Poundland

Kate Dearden Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade if he will make a statement on the situation at Poundland and potential actions to protect jobs.

[The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)]

I declare my interest as a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.

I am deeply concerned about the uncertainty surrounding Poundland’s future, and the impact that could have on its thousands of staff and their families, who are at the forefront of my mind, especially in the run-up to Christmas. Poundland is not currently in administration and the business continues to trade, but this is a worrying time for employees, suppliers and communities. We are establishing the facts, keeping in close contact with those involved and monitoring developments closely.

The Secretary of State and I continue to engage closely on this issue. We have met and are in ongoing contact with the trade union USDAW, which I know is extremely concerned about the jobs and livelihoods of its members, and I thank it for its work and engagement. We will be meeting Barry Williams, the managing director of Poundland, this week. Earlier this week, officials met Gordon Brothers, and the Secretary of State is due to meet it to continue to press our concerns and establish the facts. However, there are ongoing commercial negotiations concerning this private business, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to seek to influence the outcome or comment on the merits of individual bids.

The owners should act in the best interests of their loyal UK staff and stores. We want the best possible outcome for Poundland’s workforce and the future of the business. The 12,000 staff and many thousands of suppliers are at the forefront of our minds, and we want to see an outcome that protects as many jobs as possible and keeps as much of the business trading as possible. The Government stand ready to ensure that affected employees can access the appropriate support, should it be needed.

The Prime Minister has set out his aspiration to bring good growth to every postcode, including by making high streets a new symbol of Britain’s renaissance. Last week, the Government published our high streets strategy, which goes further and sets out the principles for high street success, practical support for businesses with the business rates system and more policies to support vibrancy and footfall. That includes establishing a “high streets first” principle to ensure that public estate locations drive footfall and opportunities to co-locate public services.

The fundamentals for doing business in the UK are strong. Our economic strategy to deliver growth is investment across the public and private sectors and in every postcode. Our industrial strategy, trade strategy, small business strategy and plan to make work pay address long-standing barriers to growth. Retail is vital to employment and the economy, and we recognise that the sector has been through a significant period of change. We want all types of retail to thrive, now and in the future, so we are working closely with businesses to understand what they need to succeed and grow. The Minister for Employment and I are providing a briefing for Members of Parliament in this House this afternoon on the support available to employees who may be impacted.

I want to emphasise that in the event that a retail company enters administration, my officials will work, where appropriate, with the administrators, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Insolvency Service and local partners to ensure that appropriate support is available to affected employees. We stand ready to support them if they need to move into new employment. However, our priority is always protecting jobs, and the Secretary of State and I will continue to engage with the company to secure the best possible outcome.

[Gareth Snell]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank the Minister for the tone and content of her answer.

At the heart of this matter are the 11,000 people whose jobs, through no fault of their own, hang in the balance, and who do not know whether they will have a job at all this side of Christmas. Those jobs are not concentrated in a big factory, but dispersed across this country in towns such as Hanley in Stoke-on-Trent and in your constituency of Chorley, Mr Speaker, as well as in the supply chains and distributors in Makerfield and Harlow, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) talked about. This company has survived because the workers turned it around.

We are in the situation that we are in today because choices have been made by Gordon Brothers. It has rejected solvent bids and is seeking to push a company into administration for its own personal profit. Fundamentally, its interest does not appear to be the 11,000 constituents we all represent, who take home money to look after their kids, put food on the table and live the life that they deserve. I am very glad that the Minister continues with meetings, but the management of Poundland is not the problem; it is Gordon Brothers.

If we get to a point where administration takes place and 11,000 jobs and supply chain jobs are put at risk, what levers can the Minister use to save as many jobs as she can? What pressure can this House, through her, put on the owners to accept one of the solvent bids in order to protect jobs? What can this House do to send a message to Gordon Brothers that its predatory capitalism when it comes to this company will not be tolerated? We in this country will always stand with people before profit.

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his reflections and comments on behalf of his constituents and the many employees across the country. It is deeply concerning to see the uncertainty about Poundland’s future. That is why the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I have been keeping a close eye on this extremely worrying situation for staff, their families and communities up and down the country. We have been demanding to know what is happening, and demanding that Gordon Brothers explain why it has not accepted any offer to keep the company going.

We continue to establish the facts. Last night, officials met Gordon Brothers as part of our ongoing engagement. The Secretary of State will meet it later this week, and I am meeting Poundland tomorrow. It is absolutely legitimate for this Government to ask the business if it is doing everything that it can to protect employees and suppliers up and down the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

For thousands of Poundland workers, the question today is simple: “Will I still have a job?” Behind every store facing uncertainty are workers—real people with bills to pay and families to support. As a west midlands MP, this issue hits close to home—the headquarters are in the region. For thousands of shoppers who rely on this store to make their money stretch further as the cost of living worsens, the question is also simple: will they still have a local, affordable place to shop as Christmas approaches?

Workers and customers deserve clear answers about what happens next. Why was a proposed management-backed rescue bid rejected? Can an agreement still be reached? If individual stores are sold, will their employees keep their jobs? When will communities learn whether their local branch has a future?

The current economic landscape is hostile to British business. Given the stifling red tape, skyrocketing energy bills and surging employment costs, another well-known British brand being in trouble feels less like a surprise and more like an inevitability. Rather than admitting that their own vindictive policies have driven the cost of doing business to an unsustainable breaking point, the Government are instead locked in a desperate squabble with Reform over who can intervene the most to engineer a state-sponsored rescue. The reality is clear: increased political interference is a failed strategy that offers nothing but false promises to workers and consumers alike. True security cannot be micromanaged into existence by Whitehall.

If the Government genuinely want to revive our economy, they must start dismantling the barriers to growth that they have put in place since taking office. Running a business should be an ambitious pursuit, not a high-stakes gamble against state-induced risks. That is why, rather than looking to interfere in yet another business dispute, the Government should focus on slashing the unnecessary red tape that is suffocating businesses; lower business rates, which hinder high street growth; reduce the cost of employment and make it rewarding to invest in people; deliver the lower energy prices that businesses across the nation are calling for; and get tough on the wave of shoplifting plaguing our high streets. Rather than looking to stifle businesses’ every move, we must protect workers’ livelihoods by allowing businesses to get on with driving economic growth and employing people.

[Kate Dearden]

I must say that I am quite disappointed by the tone of the shadow Minister. Vindictive economic policies and a squabble with Reform—is that his answer to the 12,000 people and the thousands of suppliers across the country whose jobs are at risk in the run-up to Christmas?

The hon. Gentleman says that the Government should stop interfering with another business, but that is exactly not what we are doing; he would know that if he had listened to my statement. We are not interfering with the auction. There are ongoing commercial negotiations about this private business, and we do not want to impede or influence that process or comment on individual bids, as I said. It is legitimate for the Government to ask a business whether it is doing everything that it can to protect employers and suppliers, in order to get clarity about its plans and a clear understanding of the situation. Business owners have a responsibility to their employees—in this case, 12,000 of them across the country. It is right for us to put pressure on the company. Ownership brings responsibilities as well as rights.

We are clear as a Government about our expectations; we are taking a responsible approach, not a “sit by and do nothing” approach. What would be the point of politicians and Government if we took that approach?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

Some 30,000 jobs are at stake in Poundland and its supply chain. Internal documents that we saw at the weekend show that the business’s sales, margins and profitability are ahead of target. Is the Minister absolutely convinced that Poundland’s directors are fulfilling their fiduciary duty and acting in the best interests of Poundland, or are they acting in the interests of a faceless American investment firm? If the loan of up to £60 million that was raised and imposed on Poundland is the barrier, will she take steps to ensure that we are doing everything we can to restructure it, so that it is not a barrier to saving Poundland’s business?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks and for his close engagement on this issue over the past couple of days. We know how concerning this situation is for employees across the country. As he knows, we are still working behind the scenes, and Poundland, Gordon Brothers and the Secretary of State will be engaging this week, because we still hope that we can secure a good outcome from the process. That is why we are in close contact with the company and receiving regular updates on many of the points that my right hon. Friend has alluded to. We will of course keep him as updated as we can; I cannot go into all the details at the Dispatch Box today, but I hope he is reassured about our concerns, and that we will remain engaged with Gordon Brothers and the company going forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The news about Poundland will be deeply worrying for its 12,000 staff members and their families, for the 30,000 staff overall when we include the supply chain—as the Chair of the Select Committee has said—and for the communities in which its stores are located. As Poundland’s founder, Steve Smith, has said:

“Once these jobs are lost, they are lost”.

For many families, Poundland is one of the few affordable options left. People are already struggling with an unsustainably high cost of living, and they now face losing somewhere that they rely on to make their money go further.

The fall of Poundland raises bigger questions about our high streets. Its troubles show how much pressure both shoppers and high street businesses are under. The Prime Minister has set out his ambition to revive the high street, but the collapse of one of the UK’s most well-known and affordable retailers highlights the extent to which our high streets are struggling. The business rates system puts our high street shops at an unfair disadvantage compared with online retail giants, and the national insurance hike imposed by this Government is unfair and counterproductive. With unemployment levels already alarmingly high, will the Minister now listen to the Liberal Democrats’ calls to properly overhaul the broken business rates system and scrap the unfair jobs tax—at the very least, for part-time workers?

[Kate Dearden]

The UK retail market is rated one of the most advanced e-commerce markets in the world; that has to be celebrated, and we do so. Physical retail remains a key part of the high street, and a thriving high street will need a strong retail offering. We are clear that we want all types of retail to thrive, now and in the future. The hon. Member heard our announcements last week—our commitment to our high streets strategy and our announcements on business rates reform—which will support many businesses in her constituency and all across the country. We are committed to work with the sector as closely as we can, so that it can grow and succeed. In the particular case of Poundland employees, I hope the hon. Member has heard about our concerns and engagement and how closely we are working with them.

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

I am standing here on behalf of the workers in Tipton centre and on Union Street in Wednesbury, all of whom provide a vital service to my constituency. If it emerges that a viable bid to keep Poundland intact was blocked, putting 12,000 jobs at risk, what specific powers will the Secretary of State use to hold Gordon Brothers to account? Will the Minister now establish an urgent review of whether our corporate governance and insolvency frameworks give sufficient protection against asset stripping and short-term financial engineering at the cost of jobs and our high streets?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for standing up for her constituents and the importance of Poundland to her local high streets and those across the country. It is absolutely legitimate for the Government to be asking the business to do everything it can to protect employees and suppliers, which is why we are seeking clarity on its plans and a clear understanding of the situation. Officials have met Gordon Brothers this week, as the Secretary of State will do, and I will meet Poundland tomorrow. As my hon. Friend rightly mentions, it has a responsibility to its employees—12,000 of them, and thousands more among its suppliers. We will keep putting pressure on the company. Ownership brings responsibilities as well as rights.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Today the Tory party has shamefully said that it does not give two hoots about 12,000 workers, including dozens in my constituency. What is going on here is that the management of Poundland are very concerned that the owners of Poundland are looking to abuse the insolvency process to maximise their financial returns, not giving two hoots about 12,000 workers. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will do everything they can to ensure that Gordon Brothers will not act as a rogue owner by abusing the insolvency process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

As the hon. Member knows, the appointment of an administrator is a matter governed by the statutory insolvency process; it is not a decision for Government. However, I hope that he has heard my remarks today about our engagement with Gordon Brothers and Poundland for the sake of those 12,000 employees up and down the country and the many more employed by its suppliers. We want to do everything we can, and to make it clear that jobs are our absolute priority in this situation. They are so important for our high streets up and down the country, which is why this Government have taken the responsible action we have taken so far, and we will continue to do so.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)]

I, too, am a member of USDAW the union. My constituents want to work for Poundland, and they have helped it turn a profit at Midland Road in Walsall. Can the Minister ensure that USDAW is at the table in any negotiation? It has struck deals with Ikea and John Lewis, and its knowledge is valuable.

[Kate Dearden]

I pay tribute to USDAW for its work, and for its engagement with members and the Government; I know how concerned it is about its members’ jobs and livelihoods. We have engaged with it closely throughout this process, and we will continue to do so. USDAW will join me in my meeting with Poundland tomorrow.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The great majority of the more than 300 online reviews of the Poundland store in Totton in New Forest East give it a five-star or four-star rating. I think the most concerning part of the question from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) was his concentration—rightly—on the apparent rejection of viable, solvent bids. If ever there were a case of potential asset stripping, this would appear to be it, and if the Government cannot intervene, surely trade unions and their legal advisers have a positive role to play?

[Kate Dearden]

I am thrilled to hear the right hon. Member talk about the important role of trade unions—something I talk about constantly at the Dispatch Box, so it is quite refreshing to hear it repeated back to me. Of course, I cannot speak about what exactly USDAW’s legal advice is or what it is doing, but as the right hon. Member will have heard me say, we are meeting both USDAW and the business. Obviously, USDAW is standing up for its members, who are really concerned about their livelihoods in the run-up to Christmas. I thank it for that, and for its continued engagement.

