Department for Business and Trade

Debate between Liam Byrne and Justin Madders

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

At the end of a long day, let me express my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for providing us with this time to debate the supplementary estimates and the priorities of the Department for Business and Trade.

I rise to open this debate and simply make three broad points. This is an important debate because, of all of the supplementary estimates that have been laid before the House this afternoon, the Department for Business and Trade has had by far and away the most significant increase. Day-to-day spending has been increased by some £360 million, which is a rise of almost 18%. Investment spending has risen by £626 million, which is a 41% rise. Those are significant sums, so I pose the following questions to the Ministers. First, are these increases justified? Secondly, is the Department spending its money on the right priorities, given what we have heard from the business community? Thirdly, I want to underline this question about why there is not more significant support for small business, which is suffering what our Committee has found to be pandemic-style pressures but without a pandemic-style support package in place.

Let me start with the significant increases in the Department’s supplementary estimates. Some £375 million has been provisioned extra to support British Steel. That takes the total support that this House has agreed under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 to about £710 million. That is a significant sum. I think it has broad cross-party support. Certainly, the House did not divide when we were recalled for that unusual hearing on a Saturday to agree to the passing of that Act. None the less, there is one significant question that we have to ask this afternoon: where is the steel strategy to go with the extra money that the House is being asked to agree?

When representatives from Tata Steel came before our Committee just a couple of weeks ago, they were very clear that there are now just eight weeks to save the steel industry in this country. Therefore, having passed that Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act, and having been asked to agree this extra money, the House now has to ask the Minister today where that steel strategy is. As we know, a wave of subsidised Chinese steel is about to land on our shores. The United States has put up significant defences. The European Union has put up significant defences. We had significant defences, but they are about to come down in June. Industry is sending a message loudly and clearly to the Government that, unless they act and unless new defences and a steel strategy are put in place, we are looking at the end of the steel industry in this country. Thousands of jobs will go, along with a sovereign capability, which as a country we simply cannot afford to happen.

I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain how, if the House is to agree the spending, we are actually going to make sure that that money is not wasted, because there will be further policy measures in place to ensure that we do not lose our steel industry in the weeks ahead.

That takes me to the Post Office. Post Office provisions for the Horizon scandal and the payouts have now risen to about £1.2 billion. Our Committee has consistently criticised Governments of all stripes for not paying out the money to those victims much faster. The Committee has now agreed a further report on measures, which we think Ministers should take in order to ensure that justice is genuinely delivered to all of the victims of this scandal. That report will be published in a few days’ time. The House is being asked to agree this increase in the provision to £1.2 billion, yet the question we have for Ministers is this: where is the provision that Fujitsu is supposed to be making? After all, the Fujitsu system was at least half the cause of this scandal.

We now think that the total cost of the Horizon scandal, when we add in the legal costs, will be something like £2 billion, yet when we asked the head of Fujitsu what provision he had made for contributing to that bill, the answer was zero. When we followed up with the auditors, they confirmed that the directors had acted within the law because the Government had not yet made any demands on Fujitsu for the money that should come back from that company in order to help fund it. Just to add insult to injury, this is a company that has taken a grand total of £362 million in new contracts over the past year alone. It promised us a moratorium on bidding for new contracts, but that moratorium turned out not to be real and was merely a press stunt.

Why are we not asking for more money from Fujitsu, so that we do not have to put up these provisions of £1.2 billion? I would be grateful if the Minister could answer that question.

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

I have enjoyed an interesting few months on the Committee so far. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is perplexing that we do not have any understanding as to why there is not more pressure being put on Fujitsu to come up with a figure? Fujitsu keeps saying that it is waiting for the outcome of the inquiry, but it has made a commitment and we would expect some kind of provision to be made to reflect that.

[Liam Byrne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The chief executive of Fujitsu came before the Committee to say that Fujitsu did indeed have a moral obligation to make a contribution. That is why we were so surprised when earlier this year, when we asked for him to return, he said that no provision had yet been made. For a company that is making hundreds of millions of pounds out of British taxpayers, it is simply egregious that it has not offered to pay, but it is also wrong that Ministers have not demanded that it pays up, and pays up quickly.

