, we are launching a 12-week call for evidence on unpaid internships.

The call for evidence relates to internships which are unpaid or paid below the national minimum wage, work trials, voluntary workers, volunteers, and work shadowing.

While voluntary workers, volunteers, and individuals who are work shadowing are not entitled to the national minimum wage, some employers are engaging individuals, particularly young people, under these terms incorrectly to avoid paying them.

This Government are committed to striking a balance between giving individuals a choice in the type of work they do, and how they do it, while not allowing employers to be tempted to take advantage of individuals, especially our young people, by making them work for free.

The call for evidence seeks views from employers, individuals, and interested stakeholders on unpaid internships and internships paid below the national minimum wage, and other similar categories of people who may be conflated with interns.

This Government are committed to tackling practices where workers who are entitled to at least the national minimum wage are not paid or are underpaid. The responses to this call for evidence will help shape future policy on these issues.

[HCWS839]

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

2. What steps he is taking to support working families through the parental leave system.

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

Through our landmark Employment Rights Bill, we are making paternity leave and unpaid parental leave day one rights. This aligns then with maternity and adoption leave. But we are going further. We have launched the parental leave review, fulfilling our manifesto commitment. The review will explore how the system can support working families and our modern economy. It will assess the system against four key goals: supporting maternal health; boosting economic growth through increased labour market participation; enabling flexible, balanced childcare choices; and, of course, ensuring the best start in life for our children.

[Mr Rand]

Improving our paternity leave offer will be good for parents, good for children and good for our economy. I recently organised an event with Labour colleagues, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and Dad Shift, where we heard from Tesco about the benefits that six weeks of fully paid paternity leave had brought to its business. As part of the parental leave review, which I warmly welcome, will the Minister proactively reach out to businesses, such as Tesco, that are leading the way on paternity leave?

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his efforts in this area, and indeed for highlighting the excellent work that some businesses are already doing, going further than the statutory minimum. As we know, when it comes to supporting working parents, every little helps. This review will be evidence based. It will reflect and consider the views and experiences of those who engage with the parental leave and pay system. I encourage all businesses to contribute to the call for evidence, which was launched earlier this month. I can assure my hon. Friend that I plan to engage constructively with businesses, including Tesco and business representatives, throughout the period of the review.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Hugh’s law would have brought in job protection and financial support for parents of children aged between 29 days and 16 years and guaranteed parental leave while those children were receiving palliative care. The Government voted down an amendment last night to the Employment Rights Bill that would have brought that in. This campaign has been fought by Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis, and many Government Back-Bench MPs have stood side by side with them through that campaign. Why has the Minister turned his back on those parents and those children?

[Justin Madders]

We are not turning our back on parents or children. We are actually having the biggest expansion in workers’ rights and family-friendly policies that we have seen in a generation. Clearly, we will not be able to satisfy every issue in this area, but that is the point of the review. We are looking at the system in the round. It needs improving and modernising and that is what we intend to do.

[Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the industrial strategy on north Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

T4.  Eastbourne’s posties are legends, including Manuel, who covers my patch. Upstream issues in the Royal Mail, however, mean that constituents like Michaele are not receiving letters for medical appointments until after the appointment time has passed. Will the Minister meet me to discuss these appalling delays, and the urgent action that must be taken to ensure that our residents get their post on time?

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

The hon. Member is right to pay tribute to the tremendous work that posties do up and down the country, rain or shine, to deliver the mail. There have, of course, been issues with performance in the Royal Mail. I am happy to discuss that further with him, and to make sure, with the help of Ofcom, that we get the service that everyone deserves.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

On Friday, the Select Committee on Science, Innovation and Technology published its report on social media algorithms, following the Southport riots. Indeed, there is a Select Committee statement on the report this afternoon. Stakeholders have expressed concern that ongoing trade negotiations with the United States might prevent the Government from responding to the report’s recommendations, holding social media companies to account and keeping the public safe online. Can the Minister reassure us that that is not the case?

Assimilated Law Report

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Written Statements

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

Today the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament pursuant to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and published it on gov.uk. This report updates the House, in line with the obligations under section 17 of the REUL Act, which requires a report to be published and laid before Parliament every six months, detailing all revocations and reforms of assimilated law. This is the fourth report being laid before the House.

The report today summarises the data on the assimilated law dashboard, providing the public with information about the amount of assimilated law there is and where it sits across Departments. The dashboard reflects the position as of 23 June 2025, showing a total of 6,911 instruments of REUL/assimilated law concentrated over approximately 400 unique policy areas on the dashboard. Since the previous update to the dashboard, 137 assimilated law instruments have either been revoked or reformed, meaning that 2,532 have now been revoked or reformed in total.