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

We have three Poundland stores across Paisley and Renfrewshire South—one in Paisley itself, one in Linwood and one in Johnstone—and I have been contacted by many Poundland employees who are concerned about the current situation. One of them is Dawn. She has worked for Poundland for 21 years and has been a loyal and hard worker. She is now 64 years old and is very concerned that if she loses her job now, so close to retirement, she will be in a very vulnerable position and unable to get another job before retirement. What assurances can the Minister provide to employees in such circumstances?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the concerning case of her constituent, and those of others she represents. She is right to raise those cases today. We are seeking clarity on the business’s plans and a clear understanding of the situation. The Department has met Gordon Brothers this week; the Secretary of State will do so, and I will also meet Poundland this week. Business owners have a responsibility to their employees—to my hon. Friend’s constituents in this case, and to thousands of others across the country. I know how concerned they will be, and we share those concerns.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

The news that Poundland has filed a notice of intention to enter administration will cause deep concern to the many thousands of employees whose jobs are in jeopardy and the millions of customers who rely on its low prices. With almost 50 stores in Scotland, including the Poundland in my city of Dundee, my thoughts are with the many families who are now worried about jobs and livelihoods at the worst possible time, the run-up to Christmas. Given that discount retailers would normally be expected to perform strongly during a cost of living crisis, does the Minister recognise that Poundland’s potential administration is yet another damning failure of this UK Government to improve consumer confidence and the health of UK high streets, and to alleviate the financial pressures facing low-income households?

[Kate Dearden]

Business investment grew by 4.8% in the first half of this year, productivity has grown for six consecutive quarters, GDP grew for the first half of 2026, the Office for Budget Responsibility has upgraded its 2026 growth forecast, and whole-economy investment has increased by 6.9% since the start of this Parliament. Let us not go into the back and forth of what our economy is doing; we have a good base for businesses to grow and start up here in our country, and we are proud of it. It is those Poundland employees—the thousands in Scotland who the hon. Member has referred to and the others across the country—who are our priority, and that is what we are working on this week, engaging with the company in a responsible way, as we would all expect a Government to do. We want to protect those jobs and livelihoods.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I welcome the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). What we have here is an American private equity firm that is able to buy a going concern that is present on many of our high streets; to put its desire for profit above the interests of its workers, as well as the 18,000 workers in the supply chain; and to make a mockery of the Government’s plans for our high streets. If there is a viable bid on the table and we do not have the power to ensure that it is prioritised, why do we not have that power?

[Kate Dearden]

I am proud of our plans for high streets and the announcements the Chancellor made in the Budget last week for businesses across the country. As a Minister, I am proud to work with our retail companies and sectors all across the country to support them to grow and thrive. As I have mentioned, we are committed to asking the company to do everything it can to protect employees and the thousands of suppliers across the country. That is why we are seeking clarity on the situation and the company’s plans. My hon. Friend will have heard me discuss the meetings we are having this week and reiterate that businesses have a responsibility to their employees. It is right for us to put pressure on the company, because we have a responsibility to do so, and ownership brings responsibilities as well as rights.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Poundland is headquartered in Walsall and, as one of the borough’s MPs, I am concerned about the impact this situation is having not just on employees, but on business confidence and our communities. I fear that it is symptomatic of some of the Government’s failed policy choices, but for today I want to focus on the employees. What exactly are the Government doing? When the Minister talks about “appropriate support” for employees, what exactly does she mean?

[Kate Dearden]

Mayor Richard Parker is ready to stand up support and resource for those in the region who might be impacted. We are working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions, as we always would in such situations, to ensure that we can support employees with training and future job prospects. My priority at the moment is the conversations we are having with Gordon Brothers, Poundland and USDAW. We know how extremely worrying the situation is for staff, families and communities. That is why we are rightly taking the responsible approach to engage with them and to protect jobs.

[Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)]

Constituents in Birmingham Erdington appreciated having Poundland—we had three Poundland stores, but two have closed in the past year. What assessment has the Department made of the private equity acquisition model, whereby a £30 million shareholder loan is prioritised over a solvent sale?

[Kate Dearden]

My hon. Friend will have heard me say that we are demanding to know what is happening. In particular, we want Gordon Brothers to explain why it has not accepted any offer to keep the company going and how it will be acting in the best interests of Poundland’s loyal UK staff and stores. We continue to establish the facts. Last night, officials met Gordon Brothers as part of the ongoing engagement, which includes my engagement this week with Poundland and the Secretary of State’s engagement with Gordon Brothers. There are ongoing commercial negotiations about a private business, and we do not want to impede or influence that process. I hope she has heard my concerns and our priorities for how this Government respond.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I have not been contacted by any constituents who work for Poundland, because the store in Haywards Heath closed in February. Roll forward to November, and that large unit—an anchor unit for the whole high street—is still lying empty. What is the Government’s plan to reform business rates in order to support these large units that prop up the rest of our high streets?

[Kate Dearden]

I am sure that the hon. Member welcomed the Chancellor’s announcements on business rates last week, which included introducing a two-year real-terms freeze for all retail, hospitality and leisure properties to help with increased inflation. We are also removing 70,000 extra properties from business rates, meaning that half of all RHL properties will pay no business rates at all. High streets are the beating heart of our communities and are so important for local people and jobs. We are committed to tackling their decline with our high streets strategy and so many other initiatives in partnership with the sector. We want to back our high streets, back the jobs and back the businesses that support them.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

On behalf of the staff who work at the Poundland stores in Cannock town centre and the Linkway retail park, I find this news particularly shocking, particularly given that the company recently announced a return to like-for-like sales growth and thanked staff for their “amazing efforts”. Does the Minister agree that, in the light of efforts to rescue Poundland being rebuffed, Gordon Brothers needs to get around the table with USDAW, managers and creditors to save this iconic staple of our high streets?

[Kate Dearden]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of jobs and the uncertainty that lots of the employees are working through with the union. I pay tribute to them for all their work. We are committed to engaging with all stakeholders as much as we can, and we are making our priorities clear. We want the company to do everything it can to protect employees and suppliers. We are seeking clarity on its plans and a clear understanding of the situation.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The Poundland in Bridgwater closed in July. While the Minister is right to prioritise protecting jobs, will she accept that having introduced a £25 billion jobs tax, having added 350 pages of regulation in their unemployment Act and having delivered above-inflation rises to the minimum wage, it is her Government who are responsible for creating a hostile economic environment for British retail?

[Kate Dearden]

I am sad but not surprised to hear that response from Opposition Members. Their answer to a situation that is really worrying for 12,000 employees and so many more in the supply chain is to roll back rights for working people. That is not our answer. We are getting round the table and trying to protect jobs, as a responsible Government rightly should.

[Mary Creagh (Coventry East) (Lab)]

Poundland is a proud west midlands business and its three stores in Coventry provide fantastic products at reasonable prices to my constituents. Its workers have been writing to me with concerns over their futures. Poundland’s 12,000 workers will be contributing tens of millions of pounds in tax and national insurance to the Exchequer each year. Is there not a case for this activist Government to stand behind any management buy-out, or buy-in from any bidder, and ensure that these workers continue to play their part in retail on our high streets, in the way that the Government have done through the nationalisation of British Steel and through the loan facility offered to Jaguar Land Rover last year?

[Kate Dearden]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the impact of the cost of living, particularly on those who rely on shops like Poundland. She is also right to bring the direct feedback, worries and concerns she has heard from her constituents to the Chamber today—I thank her for raising that directly with me. We want to hear that the business is doing everything it can to protect her constituents and employees and suppliers all across the country, so we are seeking clarity on its plans so that we can understand the situation. The process is still under way. It is an evolving situation, and we are continuing to engage this week. I hope she is reassured by our commitment to do that. We want to understand the situation, and we are making clear that the business has a responsibility to its thousands of employees and to her constituents.

[Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)]

The Poundland in Denton expanded in 2022 and now employs 55 staff, several of whom have got in touch with me in the last few days and all of whom now find their livelihoods at risk as we begin the run-up to Christmas. I give credit to the union USDAW for its work on this issue. Does the Minister agree that this scandal exposes a serious problem? Our economy is vulnerable to private equity vultures, who sweep in and prey on our high street brands by loading them with debt and trying to ditch them for a profit.

[Kate Dearden]

The reports about Poundland’s future are deeply concerning, which is why the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I have been keeping a close eye on what is happening. This is an extremely worrying situation for the hon. Member’s constituents and for staff across the country, their families and communities. We have been demanding to know what is happening and how the company will act in the best interests of its loyal staff and workforce. We will continue to establish the facts this week and in the future, and we will make our priority clear, which is to protect jobs.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Like the Minister and Members across this House, my first priority is the staff of Poundland, including in the Hartlepool store at Middleton Grange shopping centre. Sadly, the same cannot be said for Gordon Brothers. Let us be clear that this organisation has form on this issue. Does the Minister not think it is time that we prevent these predatory capitalist vultures from making their profits off our people’s backs?

[Kate Dearden]

Keeping the business trading and protecting jobs are the key things, as my hon. Friend rightly says. We are therefore continuing to watch the situation closely, and the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I have made that clear. The company needs to account for why it has not accepted an offer to keep the company going and explain how it is acting in the best interests of the workforce. We will continue to have those conversations, and that engagement is important for us as a Department and for the Government.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

This is a hugely uncertain time for workers at Poundland in Yate, and I am sure that I am not alone among MPs in finding the DWP one of the hardest Departments to get answers out of. I am concerned about the practical support that the local jobcentre will be able to offer Poundland workers who lose their jobs. Can the Minister assure me that jobcentres will support those people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

The Department for Work and Pensions stands ready to support anyone affected by this announcement with our rapid response service offer. The service is designed to give support and advice to employers and their employees when they are faced with redundancy. The Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), will be having a meeting with all Members, including me, later this afternoon, and the hon. Lady may wish to come and put further questions to me or to my hon. Friend from the DWP.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Among the 12,000 Poundland workers whose jobs are now at risk are those based at Low Petergate in York. In the light of Gordon Brothers’ egregious conduct, will the Minister look into the role of private equity companies in the retail sector? In the past two weeks Modella Capital has closed TG Jones in our high street, and we see this behaviour repeatedly from such companies. Will my hon. Friend consider regulations that we could debate in the House to ensure that we protect the retail sector?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for her reflections on what she feels needs to change in the future. At this stage, the key priority is keeping the business trading and protecting jobs, and she will have noted our commitment to engagement. We do not want to impede or influence ongoing negotiations around a private business, as the process is live and constantly moving. I hope my hon. Friend will be reassured about my engagement and that of the Secretary of State with the business and the union representatives this week, and we will continue to watch the situation closely, but protecting jobs is the absolute priority of this Government.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Employees in the Poundland stores in Carrickfergus and Larne in my constituency are now facing a bleak economic future, all because of what appears to be asset stripping of the stores and Poundland by Gordon Brothers. However, there is an alternative. Sales are up, profits are up, and there are viable investors wishing to take over the stores. Specifically, what pressure is the Minister putting on Gordon Brothers to do the right thing? Will she assure us that she will not hide behind the excuse that this is a commercial decision which the Government cannot do anything about?

[Kate Dearden]

I hope that the right hon. Member is reassured about the work and commitment that we are undertaking as a Department, whether we are engaging with USDAW, with Poundland or with Gordon Brothers. Business owners have a responsibility to their employees—12,000 of them, in this case—and to many thousands of suppliers across the country. That is why it is right that we put pressure on the company. Ownership brings responsibilities as well as rights, and it is therefore legitimate for us to ask it whether it is doing everything that it possibly can to protect its employees and suppliers up and down the country.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for asking the urgent question and for putting very relevant questions to the Minister. Everyone at work at the three Poundland stores in my constituency today will be worried that they will not be in a job tomorrow. It is good that the Minister is talking about how she can help people into jobs if Poundland shuts, and it is good that she is putting pressure on Gordon Brothers, but is she actively considering what proactive measures she can take to intervene and stop closures from happening if that pressure ultimately fails?

[Kate Dearden]

This is obviously a very concerning time for many employees in my hon. Friend’s constituency and in constituencies across the country, and they are at the forefront of our minds. That is why we are asking the business to do everything it can to protect employees and suppliers, and why we need to keep understanding the clarity of its plans and to have a clear understanding of the situation. The meetings we are having this week are important in enabling us to assess that, and to ensure that the company observes its responsibility to its employees. As I have said, there are 12,000 of them—a significant number—and we want to protect them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her responses to all the questions that have been asked so far. The potential collapse of Poundland places more than 12,000 hard-working staff at risk across the United Kingdom, including the high streets in Northern Ireland and my constituency of Strangford. Independent estimates suggest that up to 30,000 jobs could ultimately be lost once the wider supply chain and high street neighbours are taken into account. What specific discussions is the Minister having with Administrations and local enterprise agencies across the United Kingdom to guarantee that workers in Northern Ireland are not left behind in any restructuring, and to ensure that these vital retail jobs are protected?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the hon. Member for asking that question, on behalf of his constituents, about the impact on his local high street. I hope he is reassured about our commitment to putting pressure on the business to ensure that it understands its responsibility to its employees in his constituency and others that are represented here today. It is right for us to do that, because we too have a responsibility and we take responsibility, as well as rights, extremely seriously, as the ownership should. The hon. Member will know of our meetings this week, and our continued engagement will make that very clear.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

High streets such as Dudley’s face pressures from online shopping and rising costs. Too many units have stood empty for years, weakening footfall and confidence, and the potential loss of Poundland and 15 jobs in my constituency could blow another hole in the high street. However, this is not just about my 15 employees; a ripple effect of the potential closure could cause problems in the supply chain as well. Has the Minister assessed the full impact of the closures across Poundland, across the country and across the supply chain in order to hold Gordon Brothers to account?

[Kate Dearden]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern for her constituents and those across the country. This is a very worrying time for them. We are therefore taking a responsible approach, engaging with Poundland, Gordon Brothers and USDAW to ensure that jobs are protected as much as they possibly can be, to understand the situation and demand to know what is happening so we can make that assessment, and to ensure that the company is acting in the best interests of its loyal UK staff and workforce. I thank my hon. Friend for sharing those reflections today.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

The current situation is not the Government’s fault, and it is certainly not the fault of the excellent employees at Poundland. It is the fault of the worst type of greedy capitalism. A number of my constituents have contacted me about the situation, and what they want to know from the Government is what robust response they are giving the owners. My constituents want to be assured that no stone will be left unturned, and they want to know what options the Government can pursue.

[Kate Dearden]

What is key is ensuring that the business continues to trade, and that we protect those vital jobs up and down the country, including those in my hon. Friend’s constituency. That is why we are watching the situation so closely. As I have said, Gordon Brothers must account for why it has have not accepted an offer to keep the company going, and explain how they are acting in its best interests. Those 12,000 staff are at the forefront of our minds. It is a really worrying time, in the run-up to Christmas, and we will be doing everything we can in our conversations to make our position clear. We have to protect those jobs for the future, and we want to see the business continue to trade in order to do so.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

The Poundland store in Dartford forms an important part of the shopping offer at the Priory Centre, as well as the wider town centre. It employs local people, who will be desperately worried about their future in terms of their jobs and the continued survival of Poundland itself. Is it not clear that the Government cannot look on while a solvent company goes under, as the Opposition parties appear to be recommending that we do?

[Kate Dearden]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are not just sitting back. I ask again, what would be the role of politicians and this Government if we were to do that? We are taking our responsibility seriously, and it is legitimate for us to ask the business to do everything it can to protect employees and suppliers. We are seeking clarity on its plans and trying to gain a clear understanding of the situation, which is exactly what a responsible Government should do in these circumstances.

[Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)]

Let me first declare an interest as a proud member of USDAW.

I share the support for valued Poundland workers across the country at this time of great uncertainty for them, including those in the Emersons Green branch in my constituency. Local people work hard, day in day out, for this profitable company, and deserve so much better than the worry of possible job losses that are no fault of their own, but the result of inaction on the part of the owners. What reassurance can the Minister give me, and those valued local workers, that the Government are doing all they can now, and will review regulations and processes to establish whether poor owner behaviour can be further protected against in future?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue in the House. She is absolutely right, and I share her concerns for her constituents and for the thousands of families and employees across the country who are really worried about the future of their jobs. We have been standing ready to take action to support workers and reassure families wherever we can. We want the best possible outcome for the workforce and the future of the business. That is why we are working hard behind the scenes to protect jobs, and we will continue our engagement this week. It is a real priority for us, and I want to work closely with the business and the unions.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

My fair-minded constituents are rightly appalled at the news that the jobs of our local shop workers in Poundland are being put at risk by exploitative owners who appear intent on asset stripping, rather than preserving a store that has been returned to profitability thanks to the staff’s hard work, and which has viable offers on the table. How can we make sure that, as a Government, we are using all the levers at our disposal to force the American owners to do right by the stores? What lessons do the Government think we might need to learn to ensure that we can do a better job of protecting our high street assets in the future?

[Kate Dearden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise concerns on behalf of his constituents and those across the country who are really concerned about the future of their employment. We have been seeking to clarify the business plans and get a clear understanding of the situation, because it is absolutely legitimate for a Government to ask a business to do everything it can to protect its employees and suppliers. Of course, this is an evolving situation, and we will continue to engage with Poundland, Gordon Brothers and USDAW this week, to make sure that we can have the best possible outcome for the workforce and the future of the business.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I called at the Poundland store in the Sovereign Shopping Centre a few days ago to check in on the team, speak to the manager and find out how they are doing. Unsurprisingly, they are living with extreme uncertainty. Will the Minister speak directly to the employees of Poundland in Bournemouth and let them know exactly what this Government are doing to support them and save their jobs? After all, they just want to earn a good wage, put food on the table and be able to afford presents under the Christmas tree.

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that very concerning situation on behalf of his constituents in Bournemouth, and I acknowledge that hundreds of jobs are at stake. I hope he takes some reassurance from my remarks at the Dispatch Box, because this Government intend to do absolutely everything we can to ensure that the business is doing everything it can to protect his constituents’ jobs and thousands of suppliers’ jobs across the country. We want the best possible outcome for the workforce and the future of the business, which is why we are working with the company and the union to protect those jobs.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her answers, and my thoughts are with all the staff at the Alloa store. What is happening with Poundland is the latest example of private equity being allowed to do as it pleases—the type of behaviour that, frankly, has destroyed our high streets. Both the UK and Scottish Governments need to act to stop private equity raiding our towns and then upping sticks when it has decided that there is nothing else to extract. Will the Government take decisive action, and take steps such as curbing profit shifting and tax abuse by private equity?

[Kate Dearden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise business owners’ responsibilities to their employees. In this case, there are 12,000 of them across the country, including many in his constituency, as well as suppliers. That is why it is right that this Government are putting pressure on the company. It has responsibilities to their employees, who also have rights, and that is why we are asking the owners to do everything they can to protect employees and suppliers. I will continue our engagements this week, because it is a real priority for us.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)]

I, too, declare my proud membership of USDAW. Poundland workers in Merthyr Tydfil, like elsewhere, are deeply concerned about their futures. The workforce have given absolutely everything to the company to make it profitable. Can the Minister give further reassurance about what more the Government can do to ensure that Gordon Brothers does absolutely everything at its disposal to support the workforce, and to treat them with fairness and respect?

[Kate Dearden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the hard work of the workforce and their dedication to their jobs and the business. In our engagements with the company, we have been very clear about its responsibility to its employees and the need to protect jobs, because this is a really concerning situation for so many across the country. We will continue to work with USDAW and discuss its members’ concerns, particularly at this difficult time in the run-up to Christmas. We are a responsible Government who will do everything we can to speak to the union and the business. We know how vital the jobs at Poundland and other high street shops are, including for his constituents. I thank him for raising this issue.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for her statement, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for asking the urgent question. Harlow is home not only to two Poundland stores but to a distribution centre that employs hundreds of people. Does the Minister share my concern that the owners are not acting in the best interest of Poundland employees in Harlow, particularly by rejecting legitimate bids for the business? Will she join me in sending heartfelt messages to Frederick, Jody, Donald, Katarzyna and Jordan—who have personally written to me—as well as other employees at Poundland in Harlow? Is there anything the Minister can do—I declare an interest as a proud member of USDAW—to engage with USDAW and ensure that it is at the table for discussions with the owners?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for rightly raising the concerns of his constituents who work at the Poundland stores and the distribution centre in Harlow. I absolutely share those concerns, which is why we are taking a responsible approach by engaging with Gordon Brothers, Poundland and the recognised union, USDAW, which is concerned about the impact on its members and their livelihoods. I will be meeting representatives of Poundland tomorrow, and USDAW will be part of those conversations. It is really important that we reiterate the importance of these jobs, and that we make sure the business can succeed in the future and protect as many jobs as possible.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

Last week, workers in Lichfield woke up, put on their uniforms, went to work and were told that their jobs were under threat—not because the company is not viable or profitable, but because the company’s owner, Gordon Brothers, is choosing not to do the right thing. It is choosing to put jobs at threat for its own selfish interests. I know the Minister and USDAW are working really hard on this, but can she give the House a reassurance that everything will be done to make sure that Gordon Brothers steps up, does the right thing and backs its workers? It is the workers who have turned the business around, not the owner, and it is time that Gordon Brothers recognised that and backed those workers.

[Kate Dearden]

We absolutely back the workforce and thank them for their hard work and dedication to the business. That is why we have been engaging with the company and the union this week, and why we are encouraging the owners to act in the best interests of their loyal UK staff and stores. The Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I have been keeping a close eye on what is an extremely worrying situation for the staff, their families and our wider community. I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and hope that he is assured about our commitment, engagement and work on this issue this week. We will keep him as updated as we can.

[Gareth Snell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should have put on record my membership of USDAW at the beginning of the urgent question, and I apologise to the House for inadvertently failing to do so.

Employment Rights Act 2025: Implementation

Kate Dearden Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)]

Employment laws have not kept pace with modern working patterns. Too many workers lack the protections they need at work, while responsible businesses face unfair competition from those willing to exploit gaps in outdated employment laws. The plan to make work pay is modernising employment rights to respond to a changing labour market and create a fairer, more secure economy for workers and businesses. More than 18 million employees are expected to benefit from the new protections. We are delivering these reforms in partnership with businesses, trade unions, public sector employers and civil society through extensive engagement and consultation, helping to ensure that the changes work in practice for employers and workers.

Following my most recent update to Parliament, the UK Government are today announcing further progress in the implementation of the Employment Rights Act, as part of the plan to make work pay with the launch of a consultation on a new code of practice for fire and rehire alongside the publication of Government responses on enhanced protections for pregnant workers, and fire and rehire regulations.

Consultation and Government response 1: fire and rehire

The Employment Rights Act 2025 will make it automatically unfair to dismiss an employee in order to change certain core contract terms. These terms include reductions to pay or leave, changes to working hours or pension arrangements, or specified changes to shift patterns—restricted variations. To avoid unnecessary redundancies, the measures will not apply to employers who meet a narrow exemption for financial difficulties.

A consultation on “fire and rehire—changes to expenses, benefits and shift patterns” ran from 4 February to 1 April 2026. It sought views on which expenses and benefits should be excluded from the scope of the restricted variation of reductions to pay, and whether there are any types of shift pattern changes that should also be protected as a restricted variation.

The Government response confirms the final policy approach for drafting the regulations:

Expenses and benefits in kind will be excluded from the restricted variation of definition of sums payable to an employee in connection with the employment, aside from a defined list, to include, travel and accommodation expenses incurred in performance of your role and long-term accommodation as a benefit in kind.

Only extreme, as defined, shift pattern changes—day to night and vice versa, and weekday to weekend and vice versa—are in scope of the restricted variation of the timing or duration of a shift.

The Government response was published on 22 October 2026 and, subject to debates in Parliament, regulations will come into force in March 2027.

The Government are committed to ending the scourges of fire and rehire, and fire and replace. We will actively monitor how the fire and rehire provisions operate in practice on an ongoing basis, including the extent to which the new legislation shapes employer approaches and organisational behaviour. If fire and rehire practices continue, the Government will act urgently to put a stop to them. This includes, where needed, making use of powers in the Employment Rights Act to legislate, including by expanding the scope of restricted variations. Likewise, the Government would be prepared to put in place further legislative measures in order to meet our commitment to end fire and rehire, and fire and replace—including the introduction of interim injunctions and interim relief.

The Employment Rights Act 2025 aims to tackle unscrupulous fire and rehire, and fire and replace, practices. The Government are consulting on the draft of the code of practice on dismissal and re-engagement, which provides practical guidance on preventing, managing and resolving conflict and dispute when contract changes cannot be agreed and an employer is considering making unilateral changes to contract terms. The code outlines how the statutory protections against fire and rehire, and fire and replace, are expected to apply. It also sets expectations for reasonable conduct from all parties.

This consultation will be open for eight weeks, closing on 17 December 2026. The existing code of practice on fire and rehire will be revoked simultaneously to the regulations coming into force in March 2027. The new code will come into effect in summer 2027.

Government response 2: enhanced protections for pregnant workers

Despite existing legal protections related to pregnancy and maternity, many women continue to face a significant and unique risk to their job security during pregnancy, maternity leave, and in their return to work. In our plan to make work pay, we committed to strengthening protections for pregnant women by making it unlawful to dismiss a woman who is pregnant, on maternity leave or has recently returned to work, except in specific circumstances. The Employment Rights Act 2025 provides powers for the Government to make provision about dismissal during or after the protected period of pregnancy and we intend to use these powers to fulfil the make work pay commitment to strengthen dismissal protections for pregnant women and new mothers.

The Government consulted on proposals to strengthen dismissal protections from 23 October 2025 to 15 January 2026. The consultation sought views on how enhanced dismissal protections for pregnant women, new mothers and other new parents should operate in practice. This included in what circumstances dismissal should be allowed, when the protections should start and end, and how the framework should apply across different forms of family leave. It also invited views on implementation considerations, including on guidance, awareness and support for employers.

The Government response was published on 22 October and sets out the final policy decisions and its next steps for implementation. Measures set out in the response include:

Strengthening the legal framework governing dismissal during the protected period; andensuring comparable protections are available to employees taking other qualifying forms of leave.

When implemented, these reforms will help to ensure that dismissal during the protected period is proportionate and is considered only after employers have appropriately explored reasonable alternatives. The stricter legal standard will create stronger protections against dismissal for pregnant women, new mothers and other new parents, and will fairly balance employer and employee interests.