The report gives details of a further 41 statutory instruments using powers under the REUL Act and other domestic legislation that amend assimilated law, and that the Government have laid before the House since the previous report in order to deliver on their priorities. They include, for example, the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements etc.) Regulations 2025, which were made under the REUL Act and amend the number of slots an airline can hold to be categorised as a new entrant, aligning the UK with worldwide airport slot guidelines, and the Human Medicines (Amendment) (Modular Manufacture and Point of Care) Regulations 2025, which were made under the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 and are intended to pioneer access to innovative treatments through a tailored regulatory framework for new ways of manufacturing medicines closer to the patient.

The Government remain committed to reforming assimilated law, where desirable, to foster a pro-business environment through a streamlined regulatory framework that drives growth and supports innovation. The reform of assimilated law will also support the delivery of key strategies while maintaining consumer and environmental protections. These strategies include the UK’s modern industrial strategy, the trade strategy, the 10-year infra- structure strategy, and a strategy for small and medium-sized enterprises.

[HCWS838]

Commemoration of Matchgirls’ Strike

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) on securing her first Adjournment debate. She has chosen a topic extremely well and, as she highlighted, it is really important that we draw attention to the incredible courage of the women who participated in the matchgirls’ strike. It is important that this House acknowledges and recognises this very important piece of British history.

As my hon. Friend touched on, these young women, many of whom were teenagers, worked in absolutely appalling conditions. We have made great advancements in working conditions in recent decades, but it was a particularly horrendous set of circumstances, even for the time. Women working at the match factory suffered from what was described as phossy jaw, a painful and disfiguring disease caused by exposure to white phosphorus. They endured 14-hour working days in overcrowded and poorly ventilated conditions, and their strike was a watershed moment. It garnered widespread public support, and ultimately forced Bryant & May to concede to their demands. It is right that the names of these courageous women are included on the parliamentary record, and I thank my hon. Friend for doing that.

As hon. Members will know, the matchgirls’ strike took place a year before the more famous London dockworkers’ dispute of 1889, which was so formative in the growth of trade unions, including of course today’s GMB union. For the record, I draw attention to my proud membership of the GMB. The organised female workforce showed those working on the docks just what was possible when workers stand up for their rights; they showed that insecurity and unfairness at work never have to be tolerated.

The labour movement is a living, breathing one and we can take inspiration from each other, including those who have gone before us in the struggle for improved working conditions. I was pleased to be able to visit the exhibition on the Committee corridor mentioned by my hon. Friend, and I highly recommend that other Members take the time to visit it and learn more about the history of these struggles. The legacy of these women is wholly remarkable. They were part of a trade union movement that achieved so much, as we can see when we look back now: discrimination protection, paid holiday entitlement, paid maternity leave, and the right to request flexible working. So many advances have come from those beginnings.

However, as has been touched on, there are still many issues of unfairness that need to be addressed today. A recent survey by the Young Women’s Trust found that 67% of women said they had faced discrimination, 37% believe they have had to endure unsafe working environments, 26% have experienced sexual harassment at work, and 50% had not received pay when off sick. I am pleased to say that we are hoping to address all those matters. My hon. Friend raised an important point about young women’s awareness of their rights at work, and it is crystal clear that we need that in order to be effective in enforcing our rights. I hope that we, as a Labour Government, will be able to trumpet that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) spoke with great passion and made the important point that the courage that these women showed was instrumental in and inspirational to the formation of the Labour party. It was not yet formed at the time of the strike, but the growth of the trade union movement and the belief that Governments at the time were not representing the interests of working people led to the formation of the Labour Representation Committee and then the Labour party itself.

We are proud to be a part of that tradition. As a Labour Government, we want to continue the work done by the matchgirls and ensure that workplaces are safe for women. The Employment Rights Bill is helping us achieve exactly that by tackling non-disclosure agreements used to cover up sexual harassment, in a development that only this week has been called world leading. We are strengthening dismissal protections for pregnant women and new mothers, and expanding gender pay gap action plans. As has been touched on, the pivotal role that the fair work agency will have in ensuring that existing and new rights are enforced cannot be overstated.

The Employment Rights Bill also addresses insecure work such as exploitative zero-hours contracts and the heinous practice of fire and rehire. We know from research that women are more likely to be in insecure work, with an estimated 650,000 women on zero-hours contracts, compared with 519,000 men. So the struggle continues: the work never ceases but the determination of this Government to address workers’ rights and improve protections in the workplace is undimmed.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow for her assistance on the Employment Rights Public Bill Committee. She has carried on her keen interest in this area, helping to push for improved rights at work, as well as rightly celebrating those who have had to fight for their rights in the past.

The Government’s plan to make work pay is delivering real change for millions of people. The work this Government are doing on our transformative agenda, which is led of course by a woman—the Deputy Prime Minister—shows that we are staying true to the spirit of the matchgirls and the trade union movement, and we are renewing our country so that it once again serves the interests of working people. The Employment Rights Bill is a generational leap forward in workers’ protections, and I believe it will be one of the proudest achievements of this Labour Government.

I will turn to my hon. Friend’s points on education. She will know that the Department for Education provides a statutory national curriculum that sets out the subjects and broad content to be taught in maintained schools across England. Within that framework, schools have a degree of flexibility, especially in subjects such as history. There are parts of the history curriculum that lend themselves to teaching about the matchgirls’ strike. In key stage 1, there is teaching about

“the lives of significant individuals in the past who have contributed to national and international achievements”,

during which

“aspects of life in different periods”

can be taught. In key stage 3, there is the theme of ideas, political power, industry and empire in Britain between 1745 and 1901. It can also be taught as part of any local history content in the curriculum, which is particularly pertinent in my hon. Friend’s area.

By coincidence, when I spoke to my parliamentary assistant just before I entered the Chamber, he told me that he was informed of the matchgirls’ struggles during his education, and I hope that that is repeated up and down the country. Oak National Academy offers a resource on the matchgirls’ strike for year 8 pupils, and resources are also available from the Historical Association, English Heritage and the National Archives.

Turning to my hon. Friend’s points on commemoration, this country has a long and well-established tradition of commemorating its national and local individuals through statues and memorials, which serve as a long-lasting reminder of individuals and their efforts for this country and help to bridge the gap between the past and the present. As she will know, it is not normal practice for central Government to fund such monuments, but there is a long history of memorials and statues being funded by public subscription, and the Government support that approach.

Experience has shown that investors, including from the private sector, are often happy and willing to fund new memorials. Many organisations—public and private— are rightly able, subject to the relevant permissions, to freely propose, fund, develop and deliver memorials marking a variety of incidents and historical moments in a way that they are best placed to deem appropriate and sensitive. Many successful memorials are created by a wide range of authorities and organisations, which are able to respond sensitively to the particular circumstances that they seek to commemorate.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

Will my hon. Friend congratulate those from Redhills in County Durham, the home of the Pitman’s Parliament—and where I have my office—which has been given money for a huge refurbishment to make it into a living heritage site? The Redhills building will provide young people with an education about what happened in the past, but will also, by showing them how to live out their heritage of the struggles of the mining communities, empower them to go on and fight as the men and women in the north-east did before them. It will be open to the public in the autumn, but I want to congratulate them on the wonderful thing they have done.

[Justin Madders]

I am certainly happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Redhills on that achievement. If it is opening in the autumn, I hope it will be ready for when I come and visit her in her constituency. Perhaps those involved would like to work to that as a target.

As we know, a great many people and organisations are interested in establishing memorials, and as a general rule it is for those groups to work with the relevant local planning authority and other organisations to identify a suitable site and obtain the necessary planning permissions. That said, the Government provide indirect assistance through the memorial grant scheme, which is administered by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The scheme makes grants towards the VAT incurred by charities and faith groups in the construction, repair and maintenance of public memorial structures, including war memorials. The scheme has a fixed budget of £500,000 a year for this spending period. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow to correspond with the DCMS if she wishes to seek further advice on the commemoration process.

In conclusion, I once again thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the House, and for providing the opportunity for the names of those truly courageous and inspirational matchgirls to be forever immortalised in Hansard. That is a fitting tribute, which my hon. Friend has delivered for this House today.

Question put and agreed to.

Financial Assistance to Industry

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 14th 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 motion, That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake, during the period beginning with the date of approval of this motion and ending on 31 July 2030, to pay, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, grants to businesses as part of His Majesty’s Government’s project to support zero-emission vehicle manufacturing in the UK and the UK’s automotive supply chain, including to support the creation of jobs, private investment into the UK, the development of the automotive industry and emission reductions, up to an overall limit of £1 billion, and to pay during or after that period the grants that are undertaken to be paid. 