The detail of the enhanced dismissal protections will be delivered in secondary legislation, and the Government intend for the measures to come into force in October 2027.

Next steps for consultation

The Government have committed to delivering this change in partnership with businesses, trade unions, employers and civil society. That is why we are undertaking full and comprehensive consultation with these groups on key changes. By delivering this change together, we are backing businesses that do the right thing, and giving hard-working people the job security and opportunities they deserve. The Government will continue to keep Parliament updated on the implementation of the Employment Rights Act and the plan to make work pay.

[HCWS435]

Hair and Beauty Sector Regulation

Kate Dearden Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing the debate, and I thank her for the constructive and determined way in which she has championed this issue in the House and through her presentation Bill. I also recognise her close work with her constituent Mike Taylor, whom she mentioned this evening, and whose business is an accredited outstanding provider of barbering apprenticeships. I pay tribute to him, and to the hairdressers and barbers whose experiences the hon. Member has shared with the House this evening.

I was brought up around this industry. My mum was a hairdresser—I am very lucky that I can still persuade her to do my hair today—so I recognise how important it is to be a voice in Parliament for hair and beauty, which is an absolute powerhouse of an industry. I am proud to be the Minister responsible for personal care.

Hair and beauty does not just make a significant £28 billion contribution to the economy and provide almost 600,000 jobs; it is also about the salon on the high street that brings people into town, as the hon. Member said. It supports our local communities, helping them to thrive. For many women, it often starts as a passion, a set of professional skills and the ambition to build something of their own, and that can grow into a successful business, creating employment and opportunities for others. With more than 85% of businesses in our sector owned by women, hair and beauty is a powerful example of female entrepreneurship, independence and resilience. Behind every salon is a story of hard work, skill, creativity and determination. I recognise the significance of our industry, which is made up mainly of women, and I thank them for all the support that they give to women across the country. The hon. Member mentioned that, when we get our hair done, they are often our therapists, and we walk out feeling amazing.

Let me turn to where we agree. The harms that the hon. Member described are real. Customers should feel safe and protected in a salon chair, and good employers should not be undercut by those who cheat and do not play by the same rules. Young people need a route into the profession, and criminals should not be hiding behind barber shopfronts on our high streets. The question before the House is not whether those problems matter—of course they do—but whether a mandatory register is the right way to fix them. I will take a number of her arguments in turn, explain where I would like to hear more evidence about what would work instead, and explain what we are prioritising.

It is first worth being clear about what a register is. As the hon. Member mentioned, the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 already provides for a register of qualified hairdressers and barbers. Making it mandatory would record that an individual holds a qualification. Although that would improve visibility, it would not inspect a salon, check who owns a business or where its money comes from, or decide whether somebody is genuinely self-employed. It would not create a single new apprenticeship place. That matters, because each of the harms that she and many other hon. Members have discussed comes from something other than a missing qualification.

On consumer safety, I want to highlight two examples: ringworm and chemical burns, because these are distressing and I do not want to dismiss them for a moment. Ringworm comes from poor hygiene and infection control. A qualified stylist working with unclean equipment poses the same risk as an unqualified one. Chemical burns come from the unsafe use of hazardous products. Every salon—whoever works in it—is already legally required to control these risks under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the associated regulations, such as the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002.

Local authorities already have the powers to enforce health and safety legislation and are responsible for managing hygiene standards in businesses. Where there is evidence that risks are not being properly managed, local authorities can intervene and take appropriate enforcement action to ensure that employers and customers are protected. A register would not send anyone through the door to check, but enforcement does, and where the evidence has shown serious risks of harm, the Government have acted. Last month we launched a consultation proposing that high-risk cosmetic procedures should be carried out only by qualified, regulated healthcare professionals, with providers registered with the Care Quality Commission and criminal penalties for breaches. We have also committed to a licensing scheme for lower-risk cosmetic procedures and have acted because there was strong evidence showing a scale of harm. So far we have not seen comparable evidence for hairdressing, but if the hon. Member has cases—she has raised some tonight—I want my officials to see them.

The hon. Member is right that bogus self-employment, too, is unacceptable. Self-employment, as she mentioned, is a legitimate and long-standing part of the sector, and many workers value that flexibility in their way of working. But no employer should deny the basic rights of people by calling them self-employed when they are not. Here, too, it is not clear how a register might help. A fully qualified registered barber could still be falsely self-employed. What will make a difference is fixing the employment status framework itself. We have published a consultation on targeted reforms, including a proposal of worker status and stronger enforcement. These proposals are designed with workers like those in hairdressing in mind.

Alongside that, the important work of the Fair Work Agency now brings together employment rights enforcement into one place with a dedicated hidden economy team. I know that Fair Work Agency officials have met the sector. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will investigate where people have been misclassified for tax purposes and take action to recover the tax and national insurance owed. I am of course happy to keep the hon. Member updated on the employment status consultation and to discuss it further with her.

The hon. Member spoke powerfully about apprenticeships. I will not pretend that the recent figures that she alluded to and that decline we have seen in apprenticeship starts is comforting—it is not. As she mentioned, hairdressing businesses play such an important role in employment and training opportunities, particularly for young people. That is why it is important to strengthen the sector’s skills pipeline for those opportunities for social mobility and career progression. The challenge that employers describe is the cost and capacity to take on and train a young person. It is not clear how a register that requires qualifications may help, and we are mindful of the costs for small businesses that do the training, which she referred to.

[Vikki Slade]

The various agencies, in my discussions with them, have said that the cost of being in the voluntary register is currently about £75. They have suggested that if a mandatory register was extended to all people working in the area, that would reduce the cost to £25. It would cost probably less than the cost of a haircut to be on a register with an organisation, which then itself would be involved in some of those enforcement activities that would benefit the Government.

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing those examples from the representatives she meets. We are keen to engage with those and understand the impact. I have given my reflections on those concerns today, but it adds to my wider point that we want to hear that evidence and pick that up.

That is why our focus in the meantime has been on helping those employers directly on apprenticeships, whether that is the £2,000 hiring payment for smaller employers taking on 16 to 24-year-old apprentices, a £3,000 youth jobs grant, no employer national insurance for apprentices under 25, or fully funded apprenticeship training for eligible under-25s. Those measures are important for driving up apprenticeships across the country. In particular, we are working with the sector on assessment reforms so that hair and beauty apprenticeships are rigorous, proportionate and trusted by employers.

On money laundering, serious and organised crime damages our high streets and undermines honest businesses. I thank the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for raising that issue, as tackling it is a priority for the Government. A criminal front can employ a registered barber as easily as anyone else, and a register with reflections on who owns a business, where the money comes from and whether that could even lend a business respectability that it does not deserve, is a key consideration. My hon. Friend mentioned Operation Machinize, which since March 2025 has been led by the National Crime Agency. That has seen over 3,000 suspect high-street premises visited, and nearly 1,000 people arrested. We are building on that with a £30 million crackdown on cash-intensive businesses, including barber shops. That also includes £20 million for law enforcement, £6 million for trading standards, and a new cross-Government high street organised crime unit.

[Phil Brickell]

Will the Minister heed my earlier comment that, although that is all good, the scale of the issue is such that the Government cannot enforce their way out of it? There has to be another way that prevents enforcement agencies from playing whack-a-mole when trying to close down premises that are operating illicitly?

[Kate Dearden]

I know that my hon. Friend is working closely with colleagues across Government on this issue, and I thank him for his continued campaigning and advocacy. We must double the maximum duration of closure orders so that criminal businesses cannot simply reopen while investigations continue.

[Kevin McKenna]

It has been interesting to listen to all the points that the Minister made about the potential negatives of a mandatory registration scheme, and the things that might not work. In terms of evidence, I would offer the fact that about 100 years ago, in the early 20th century, nursing was not a registered profession. All those arguments are very familiar, and although people as notable as Florence Nightingale were opposed to nursing registration, it was seen as essential. A lot of the challenges that the Minister has identified were overcome—we would not conceive of nursing not being registered now, and I think that is true for other intimate professions such as beauty and hair.

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I hope that he and other colleagues hear that we want the same things. We want customers to be safe, workers to get the rights they are entitled to, young people to have a route into this brilliant profession, and criminals to have nowhere to hide on our high streets. As colleagues will have heard, I am not yet persuaded that a mandatory register would deliver those things, but I am open to evidence and I thank hon. Members for their offers this evening.

I am also persuaded that enforcement, employment reform and direct support for employers will deliver. As the Barbers and Hairdressers (Registration) Bill is before the House, it would not be right for me to comment on its specific provisions this evening, but if the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole has evidence of harms that existing powers are not reaching, I would like my officials to look closely at that. I thank her for securing this debate, and all colleagues for their contributions and for championing a sector that matters so much to our communities.

Question put and agreed to.

Performance of Royal Mail

Kate Dearden Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)]

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on securing and leading this important debate and for their tireless campaigning on this issue on behalf of their constituents. I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. Even if, as the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) suggested, it may at times have been a therapy session, Members have raised extremely important concerns on behalf of their constituents about the quality of service. We discussed this issue at length last week, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), referenced it as an issue that has united the House, and I think we have heard such reflections from all Members across the Chamber.

Royal Mail is one of our great national institutions. For generations, it has connected people and communities across our country. It is a lifeline for some of our more vulnerable members of society, our elderly included. For many people, their postie is a regular and friendly face. The public’s affection for Royal Mail is enduring, but patience with its poor service is not. We should not assume that the post matters only to the older generations, because it does not. Citizens Advice research published last week shows that younger adults are using postal services more frequently than older people—to apply for jobs, manage their finances, send letters to healthcare providers for appointments and access Government services. Post is not just part of our history, even though we have heard some very interesting reflections and historical stories. It is still part of people’s everyday lives, which is why it is so important to ensure that we secure a reliable service for the future.

Behind that service are our posties, and I too want to put on record my thanks to postal workers up and down the country for everything they do. My grandad proudly served his community as a postie, and I know that many other Members have a personal connection to their postie or a postie. As I did last week, I would like to thank and pay tribute to all the postal workers who work so hard to deliver for their communities, and go above and beyond. I know that, for many of my constituents, they may be the only person they speak to and interact with that day, and the incredible work posties do should not be underestimated. We are all clear that the service failures Members have described are not the result of their postie or of postal workers across the country.

Our affection for this national institution, however, must not mean accepting poor performance. I absolutely share the strong concerns expressed today and last week by Members across the House. I will be very clear again: Royal Mail’s performance has been unacceptable for far too long, and it needs urgently to restore service standards to levels that we all expect in our villages, towns and cities. The Prime Minister was similarly clear at this Dispatch Box last week, as was the Secretary of State at the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee last Tuesday. I hope Royal Mail will be listening to this debate, and will hear the clear message that Parliament is sending.

We have heard about the serious consequences associated with late deliveries. Late letters—whether they contain a greeting card for a loved one, important medical correspondence, including hospital appointments, or financial information—are deeply frustrating, but they can also lead to serious consequences. I thank Members for sharing the terrible stories of the real-life impact that they can have, as well the impact on colleagues in this House when carrying out their responsibilities and duties as constituency MPs, for example, sending letters about coffee mornings and surgeries.

Hon. Members have raised the vital impact of high-quality and timely postal services on our democracy. We have made clear to Royal Mail the importance of the successful and timely delivery of election-related mail for returning officers and election readiness and performance, and I reassure Members that we will continue to do so.

[David Reed]

Will the Minister touch on the points that I raised about deferred mail? There should be more transparency over the economy service that Royal Mail offers. Constituents are receiving letters from the NHS or local councils, and do not realise that those buying these products have chosen a cheaper option.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

I will be raising this issue with Royal Mail, and I will touch on my interactions with the chief executive later in my speech.

[Kirsty Blackman]

We know that postal vote letters not being delivered is an issue, and a number of us have seen that in our constituencies. I appreciate that the Minister is being clear with Royal Mail that it is an important issue, but is she aware of or has she asked Royal Mail how many of those letters were not delivered on time? How many complaints have been made? We know that a significant number of people are not even making complaints, because they do not think there is any point.

[Kate Dearden]

Colleagues have raised numerous concerns about missed mail in the Chamber and outside, and I will always raise that issue with Royal Mail. Where I need to push for transparency, I will do so. I will come shortly to what I have pushed the chief executive on.

With Christmas approaching, improvements clearly cannot wait. This is Royal Mail’s busiest period. Families and businesses that we have heard about are relying on timely deliveries. I welcome the commitment from Royal Mail to recruit 22,000 staff to help deliver this Christmas, and I will be seeking reassurances that it is doing everything it can to meet the demand.

As colleagues know, the Government do not run the delivery operations of independent businesses such as Royal Mail, but that does not mean that we are a passive observer. I have challenged Royal Mail’s leadership on performance, and I have been frank with them, as has the Prime Minister, that the pace of improvement needs to urgently increase.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

What has gone remarkably unremarked on in this debate is the role of Ofcom, to which we give £222 million a year. It is systematically failing to put in place a plan to improve the service at Royal Mail. The Select Committee has given Ofcom six months, expiring in a month’s time, to show that it is improving performance at Royal Mail. We insisted that at that point Ofcom tells us what new powers it needs to get Royal Mail to deliver, because fining Royal Mail into improvement has failed, and is likely to fail again. Can the Minister tell us what conversations she has had with Ofcom? What powers will she seek to give it if the situation persists?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that his Committee has done on this issue for his constituents and people across the country. I am aware that his Select Committee has written to Ofcom—I thank him for raising the issue again today—to seek further information about its plans to improve services. I met Ofcom last week, and I will continue to work closely with it. I will pragmatically consider any requests for additional powers, as we heard from the Secretary of State, where those are needed to support improved outcomes for constituents and customers across the country. We will be pragmatic about any requests, and I am meeting with Ofcom again soon to hear further.

In the meantime, I expect Ofcom to use the full range of tools at its disposal to secure a more reliable service for users. My right hon. Friend knows that I will continue to hold Ofcom and other regulators to account. On that point, in my recent meeting with Ofcom, I raised colleagues’ concerns about data on Royal Mail’s performance masking serious local issues. I have also stressed that the review over the coming months must take into consideration the wider challenges and the staffing, resources and workforce changes.

I will continue to raise the concerns, including those that lots of colleagues have mentioned. I am grateful to those who took the time to meet Ofcom directly the week before last to reflect constituents’ concerns, particularly parcel prioritisation, which we have talked about. I have heard about that at length from colleagues. Ofcom has confirmed that it is considering the role of the alleged prioritisation of parcels over letters as part of its ongoing investigation into Royal Mail’s performance in 2025 and 2026. I expect Ofcom will publish its findings in the coming weeks. Ofcom will be in no doubt about Members’ concerns following the meeting it had with them directly, today’s debate, the Westminster Hall debate and the concerns expressed by the Select Committee. I thank all colleagues for continuing to engage with myself and Ofcom on what they want to see and what they expect to improve.

On improvement, while there were some encouraging signs in the first quarter of this financial year with the roll out of the delivery model, that is only the start. Reflections clearly vary across the country on the impact of the roll-out, given what colleagues have said, and Royal Mail needs to turn this into sustained improvement that our constituents can rely on. That is why it is critical that any issues with the model between the workforce and management are resolved urgently.

I welcome the positive announcement by Royal Mail and CWU earlier today, which demonstrates a shared commitment to improving service performance, supporting the workforce and ensuring that the company is well prepared to meet customer demand over the Christmas period. That includes restarting the roll-out of the new USO delivery model, albeit over a slower timescale to account for the Christmas peak period.

To ensure that our constituents get the service that they deserve, it is critical that this engagement continues. The Secretary of State and I will be meeting with both Royal Mail and CWU next week to seek updates on progress. I know that postal workers have valuable insights on operations and thoughts about how things can be improved, and I am grateful for colleagues raising the reflections of the posties they have interacted with and met. It is important that they are also on board with any changes.

Hon. Members know that improving working conditions and standards for workers across the economy is important to me and this Government. The postal sector needs to work for consumers, businesses and workers. I am aware of concerns about the treatment and status of workers across the postal sector. The current employment status framework can leave very vulnerable workers without core and basic employment protections and rights.

Last week, along with some colleagues who are in the Chamber, I attended an interesting discussion on work and employment in UK parcel delivery with Sheffield University management school. That discussion aligns with the Government’s recently published consultation on proposals for targeted reforms on employment status, which will seek to address many issues—particularly around bogus self-employment—that colleagues have raised today; we discussed those issues at the roundtable, too.

I will move on to Royal Mail’s communication with colleagues. While local operational issues are for Royal Mail’s management to explain and address, I know that many hon. Members—as has been raised in this debate and beyond—are dissatisfied with the level of engagement that they have had with the company’s leadership. It is crucial that Royal Mail meets with Members of this House, listens to their concerns and sets out clearly what it is doing to put things right. That is the least that our constituents deserve.

I know that Royal Mail’s chief executive will now be meeting a number of hon. Members in Parliament next month, and I will continue to reflect Parliament’s concerns in my engagements with him—in particular, detailed information on local data and assessments of what is happening at constituency level. In my first engagement with the chief executive, I said that I would take seriously every complaint that is raised directly to Members via their constituents. As a constituency MP, I can share in the reflections and frustrations that colleagues have raised; when we receive those complaints, it is important that we have as much information as possible available to us—and early on. I would like to see that in a more proactive form from Royal Mail.

In addition to engaging constructively with Parliament, it is important that Royal Mail also listens to the concerns and suggestions of its workforce, who work so hard to deliver post across the nation. I welcome engagement, whether through formal or informal channels that are currently in place, such as the Q&A sessions that Royal Mail has introduced, or more directly from staff to senior leadership, but I urge Royal Mail to also to continue to listen to its workforce through their recognised unions and reps. The expertise and first-hand experience of the workforce must help to shape improvements.

Some Members also raised the idea of linking any further price increases to improvements in quality of service. I understand the frustration when people see prices rise but do not see the improvement in services that they rightly expect. Every pound matters to our constituents who are still struggling, and our constituents need to see the value as well as the reliability. Considerations around pricing regulations are a regulatory matter for Ofcom, which is considering this very issue as part of its consultation on pricing and affordability, which was launched on 16 October and will close on 27 November.

Our priority for Royal Mail has been scrutiny of the takeover and securing important undertakings to support the financial sustainability of the company and the long-term provision of the universal service obligations. Colleagues have given careful consideration as to where the Government can continue to play our part—some in quite significant detail—and I am grateful for all the contributions this evening. I commit to continuing to engage with all colleagues in the Chamber on the progress of the quality of service with Royal Mail. Colleagues know that, alongside the Secretary of State, I am meeting with the leadership next week, and we will always be happy to update colleagues following those discussions.

Royal Mail’s performance has not been good enough. Our constituents know it, the Government know it, the House knows it and Royal Mail knows it, so we will continue to engage with Ofcom, and Royal Mail, its owners and its workforce. But people do not want excuses—they want their post delivered on time. Ultimately, that is the only test that matters. It is a test that Royal Mail must pass, and it is the test that this Government will continue to hold it to.

I will conclude by once again thanking our incredible posties across the country. This is not a reflection on them, their hard work, and their service to our constituents and our communities. We are committed to bringing all parties to the table to resolve the issues that we have discussed today, because Royal Mail is a national institution that we want to protect long into the future and an essential public service that our constituents rely on. I thank all colleagues for bringing their voices and those of their constituents to the Chamber today—I hope that they have been heard loud and clear. I look forward to working with all colleagues going forwards.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Chris Bloore to wind up.

Post Office Redress

Kate Dearden Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)]

The Horizon and Capture scandals caused profound harm to postmasters, many of whom suffered years of financial, personal and reputational damage through no fault of their own. The Government are determined to right these historic wrongs by completing their pledge to ensure that affected postmasters receive the redress they deserve.

When we came to office in 2024, we promised to ensure that postmasters would be compensated swiftly. We are doing so. Eighty-seven per cent of Horizon claims received have now been settled and we have paid over £1.7 billion to more than 14,000 claimants. Redress has now been agreed for nearly 90% of the group who worked with Sir Alan Bates to bring the original Horizon legal case.

Horizon Shortfall Scheme Fixed-sum Offer Appeals

In May, the Department announced that it would establish an independent process through which eligible postmasters who accepted the £75,000 Horizon shortfall scheme fixed-sum offer could seek permission to have their claim fully assessed through the Horizon shortfall scheme appeals process. I can now confirm that we expect to launch that process in November.

Claimants and their representatives will have four months from the date of launch—or from the date of receipt of their fixed-sum offer, whichever is later—to register for the process.

Claimants will be encouraged to seek funded legal support and are asked to provide a short, written narrative to explain why £75,000 undervalued their claim. That will be considered by an independent assessor who is independent of both the Government and the Post Office. Where permission to appeal is granted, the claim will be assessed in full through the Horizon shortfall scheme appeals process.

My Department has engaged extensively with the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, claimant representatives and postmaster organisations on the design and practical implementation of the process.

Further guidance, including details of how eligible postmasters can register, will be published when the process launches.

Shortfall Independent Review

In May 2026, Sir Gary Hickinbottom, the independent senior lawyer for the Horizon shortfall scheme, published his review of fixed-sum offer cases where there was no—or very limited—available evidence of a Horizon-related shortfall. He recommended that, where Post Office considers there is insufficient evidence to make a fixed-sum offer, that decision should be independently reviewed before a claim is rejected. The Government and Post Office accepted this recommendation in full.

In response, the shortfall independent review will commence in late October. Eligible cases will be referred to an assessor independent of both Post Office and Government. This means no claimant will be refused HSS redress based on Post Office’s decision alone. Eligible claims will have an independent review of their case before any final decision is made to reject a claim.

Family Members Scheme

In July, we opened registration for the Horizon family members redress scheme, which allows applicants to submit information that will support the assessment of their applications once claims processing begins early next year.

A further announcement with more detail on how the scheme will operate will be made in due course.

Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme and Capture Submission Deadlines

Having made significant progress in delivering redress to claimants, the Government are now providing greater certainty about the next phase of the Horizon convictions redress scheme and the Capture redress scheme. Establishing submission deadlines is an important milestone in these schemes, providing clarity on the path ahead, while ensuring eligible individuals have sufficient time and support to submit a claim.

Accordingly:

The HCRS will close to new submissions from 31 July 2027. This will be three years since the launch of the scheme.

The Capture redress scheme will close to new applications from 31 March 2027, approximately 18 months after the scheme opened.

These deadlines reflect the differing nature and complexity of the application processes under each scheme. Claims submitted before the deadlines will continue to be progressed to conclusion.

Pre-Horizon Investigation

The Government have made substantial progress in delivering redress to those affected by the Horizon and Capture scandals. However, we remain committed to ensuring that no stone is left unturned in understanding the full extent of issues that may have affected postmasters.

In line with the recommendation of the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee, we have begun the process of commissioning an independent investigation into accounting software that operated before Horizon. Consistent with our approach to the Capture software, an independent investigator will establish a fuller understanding of those software applications and their impact, providing Government with a robust evidence base to inform any future considerations.

We expect the investigation to report in spring 2027. I will keep the House updated as this work progresses.

Update on Restorative Justice and Next Steps

Financial redress is an essential part of addressing the harm caused by the Horizon and Capture scandals, but our response must go further. In April, the restorative justice programme moved from its pilot phase into full delivery and is available to postmasters and family members impacted by Horizon and Capture who wish to take part. It offers a voluntary, participant-led process, with careful preparation and independent practitioner support from the Restorative Justice Council throughout.

The first restorative meetings have now been completed and the programme is beginning to help repair the human harm that has been caused to postmasters and their families as a consequence of this terrible injustice, alongside the financial closure which we have already delivered for so many.

Today’s announcements mark an important milestone in the Government’s work to address the legacy of Horizon and Capture. While significant progress has been made, we remain steadfast in our commitment to ensuring that those affected receive the redress and support they deserve.

[HCWS397]

Royal Mail: Performance

Kate Dearden Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)]

Good afternoon, Ms Lewell; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on securing this debate about the performance of Royal Mail. She clearly outlined the issues in her constituency. She has heard directly from constituents about the inadequate service, and I thank her for bringing that to the Chamber, as I thank other colleagues for doing the same. This is not the first debate on Royal Mail in the House, but it is my first debate as the Minister responsible, and it is a pleasure to respond to it. I take this part of my brief extremely seriously, and I hear the challenges we are working through loud and clear.

Royal Mail should be a cornerstone of our national infrastructure, serving every address in the UK under its universal service obligation. As we have heard, people and businesses continue to rely on its services every single day, and posties are such valued members of the communities they serve. Royal Mail is an independent business, and the Government are not involved in its day-to-day operations or resolving specific service issues, but patience with its performance is wearing thin. Colleagues will have heard that loud and clear from the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box earlier this afternoon. Customers have every right to expect better.

Royal Mail must do more to restore confidence in its service. That is why I was frank in my meeting with the chief executive of Royal Mail last month, and will continue to be so for as long as necessary. We are clear that the service has been unacceptable for too long and that the pace of improvement must increase quickly. Although letter volumes have fallen from 20 billion items per year in the mid-2000s to 6.5 billion in 2025, the number of addresses served by the universal postal service has continued to grow, and we should reflect on that.

[Catherine Fookes]

I want to raise the issue of the prioritisation of parcels. As the Minister says, the volume of letters may have gone down, but the overall volume of items to deliver has not. She will be as worried as me that the number of people working in Royal Mail has reduced significantly, and many people are leaving because of low morale. What can she do to make Ofcom do more in this situation—for example, spot checks? Fines are obviously not working.

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising those important points. I will shortly turn to the work we are doing with Ofcom and the engagement I have had with it so far.

Postal services remain absolutely essential, delivering everything from medical letters to financial information and birthday and greeting cards from loved ones—as well as, soon, Christmas cards. At the same time, the rapid increase from e-commerce over recent years has transformed the postal sector. Parcel volumes for 2025-26 reached 1.44 billion—a 7% increase from ’24-25. I am conscious that, with Christmas coming up soon, Royal Mail will be entering its busiest period of the year, as we have heard from colleagues. It is vital that it delivers a reliable service for its customers.

Royal Mail is an independent business, so responsibility for managing delivery operations, workforce deployment and local performance rests with its management, and it is best placed to investigate localised problems. However, I am all too aware that customers across the country continue to be let down by Royal Mail’s poor service. Many hon. Members receive correspondence from constituents highlighting their concerns and frustrations about Royal Mail’s performance, and colleagues have raised them today, as I have, too.