As hon. Members will be aware, I am not the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), but she has duly authorised me to move and speak to the motion.

I hope hon. Members agree that the UK boasts a dynamic, diverse and fast-developing automotive sector, built on a rich industrial heritage. The sector is a significant driver of economic growth, contributing £21.4 billion in gross value added to our economy last year alone, and it proudly employs a workforce of 132,000 people. Those jobs are spread across the UK, mostly outside London and the south-east, with notable car plants and auto businesses in the west midlands, the north-east and Wales—and, I will add, because my officials have not put this in, in the north-west.

Despite our many well-established strengths, the UK and indeed the global automotive sectors are facing real economic pressure while also transitioning to a zero emission vehicle future. With those challenges come a wealth of opportunities, however. Last month, the Government fulfilled a promise to publish our long-term, modern industrial strategy. That plan unites the whole of Government behind a single purpose, tackling issues across skills, regulation, energy prices and infrastructure. Crucially, the strategy will promote investment and growth in advanced manufacturing sectors, at the heart of which is UK automotive.

Targeting ambitious growth requires strong Government action to support businesses and guide that progress. The advanced manufacturing sector plan sets a vision for the UK automotive sector. In addition to a range of other growth driving measures, it commits £2.5 billion via the new DRIVE35 programme to accelerate research and investment in vehicle electrification through to 2035.

As part of DRIVE35, we propose today to commit £1 billion through section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 to support zero emission vehicle manufacturing in the UK. This will be an inclusive and wide-ranging support offer for our automotive sector, and it will be available for businesses of all stages, sizes and maturity, supporting growth in every corner of the UK. DRIVE35 will serve a broad spectrum of technologies, from established high-volume vehicle manufacturing and multibillion-pound gigafactories all the way to start-ups, prototypes and cutting-edge automotive innovation. It will build on the successes of the automotive transformation fund and Advanced Propulsion Centre research and development competitions, which have unlocked more than £6 billion in private investment.

This intervention will ensure that the UK automotive industry can grow and thrive. It will provide the resources for it to move from strength to strength and remain the high-innovation, high-productivity sector that it is today. By cementing strategic technologies and bolstering regional manufacturing clusters, we will seek to leverage a minimum of £6.6 billion of private investment. 

This really matters, because without new investment, the sector risks losing out to fierce competition from abroad. That in turn means fewer car sales, a loss of economic activity and a risk to jobs in parts of the country. 

That is why we are taking a strategic approach to UK automotive investment. The Government and our delivery partner, the Advanced Propulsion Centre, will engage proactively with potential investors. This comprehensive support will help businesses with all aspects, ranging from expertise on technologies and scale-up to site selection, planning and energy infrastructure, and facilitating introductions with trade bodies and other businesses. Of course, we will also consult vehicle manufacturers directly to identify their supply chain needs and preferences for local sourcing. These insights will guide our approach and remain aligned with the evolving automotive landscape.

To summarise, the Government seek authority to make this intervention, because it will secure the UK automotive sector’s position as a leader in the clean energy transition. It will help us to protect jobs and create new ones in our car plants across our manufacturing heartlands. The intervention also directly supports our plan for change and our mission to kickstart economic growth by backing the industries of the future. It will help us to deliver a new decade of national renewal for both our automotive sector and our wider economy. I am grateful for the support of hon. Members from across the House in this endeavour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I acknowledge the shadow Minister’s consistency: he opposed his own Government’s policies in this area and now he is opposing ours. Clearly he disagrees vehemently with the direction of travel of the drive—pardon the pun—for electric vehicles. He rightly referred to some of the challenges, such as range, but I disagree with his analysis that this is a failing market. EV sales in the UK last year were the highest in Europe and the third highest in the world, a 20% increase on the previous year. There is a capacity and an appetite for moving to cleaner and greener modes of transportation.

We have responded to some of the concerns raised by industry about the rigidity of the previous target and there have been flexibilities added in as a result of discussions with the automotive sector. This is about levering in private investment; it is about £1 billion of public money supporting the automotive sector. Although the shadow Minister might disagree with the overall policy intent, voting against this motion does not change that—all it will do is to prevent £1 billion of support to the automotive sector, with the effect that that will have on jobs, on investment in R&D and on the confidence that we need to send to the industry about our support for the sector.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is very supportive of our policies and wants us to get on with DRIVE35, which underpins this motion. I understand why the shadow Minister is not happy with this motion, but his vote against it, if carried, would have a direct impact on jobs and investment in manufacturing in this country, and that is something the Government cannot support.

Question put.