[Steve Darling]

I am sure that many Members present will have already raised local issues with Royal Mail and got back what feels very much like a stock letter, as I did. What advice would the Minister give to Members about how to hold it to account for such an appalling service?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his intervention. I will very shortly turn in more detail to my engagement with Royal Mail, and the expectations that I have put to it for how it should engage with us in this House with appropriate detail and information.

The consequences of delays can be especially significant when correspondence is important and time-sensitive, such as correspondence regarding hospital appointments, bills, legal documents, benefit correspondence or letters containing driving licences. I share the frustrations and concerns of hon. Members and their constituents. That is exactly why Royal Mail must do more to deliver a reliable service.

Before I reflect on my engagements with the chief executive and my correspondence with hon. Members in this Chamber and outside, I will turn to Ofcom. As the independent regulator for postal services, Ofcom is responsible for setting and enforcing Royal Mail’s service standards. I met Ofcom yesterday to share the feedback I received from hon. Members across the House ahead of this debate—I will also reflect on today’s contributions—and to discuss the wider postal sector. Ofcom has fined Royal Mail £37 million over three years for not meeting quality-of-service targets. Ofcom assured me and the Government that it continues to monitor Royal Mail service data closely and will take further regulatory action, where needed, to hold the company to account.

Ofcom is also investigating Royal Mail’s performance against quality-of-service targets in the last financial year. I know that several hon. Members, some of them in the Chamber, met Ofcom on Wednesday 14 October to raise their frustrations about the continued poor service from Royal Mail. Ofcom has shared the key themes from that discussion with me and my officials. I thank colleagues for taking the time last week. I have no doubt that Ofcom will have heard and understood the strength of feeling about the service that our constituents have experienced.

I will turn briefly to costs, particularly the cost of stamps, which lots of colleagues have mentioned. Last week, Ofcom launched a consultation on extending the current second-class letter price cap until 2028. Of course, every pound counts when people are still struggling with the cost of living crisis, yet they are not getting a reliable postal service. I hope that will be a key consideration, but I recognise that it is for Royal Mail, as an independent business, to set the price of stamps. Ofcom and I discussed that yesterday.

The regulator sponsorship charter, which the Government published in July, reaffirms our role in setting regulators’ strategic direction and holding them to account. We will continue to work closely with Ofcom on its approach to regulation and the outcomes it delivers for customers. We would pragmatically consider any future requests for additional powers where they are needed to support improved outcomes for customers and our constituents. We will actively hold Ofcom and other regulators to account, as appropriate.

[Anna Dixon]

In addition to meeting Ofcom, as the Minister mentioned, we also met the leadership of the CWU. It is clear that postal workers are coming forward with ideas about how the business could be reformed. I hope the Minister will assure us that she is urging Royal Mail’s leadership to sit down with the CWU to consider some of the more radical, long-term options for reforming our Royal Mail.

[Kate Dearden]

I will provide an update on our next steps, and our engagement with the unions and Royal Mail, very shortly. All hon. Members present agree that Royal Mail needs to step up and improve its performance. Colleagues reflected on the improvement plan published by Royal Mail to address the primary cause of service issues. It has committed to invest £500 million to increase its frontline resourcing and the availability of working hours for part-time employees. I reflect on the point about suitable sorting offices, using modern technology. We have secured legally binding commitments from the new owners for sufficient investment to ensure that the USO can be delivered.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. I appreciate it; each of us in the Chamber does. One massive issue in my constituency of Strangford is staff retention. There comes a certain age, as the years creep up, when the weather goes against you. Some of those who joined early and have done maybe 20 or 30 years come to a stage where they can no longer do it. One of the major reasons why they are not able to do it, apart from the weather factor, is that they are able to get a better wage up the road. To retain staff, wages need to reflect rising inflation and the fact that staff have to travel to work. What discussions has the Minister had with the chief executive to ensure that wages improve, which will naturally help to retain staff?

[Kate Dearden]

Before I address the hon. Gentleman’s point, and reflecting on his remarks about visiting his local sorting offices and what he is hearing from posties themselves, I put on record that Royal Mail has informed me that it has invested more than £470 million since 2021 in automation and in delivery and infrastructure updates. Of course, when it comes to pay and conditions, we work closely with the trade unions represented in Royal Mail, and we will consider the wider support we can provide to create a sustainable future for Royal Mail. Supporting our posties is absolutely essential.

I also take this opportunity to reflect on my recent meeting with the chief executive of Royal Mail, at which I specifically raised the issue of engagement with colleagues. I urged Royal Mail to be much more proactive with MPs, and much more detailed in its assessments of what is happening at constituency level, and to take seriously every complaint raised directly with it by colleagues, whether the complaint is about performance, service, staffing levels, sickness or absences. It is important that Members across the House have relevant information to hand. When Members, myself included, receive numerous complaints from constituents, it is important that they have the appropriate and relevant information to make that assessment. I reassure Members that I always reiterate that point when I meet Royal Mail.

[Charlie Maynard]

If possible, I would love to hear the Minister’s thoughts about the points I raised: linking targets to stamp price increases, escalating fines, transparency, and ringfencing Royal Mail’s cash.

[Kate Dearden]

Hopefully, the hon. Member has reflected on my remarks about my engagement with Ofcom, particularly on its recent consultation on stamps, the cost of living crisis, service and targets. I have heard his remarks and will take them forward in my conversations, particularly around Royal Mail’s service, which has to improve, and improve very quickly, as the Prime Minister reiterated today. I thank the hon. Member for putting his reflections on the record.

On USO reform, Royal Mail is currently implementing a new delivery model, as we all know and have discussed today. That new delivery model was approved by the CWU and its membership, and it is being implemented across the network. Colleagues have reflected on different feedback from their constituents, posties and local management.

Royal Mail’s performance against its quality-of-service targets has been improving, so it is important that any final issues between the company and its workforce in rolling out the new approach are resolved urgently. Today, I reaffirm the commitment given by the Secretary of State yesterday that we are meeting the CWU and Royal Mail the week after next to press for progress. We will update colleagues on that meeting.

I also want to reflect on what colleagues have said about our important, absolutely essential postal workers, who are a central part of every city, town and village we represent. Indeed, they are integral to their communities’ future success. Posties work tirelessly every single day for constituents and customers, and Royal Mail must ensure that they remain at the heart of a business that delivers in line with all our expectations.

I put on record my appreciation for our postal workers and posties across the country. My grandad was a very proud postie. He loved his community and he loved his job, because it is about much more than delivering letters and parcels. Posties are part of the communities they serve. They know their rounds and their customers. Often, they are one of the familiar faces that people see every day; sometimes, they are the only familiar face that people see. I therefore take the time to express my appreciation.

It is in everyone’s interest to get round the table to resolve the issues we have discussed today, including the need for an improvement in the quality of service—we must make sure that happens quickly. Indeed, that is my commitment to all colleagues in Westminster Hall today.

Before I conclude, I will talk about parcels and the need to address the imbalances in the postal sector, which is an important part of the next steps, and update colleagues on the work we are doing in the Department in this space. We are improving the working conditions, standards and rights of workers across the economy, including in the delivery sector, which is really important to me.

Last week, we published a consultation on proposals for targeted reforms of the employment status framework for employment rights. We recognise that self-employment arrangements can provide flexibility for some people, but we are also aware of the concern that the current employment status framework can leave vulnerable workers without core and basic employment protections and rights. Our consultation hopes to address those issues, particularly around bogus self-employment, which colleagues have reflected on today, taking into account the impact on key sectors of the economy, including the postal services industry.

Yesterday, colleagues and I attended an interesting roundtable on work and employment in UK parcel delivery, held with the University of Sheffield Management School, where we talked about exactly these issues. Its research is important and will feed directly into our work in this space. Across the sector, Ofcom has reacted to growing concern about delivery performance by reminding operators of their obligations, and it has engaged with all major parcel companies to ensure their compliance with the regulatory framework.

Although this debate focuses on the performance of Royal Mail, it is important to recognise that reliable delivery matters across the postal and parcel delivery market. That is particularly the case for our vulnerable constituents, as service failures can have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable consumers, including disabled people who might often struggle to leave their homes. Ofcom has introduced targeted protections that require operators to have appropriate policies in place for the fair treatment of disabled customers, alongside strengthened guidance on complaints handling. Lots of colleagues mentioned that today, and I will continue to press Ofcom and Royal Mail where I need to.

The way we communicate might be changing, but post remains an essential service for people and businesses across the United Kingdom. The Government believe that the performance of Royal Mail has been unacceptable: I have made that clear, as has the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State also made it clear in his response, published yesterday, to the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee’s report. We will continue to press Royal Mail and its management to improve the quality of its service. Customers rightly expect and deserve a reliable postal service, and colleagues from all parties expect their constituents to have it, too. Royal Mail absolutely must deliver it, and deliver it soon.

Again, I pay tribute to and thank our incredible posties across the country who work tirelessly to deliver for our constituents and support their communities. Royal Mail is a national institution that is a key part of our identity, and we all want it to succeed. We are passionate about the universal postal service on which we all rely. I hope colleagues hear my passion about ensuring that we get people round the table so that we can deliver a better service for our constituents, through the wider postal sector and Royal Mail. I thank colleagues for their reflections and contributions, and I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley for securing this debate.

Kinship Carers: Statutory Paid Employment Leave

Kate Dearden Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing this important debate. Since she was elected to this place, she has done incredible work to champion the voices and issues of kinship carers in every room and at every opportunity. I also thank colleagues across parties for all their work in raising the important issue of kinship carers at every opportunity, with me directly and with colleagues across Government.

I begin by recognising that, as we have heard, kinship carers often step forward at extremely short notice and in immensely difficult circumstances. Many of the children involved will be experiencing some of the most turbulent and crucial days or weeks of their lives, and may have experienced bereavement, family breakdown, separation, instability or trauma. At precisely that moment, a grandparent, aunt, uncle, sibling, other relative or family friend may be asked to make a lifechanging commitment.

I also acknowledge the brilliant work of kinship advocacy organisations, such as Kinship and the Family Rights Group, which continue to campaign and work diligently to raise awareness of the role of kinship carers, many of whom might not even recognise themselves as kinship carers. Those organisations continue to engage constructively with me and the Government to bring forward important evidence and insights into the experience of kinship families. Their work is incredibly appreciated, and helps us to understand not only the scale of kinship care but the practical realities facing carers and children.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes for inviting me to a recent meeting of the APPG that she chairs, where I had the opportunity to hear directly from a kinship carer about their experiences. Their contribution was moving, was instructive to the requirements from Government moving forwards, and underlined the importance of listening to and putting at the forefront the voices of kinship carers. Their real-life experiences are exactly what the Government are considering in our review.

Kinship carers provide love, stability and continuity at what can be an incredibly difficult time. Colleagues raised stories that they have heard directly from their constituents; I have heard stories from mine too. Amanda, who is a kinship carer in my constituency, took the time to meet me at my surgery recently. She provides incredible support to kinship carers across my constituency, and talks so openly about her experience. I know that colleagues have also heard from their constituents, and I thank them for raising those experiences today. I want people’s experience in the workplace, and their reflections on when they have unfortunately not experienced that, to shape not only this issue but my wider brief.

Of course, taking on the responsibility of being a kinship carer can mean significant emotional, practical and financial pressures, often with very little notice. I recognise not only their importance and contribution, but the challenges they face. At the APPG meeting, we talked a lot about the Family Rights Group data showing that eight in 10 kinship carers who left work have never returned to paid employment. That is a really stark statistic. I cannot even imagine the difficult position that kinship carers will be in of, as my hon. Friend alluded to, having to make the impossible decision between looking after a child who needs them at such an important time in their life, and their job. That insight is particularly valuable as we consider the evidence in the parental leave and pay review, and in wider work to support kinship families.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on her years of hard work on this issue and on securing this debate. The Government’s core mission is to provide stable, loving homes for every child. That policy happens to have come out of the Department for Education, but the issue we are discussing spans across the Department for Business, the Department for Work and Pensions, and so on. Does the Minister agree that this issue is a fantastic example of where proper cross-Government work, pulling in the same direction, could produce outcomes for young people that are greater than the sum of the different policy parts?

[Kate Dearden]

On that note, I pay tribute to the brilliant Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), for all his incredible work on kinship carers. I absolutely recognise the importance of cross-Government and cross-Department work on the issue, and I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) that our intention is to work in a joined-up way to support kinship carers throughout their lives, and to look at where we need to go further and do better. That is why this debate is welcome and important, as we consider the parental leave and pay review.

Of course, colleagues will be fully aware of the significance of the work being undertaken in the Department for Education, from the kinship allowance pilot, which will provide kinship carers with a weekly allowance equivalent to the fostering national minimum allowance for each eligible child, to the work being done in the light of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026. I thank colleagues for welcoming that work.

I also want to use this opportunity to update colleagues on the parental leave and pay review, which sits in my Department and is cross-working with the Department for Work and Pensions. There are, rightly, lots of Departments involved with this, because it is not just one part of life that is impacted for kinship carers—it is across everything. We recognise that support for the carer and support for the child cannot be easily separated. Giving a carer the time and support needed to help a child settle may contribute to the stability of that arrangement. That is why it is right that we are considering the experiences of kinship families across departmental boundaries—social care, employment policy, education and the wider support available to families.

We are committed to reviewing the wider system. Colleagues will know that the review was launched in July 2025, and that is why we are considering all the current parental leave and pay entitlements, as well as the experiences and needs of working families who do not qualify for existing leave and pay entitlements, including kinship carers.

We are jointly leading the review and engaging with a broad range of stakeholders. Again, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has fed into the review for their patience, as we are taking the time to go through as much evidence as possible, including roundtables and bilateral meetings, as well as meetings with me, other colleagues who are in the Chamber today and parental advocacy groups that represent kinship carers. The review will conclude in early 2027 with a set of findings that outline the next steps for implementing any reforms. I know there is significant interest in what the review will conclude.

[Gareth Snell]

When I hear talk of an end to a review my heart sinks because, in Government time, these reviews can take forever. Although it may conclude in 2027, can the Minister give the House an indication of how quickly after that point the Department and the Government will feel able to publish the outcomes of the review and the next steps, so that we will not need to wait a year or so to know what its conclusions are.

[Kate Dearden]

My hon. Friend is right to push me and my colleagues on this issue. I am unable today to pre-empt recommendations, as he knows. But I know how important this is and will keep him up to date with timelines and progress. He has my firm commitment today that we are moving at pace.

We are taking our time to review the evidence, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are considering the issue and how best we can assure kinship carers holistically and across departmental boundaries. I hope that people watching today, including kinship carers, feel my commitment and determination. I know how importance this is; a week and a day can make such a difference to kinship carers’ lives.

That is why it has been really important for us to engage with as many people as possible and acknowledge the wider campaigns outside this room from trade unions, business representatives and employers, who are already going above and beyond. I thank them for it, as well as for highlighting the case for the current position and joining the calls that have been made in the Chamber today.

To conclude, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes for raising the issue and giving us the opportunity to have this debate today. I also thank everyone for their engagement, here and outside this room, as well as our kinship carers, who are absolutely incredible people.

I am so moved and grateful every time I meet with them, and I know other colleagues are too. I hope they hear my commitment and determination to support them today and ensure that future support is practical, sustainable and focused on improving the outcomes for children and families. With that, I conclude my remarks and hand back over to my hon. Friend.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I do not think you get a chance to wind-up, Melanie, in half-hour debates, but as we have extra time, you can have 30 seconds.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Dearden Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

4. What steps his Department is taking under the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 to hold online marketplaces accountable for the safety of products sold on their platforms.

[The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)]

My hon. Friend’s question addresses a key aspect of our recent consultations, which proposed a duty for online marketplaces to take due care to identify, prevent and remove unsafe goods from their sites. The consultation package also proposed a modernised enforcement toolkit, and my intention is that future regulations will set out strong new duties on online marketplaces, backed by appropriate sanctions.

[Dr Prinsley]

Residents of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, like millions of us across the country, increasingly rely on online marketplaces for everyday purchases. However, the consumer magazine Which? continues to uncover dangerous products being sold on those platforms. Will the Minister ensure that forthcoming regulations place a clear legal duty on online marketplaces to identify and remove unsafe products, backed by meaningful penalties for those that fail to protect consumers?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important issue to the House today, reflecting the changes in preferences of both his constituents and those across the country in how they buy products online and interact with online marketplaces. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Which? for the brilliant work it does in this space. Our recent consultations on modernising the product safety framework included proposals for clear duties on online marketplaces, including a clear duty to take due care to identify, prevent and remove unsafe goods from their sites. We also proposed a modernised enforcement toolkit, including civil monetary penalties to complement the existing criminal sanctions; fines would be set proportionally to risk and respond to an offence appropriately. We are also considering bespoke enforcement measures to ensure that online and international supply chain actors can be effectively addressed. We will respond to these consultations in due course, and I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement in this space.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Countless constituents have written to me about their concerns over the proliferation of high-powered e-bikes and e-scooters and conversion kits, many of which are bought online. I have been liaising with Currys, which is being as proactive as it can in making it clear to people through its point-of-sale material what the law is when people buy them in a shop; online, however, it is a wild west. Given the failures in the police cracking down on these vehicles where they are not permitted, will the Government consider limiting their online sales using the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I know that she and colleagues across the House have campaigned on this, and I share their concerns. In our recent consultation on reforming the product safety framework, we sought views on additional measures and responsibilities that are needed to improve the safety of products sold online, which included lithium-ion batteries and their use in consumer goods such as e-bikes. I would be happy to keep the hon. Lady updated on the progress on this work when we respond in due course.

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

6. What steps his Department is taking to help increase economic growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

8. What steps he is taking to help protect consumers from rogue traders.

[The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)]

I know all too well the devastating impact that rogue traders can have on constituents, having had similar discussions in my own constituency and with many colleagues across the House too. That is why my Department supported the independent furniture and home improvement ombudsman’s new approved code and payment protection scheme, backed by independent dispute resolution, to help hard-working families identify trusted traders and ensure that people can spend their money with greater confidence and security.

We remain committed to supporting the Competition and Markets Authority and local trading standards in their ability to impose penalties via the courts. This Labour Government are delivering everyday fixes to protect families and give them room to breathe.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We need to move a bit faster, so questions and answers must be shorter.

[Bill Esterson]

My constituent Joanne paid £11,000 for a new kitchen. Her house was left in a terrible state and she was unable to get the builder to return to rectify the substandard work. It also turned out that he was associated with 21 other companies mostly in the building trade, many of which have been dissolved. The Minister mentioned quite rightly the new code for the home improvement sector, which will give confidence to consumers and support to reputable traders. Is more not needed to go after the cowboy builders to ensure that constituents such as Joanne can get the remedy that they so need?

[Kate Dearden]

I am sorry about that incident with my hon. Friend’s constituent. The damaging impact that that can have, making people who have saved their entire lives for home improvements feel robbed and unsafe in their homes, is dreadful. That is why we are taking action, starting with the backing of the furniture and home improvement ombudsman scheme. I am not complacent in this space: we are determined to ensure that customers know what protections are available and that they can use them with confidence. I look forward to working further in this area.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Rogue traders operate with impunity in the park homes sector, yet the Government have refused to supply sufficient money to National Trading Standards to enable it to carry out a national investigation and bring those rogues to book. What is the Minister going to do about it?

[Kate Dearden]

Regrettably, trading standards has faced a real-terms funding cut of more than 50% since 2010, under the previous Government. The system is therefore under severe strain. I back the incredible work that it does across the country and know how much support it needs. That is why we are committed to backing it and those longer-terms plans to overhaul the wider consumer protection landscape and particularly trading standards to help it continue cracking on with its brilliant job.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

9. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of data centre developments on resource capacity in the south-west.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

11. What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of levels of service by Royal Mail.

[The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)]

The Government are clear that Royal Mail’s quality of service has been unacceptable for too long. Royal Mail published a plan to improve reliability, and I have been frank in my conversations with the CEO that it now needs to increase the pace of improvement and deliver on that plan. I understand that there have been operational challenges in the Lark Lane and Liverpool North delivery offices, and I urge Royal Mail to improve its services for local people. It must do better.

[Paula Barker]

Royal Mail has failed to meet Ofcom delivery targets for first-class mail since 2017, yet over that time, Ofcom has allowed the price of a first-class stamp to increase by 166% and has relaxed targets. Royal Mail’s continual failure affects the most vulnerable groups in our society—those who receive letters about hospital appointments, court dates or social security decisions. These are arriving late. Much of the bulk mail lies outside the universal service obligation. Will the Government review both that and Ofcom’s remit, to ensure that Royal Mail provides a timely, affordable service for all post—one that does not prioritise parcels—and that failure is not rewarded?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue in the House on behalf of her constituents and constituents across the country. Royal Mail’s service must improve quickly. Customers, particularly the most vulnerable, are being let down, and delayed letters, such as legal correspondence and hospital appointment letters, can have serious consequences. When people are paying more for postal services, they rightly expect reliable and timely delivery. The Government have been clear that Ofcom should carefully consider the role of bulk mail and whether additional regulatory measures are needed to secure high standards of reliability for all postal customers. Much of the correspondence that people rely on falls outside the current quality-of-service targets. We will continue to press for a reliable postal service that meets the needs of all users.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

My question relates to the Tonbridge and Cranbrook delivery offices, which I know also deliver to your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ran a survey recently: 85% of people have experienced delays, 25% have missed a deadline or an appointment and, extraordinarily, 20% have experienced a three-week gap between postal deliveries. That is obviously totally unacceptable. Have the Government had conversations with Royal Mail specifically about the TN postcodes?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue on behalf of his constituents, and I share his concerns; I know from my own inbox, as a constituency MP, the challenges that arise when people do not receive their post on time and there are significant delays. I have been frank in my conversations with the CEO of Royal Mail that its service has been unacceptable for too long and that the pace of improvement must improve. The public and his constituents deserve a reliable postal service, and they are right to expect better. If he wants to share those data with me and with Royal Mail, and add to that pressure, I would welcome that.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

12. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the development of place-based business cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

13. If he will take steps to help ensure Post Office provision in every community.

[The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)]

The Government recognise the vital role that post offices play in communities across the UK. We have committed to maintaining the 11,500 national minimum branch requirement, and the Government’s set access criteria, including the requirement that for 90% of the population, their nearest post office should be within one mile of where they live. We are backing this with up to £180 million in network subsidy funding over the next three years to support the cost of meeting those policy requirements, protecting access to crucial services.

[Rachael Maskell]

When York’s Crown post office closed after 138 years, we were given assurances that through WHSmith, we would have a sustained solution. However, Modella Capital, which has taken over WHSmith, closed the post office yesterday. We only have a teeny weeny post office in the city centre. Businesses, residents and tourists are dependent on it—we need a solution. I have met the Post Office; it says that it will take six months to get a solution. I need a solution now. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that we have a temporary solution before we get our sustained outcome?

[Kate Dearden]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns about the availability of post office services in York city centre in the coming months. The Post Office has confirmed that it remains committed to providing a replacement branch, and it has received interest from several potential applicants. While these are operational matters for the Post Office, I will ask it to consider capacity concerns. I will keep my hon. Friend updated, and will ask officials to work with her and the Post Office on finding the temporary solution that she rightly mentions.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

14. What steps his Department is taking with Cabinet colleagues to regulate artificial intelligence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

15. What steps he is taking to support businesses in the hospitality sector.

[The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)]

Hospitality businesses are at the heart of our high streets, communities and local economies, supporting jobs and growth across the UK, and we recognise the pressures that many continue to face. That is why we are providing targeted support for pubs, clubs and live music venues, including 15% business rates relief in 2026-27, and an additional 20% discount from April next year, while reviewing pub and hotel valuations to help ensure a fairer and more predictable business rates system. We are also investing £10 million through a new hospitality grant scheme to support growth, create jobs and strengthen local economies.

[Sir Julian Smith]

As the Minister knows, in areas like mine, the hospitality sector provides the bulk of employment for young people. Can I urge her to look at the Opposition Front Benchers’ proposals, and proposals from UKHospitality, for a lower NICs rate to be provided at the upcoming Budget, to allow those businesses to employ more young people?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising this. Hospitality, as he mentioned, is an absolute key employer of young people in the economy, providing rewarding routes into work. It is a critical sector to help us resolve the NEETs—not in education, employment or training—crisis. That is a key priority for this Government, and we want to work closely with the sector on providing those solutions. I am sure that he will welcome the announcement today of our significant intervention and partnership with the hospitality sector; we are working closely with UKHospitality. We are working on providing job opportunities and new work experience programmes to turn this around, and hospitality is key to that.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

I thank Ministers for their engagement following Carlsberg’s devastating news about the closure of Marston’s brewery next year, which risks 310 jobs and the future of heritage ales from Burton, such as Pedigree and Bass. Hospitality relies on brewing, but brewing was left out of the industrial strategy and industrial energy schemes. Will that now be changed?

[Kate Dearden]

My heart sank when I heard the news, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, not only for raising this today, but for all his work in the sector on behalf of his constituents since first coming to this House. I spoke with the chief executive of Carlsberg Britvic yesterday, and I know that the proposal to close the brewery has not been made lightly. He reassured me that the team at Burton have shown exceptional commitment, skill and professionalism, and have made an enormous contribution to Burton upon Trent’s proud brewing tradition. This proposal is not a reflection on them or the quality of their work. Consumer tastes are constantly evolving, and this proposal reflects the particular long-term challenges relating to cask ale, which I have spoken to my hon. Friend about, and on which I will continue to work with him closely. I know that this will be a concerning time for workers at Marston’s. We recognise the impact that these proposals may have on those workers, their families and the local community as the company begins consulting, and I look forward to discussing this further with him.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The hospitality sector provides around 300,000 jobs for young people every year and contributes £96 billion annually to the economy. Despite that, the Government continue to hammer it with a series of blows, to the extent that the sector has the highest effective tax rate of any sector in the economy, paying the equivalent of 82p in taxes for every £1 of pre-tax profit made. That eclipses the 50p average rate across our economy’s 11 main sectors. What steps are the Government taking to tangibly lower business costs, so that hospitality businesses can employ more young people?

[Kate Dearden]

My first job was in hospitality; I remember it fondly. It has given me skills that I have used throughout my career and life, and it supported my family when we really needed it. I absolutely know the significance and importance of this sector to our economy, and the difference that it can make to people’s lives. It is a key employer of young people across the country—in the hon. Member’s constituency, in mine and in the constituencies of colleagues across the House. It provides a rewarding route into work and is a critical sector to resolving the NEETs crisis and many challenges that we face across the country.

As we grow our economy, we want to grow the hospitality sector. I work really closely with the sector and the Hospitality Sector Council to ensure that we look at all the challenges, and at how we can work together to provide more opportunities and jobs and grow the sector in every constituency across this country. I am determined to deliver that.

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

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Questions should be really on point.

[The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)]

I thank my hon. Friend and Labour colleagues for their work on this. I agree that the Royal Mail service has been unacceptable for too long, and that the pace of improvement must increase, and my constituents share exactly the same frustrations. The Government expect Ofcom to use its full range of existing tools to secure better outcomes for postal users, and I will continue to work closely with it and with colleagues in the House to deliver that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Over the past year, I have also had countless constituents contact me about the adequacy of postal delivery services across Bexleyheath and Crayford. Along with colleagues, I met the chief executive of Ofcom yesterday to look at what more it can do, but will the Minister outline what assessment has been made of the adequacy of services across Bexleyheath and Crayford and set out what more the Government can do to help my constituents?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter on behalf of his constituents. I know that he shares their frustrations. I have been clear with Royal Mail that the quality of its service has been unacceptable for too long. I understand that the concerns in his constituency relate to the Bexleyheath delivery office and I know that he met Royal Mail representatives this summer. I encourage all Members to raise their concerns directly with Royal Mail management and similarly hold the company to account, as I will continue to do. His constituents deserve a reliable postal service, and they are right that they deserve better.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

Sean Egan from Morrisons in Walsall, Gary MacArthur from Sainsbury’s in Wickham and Jorge Costa from Sainsbury’s in Hertford are all workers who were sacked by their employers for confronting shoplifters. In Gary’s case, that happened just hours after he had applied CPR to the store’s only security guard, who would otherwise have died. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that those workers deserve their jobs back, and that we need greater protection for workers who just do the right thing and confront shoplifters?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Truro lost its post office last week as well, without a temporary alternative. Will the Minister consider consulting with the Post Office on alternatives when this happens in main cities and looking again at the franchise model, which seems to leave post office branches very vulnerable?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to my attention, and I would be more than happy to meet her to discuss it further.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Plans to revive Cornish tin and tungsten mining are well advanced with the support of the National Wealth Fund. However, if tin or tungsten were to be brought to the surface today, it would have to be shipped to the other side of the world for refining and processing, with only a fraction coming back to the UK at seriously increased cost. When Cornish MPs meet the Minister next week, can we discuss plans from Government to invest in domestic refinement of tin and tungsten?

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

The Royal Mail sorting offices in my patch are in absolute chaos—they are in meltdown—and I am really concerned that someone will end up in a tragic situation because of the lack of service. I have met Royal Mail on numerous occasions and there has been no change whatsoever—in fact, the service is getting worse. What can the Minister do to remedy the situation before somebody needs to be held accountable for a very serious situation?

[Kate Dearden]

I share my hon. Friend’s frustrations and concerns. Whether it is the biggest issue in my inbox and my constituency or from what I have heard from colleagues across the House, it is clear that Royal Mail has to do better, and I have been frank in my discussions with Royal Mail’s chief executive officer that it must deliver improvements at a much quicker pace. I will continue working with my hon. Friend to ensure that we can deliver for his constituents and those across the country who need a reliable postal service.

Draft Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices During the Recognition and Derecognition Process

Kate Dearden Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 General Committees

[The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice: Access and Unfair Practices during the Recognition and Derecognition Process.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. The code of practice was laid before the House in draft on 6 July. I will explain to the Committee why we are bringing the code for consideration.

In our plan to make work pay, we made a commitment to simplify the trade union recognition process. The Employment Rights Act 2025 updates the legal framework on statutory trade union recognition, so that workers have a meaningful right to organise through trade unions. That includes having removed, last April, the requirement for a union to demonstrate at the application stage that a majority for union recognition is likely, and having removed the requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the appropriate bargaining unit in support of union recognition.

The 2025 Act also makes changes to provide better access arrangements for unions and it aims to deal more effectively with unfair practices during the recognition and derecognition processes. The Government are therefore updating the 2005 version of this code to ensure that all parties, including employers, workers and unions, understand how the legislative changes on access and unfair practices affect them.

We consulted on the revised code between 4 February and 1 April. The consultation sought views on the clarity of changes made to reflect the updated legal framework, structural amendments to reflect the legislative changes made under the 2025 Act, and other changes made to the code, including updating the guidance within it so that it accurately reflects modern working practices and language.

A number of revisions were made to the existing 2005 code following the consultation. Previously, the code applied only to the recognition or derecognition ballot phase. Now, the draft code reflects the changes made by the 2025 Act to access and unfair practices and it applies from the point where the Central Arbitration Committee accepts an application for recognition or derecognition. The code also reflects a clear timetable for negotiations on access: 20 working days from the point that the CAC accepts a trade union recognition application. If no agreement is reached, the CAC will have 10 working days to determine a reasonable access agreement.

The code has been revised to reflect the fact that the 2025 Act allows five working days after the close of the recognition ballot for complaints to be submitted to the CAC where an unfair practice is alleged. Where such a practice is alleged, the Act makes it easier to determine the complaints by only requiring the CAC to consider whether an unfair practice has occurred, without considering the effect that it may have had. The updated code also increases the suggested access meeting frequency and minimum length of meetings to once every five working days and 45 minutes, respectively, during the access period.

The changes will provide more opportunities for meaningful engagement between the union seeking recognition and the workers within the bargaining unit. That will allow union representatives to answer any questions that the workers may have, before the balloted workforce decides whether to agree to statutory union recognition.

Employers will of course have similar opportunities for engagement with their workers throughout the duration of period. In addition, we have sought to reassure employers, small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, for example by clarifying that the statutory recognition process does not apply to employers that have fewer than 21 workers and that nothing in the revised code will require employers to breach general data protection requirements.

The draft code also provides guidance on what constitutes a good access agreement. It establishes a structured framework covering key areas, such as who may be granted access, how and where access should take place—including digital options—and arrangements relating to timing, frequency, privacy and communication. Finally, the Government have taken the opportunity to bring the code up to date with changes in digital communications. The code now provides significantly more detailed guidance in this area, including guidance on digital access.

The draft code in Committee reflects the updated legal framework for statutory trade union recognition. Together with the 2025 Act, the changes strengthen the collective voice in the workplace, enhance worker representation and help to foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions and employers. I therefore commend the code of practice to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

I welcome the shadow Minister and thank him for his speech and questions. The Government are committed to simplifying and improving the recognition process so that workers have a meaningful right to organise through their trade unions. I am not going to spend this time going back and forth over ideology and principles, why the Employment Rights Act is the right thing to do to drive up the quality of work across every area of this country so that people have the rights that they should expect in the workplace, and that we are updating employment rights legislation so that it is fit for the 21st century. We have spent a lot of time doing that, so I will bring my remarks back to the code that we are discussing today.

The revised code supports part of our wider ambition. It supports the Employment Rights Act to deliver better access arrangements for unions and deals effectively with unfair practices during the recognition and derecognition process. As I said in my opening remarks, we listened carefully to views that were expressed during the consultation earlier this year, and I am happy to respond to the particular questions that the shadow Minister raised today. The Government carefully considered the consultation responses and recognised the concerns that were raised about operational impact. However, we believe that workers should have a meaningful opportunity to hear from union representatives and ask questions before making a decision about recognition. That is why we have retained the proposed frequency and duration of meetings alongside guidance intended to minimise disruption and support those practical arrangements, and amended the code to try to aid clarity and support practical use as far as possible.

We think it is right that we provide a level playing field. Employers have access to the workforce throughout the recognition process. Granting the union access to the workplace from the point where the CAC accepts the recognition claim enables the union to also have access to the workplace from the start of the recognition process, at least once the terms of the access are agreed or determined. We think that that is a fair approach. The costs and benefits in the recognition process and the changes that the shadow Minister referenced in his speech were laid out in the impact assessment; the Government expect the cost to be very low, estimating the annual net cost to business at £0.3 million. The code is statutory guidance; it does not impose further costs on employers beyond what we discussed at length during the passage of the Employment Rights Act.

Turning to the shadow Minister’s questions around unfair practices, the legal definition as to what constitutes an unfair practice has not changed, as he referenced, in the Employment Rights Act:

“Unfair practices are actions by an employer, union, or worker intended to influence the outcome of a recognition ballot. These include bribery, coercion, threats, or actively interfering in union management to sway worker decisions.”

We have clarified in the code some issues to consider around some actions during the recognition process. As he referenced, amending the definition of an unfair practice would require separate legislation, and our priority has been to implement the reforms to the recognition process as soon as possible and on the October timeline, as we promised throughout our road map since the introduction of this legislation.

We want to give time for the reforms to bed in and, should it be necessary in the future, we will bring forward further proposals to amend the definition of an unfair practice in addition to our planned additional unfair practice in relation to e-balloting in recognition and derecognition ballots. This code is a key part of our approach of providing increased worker voices in the workplace, improving pay, conditions and productivity, which enables us to protect workers from the unfair practices that we are discussing today, and improving employer-employee relations in the kind of country and workplaces that we are fighting for and want to build. It makes sure that recognition is fair in terms of the access period. It needed to be updated since that 2005 legislation in line with the ambitions that we have for legislation and the Employment Rights Act.

This is a key part of that agenda, and I believe that the code before colleagues on the Committee today will assist unions and employers in complying with the new statutory requirements on access and unfair practices during the recognition and derecognition process. That is why this code is necessary, and I hope that colleagues can support it today to enable that vision and for this to work practically in workplaces.

Question put.

“Make Work Pay” Plan

Kate Dearden Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)]

The world of work has fundamentally changed in recent years. It is no longer the norm for employees to stay in one company, or even a single sector, for their whole career. New technology continues to rapidly transform how we work, where we work, and when we work, and the rise of the gig economy has changed the certainty and stability that employment used to provide.

The Government’s plan to make work pay is bringing employment rights legislation into the 21st century, extending to all the protections that many British companies already offer their workers. Yesterday, the Government updated Parliament on the further progress that we have made on implementing the Employment Rights Act 2025, and published responses to consultations on bereavement leave, flexible working, and the employer duty to inform workers of their right to join a trade union. The Government also published consultations on whistleblowing and tipping.

Today, the UK Government are publishing our consultation on employment status and protections for the self-employed. As part of the plan to make work pay, the Government are committed to ensuring that working people can access the rights and protections to which they are entitled, while supporting a fair, flexible and dynamic labour market.

However, the current employment status framework can be difficult to navigate, requiring individuals and businesses to understand complex legislation and case law. This uncertainty can give rise to bogus self-employment. Evidence suggests that up to 900,000 people may be denied access to core workplace protections, despite working in highly controlled working arrangements. The uncertainty allows some businesses to gain an unfair competitive advantage by failing to meet their legal obligations.

The Government believe that the current framework is not fit for purpose, and there is a strong case for reform. As working practices and business models evolve, the framework must adapt to support our ambition to improve job security, raise living standards and tackle exploitative working practices.

The Government have been clear about their ambition to reform the employment status framework to provide greater certainty and fairness for workers and businesses. Today, we are publishing a consultation on targeted reforms to tackle the most pressing issues in the employment status framework that enable worker exploitation and leave vulnerable workers without core employment protections that they are entitled to.

The Government also committed, in the plan to make work pay, to strengthening rights and protections for the self-employed, recognising the crucial role that they play in our economy. In this consultation, we are seeking views on how the Government can support the self-employed to thrive in good-quality self-employment.

This consultation seeks views on proposals to:

Rebalance the employment status test so that personal service, including the right to substitution, is less decisive and factors such as control are given greater weight when determining worker status. This would help to ensure that individuals under significant control are not denied core employment rights.

Introduce a presumption of worker status and consider the future role of the Fair Work Agency in enforcement to improve compliance with the framework. Presumption of worker status would shift the burden of proof to the engager of an individual to demonstrate that they are genuinely self-employed. This would empower workers, their representatives and agencies seeking to protect them, most notably the Fair Work Agency.

Consider how measures such as a new right to a written statement and the extension of blacklisting and health and safety protections could improve transparency, protections and fairness for the self-employed.

This consultation, and the measures within it, are concerned with the employment status framework for employment rights only, not the framework for tax. The consultation closes on 8 January 2027.

Next steps for consultation

The UK Government have committed to delivering their employment rights reforms in partnership with businesses, trade unions, public sector employers, and civil society. That is why we are undertaking full and comprehensive consultation with these groups on key changes. By delivering these reforms together, we are backing businesses who do the right thing and giving hard-working people the job security and opportunities they deserve. The Government will continue to keep Parliament updated on the implementation of the Employment Rights Act and the plan to make work pay.

[HCWS380]