I have touched on a couple of the significant increases in the estimates. There are two more points I want to make in the time available. The second broad point is the question of whether the money that the Department for Business and Trade is asking us to approve is in line with business priorities. As a Committee, we spend a lot of time listening to the business community, and we set out priorities based on what the businesses we talk to when we travel the country think we should be focused on. On our last national road trip we visited seven cities and did many roundtables on that tour. Last year we had 1,000 witnesses appear before the Committee—three quarters in private and a quarter in public—and we received 168 bits of evidence as we set out priorities for the future.

We heard very clearly that what business is looking for is far more certainty about the investment environment for the years ahead. Businesses want a better return on investment. For that, they need energy costs and business rates to come down, and they need the skills system to be far more flexible and available. Critically, they need much better access to finance so that we can mobilise capital on a different scale. Trade deals need to become a gateway to increasing exports. Finally, they are asking for a lot more coherence in regulation. Right now people are being smothered in red tape, often because one Department is not talking to another.

As we look at those priorities and at the estimates in front of us, we see that certainty has improved. The spring statement was a step forward, and the Chancellor has increased her headroom significantly. That definitely takes risk out of the investment environment. But there is nothing in these supplementary estimates about driving down energy costs. There is nothing about driving down business rates. There is nothing about making the skills system better financed and more available, in particular to small business.

Where there is progress is in the extra £200 million for the British Business Bank and the £50 million for the growth guarantee scheme. That is significant, but it is probably not quite enough. Indeed, the evidence we have received suggests that the market for loan guarantees is probably about £2 billion bigger than the Government have provided for. If we want small and big business to have access to scale-up finance in particular, we need to make sure that the British Business Bank has a much bigger loan guarantee scheme available.

Finally, there was nothing in the estimates to roll back the very deep cuts to export support. At a time when we have basically finished signing the free trade agreements that are available to us as a country, it is surprising to the Committee that export support staff are being cut so aggressively. If we want to make the most of these new opportunities and new free trade deals, we would have thought that increasing export support would be a Government priority.

My final point is about the emergency facing small business. Right now, as I said in my introductory remarks, small business tells us that it is facing pandemic levels of pressure without a pandemic-style support package. Labour costs have gone up. As we know, the national minimum wage has gone up, which in my view is a good thing, and the Employment Rights Act 2025, which will improve rights, is coming through. That is also a good thing. But when we add on the national insurance contributions, we must accept that labour costs will rise. That means that labour has got to become more productive, and that the skills system has got to become better available to small businesses. But when we add to that rising energy costs—so much higher; perhaps 50% bigger than before the covid crisis—the lack of regulation in third-party intermediaries, the increases in business rates, the costs from crime, the organised crime takeover of the high street, late payments and a lack of access to procurement, we see the crisis that small business now confronts.

Those are the priorities where we would have liked to have seen more action in the supplementary estimate. They will certainly be a focus of the Committee’s scrutiny work over the course of the next year.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Liam Byrne and Justin Madders

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare my membership and financial interests in trade unions, as I have done throughout the passage of the Bill.

I thank Members from both sides of the House for their contributions to yesterday’s debate. I look forward to another good debate today as we work together to ensure that the Bill works in practice for workers and businesses of all sizes across the whole country. Similarly to yesterday, I will use my opening remarks to explain to the House the amendments put forward by the Government in parts 4 and 5 of the Bill.

The Government are moving a number of amendments that represent a significant step forward in modernising our industrial framework. Amendments to clause 50 will strengthen the provisions of trade union access rights. They will ensure that the framework functions effectively and delivers on our commitment to modernise working practices. They will streamline access provisions by allowing a single Central Arbitration Committee member to make a fast-track decision on whether access should take place. In making a decision about whether it is a single person or a panel that will consider the application, the CAC will be required to have regard to the complexity of the case, as well as whether the proposed terms of the agreement are model terms. Various criteria will be prescribed in secondary legislation following consultation.

The amendments will also clarify that supporting a worker is a legitimate purpose for access, and they will provide a power to bring forward secondary legislation to make further provision as to how the CAC is to determine the level of penalty fines for non-compliance with access agreements. They will expand access rights, enabling access agreements to cover communicating with workers in ways that do not involve entering premises—for example, connecting digitally using technology—therefore modernising our antiquated industrial relations framework.

New clause 39, new schedule 2 and associated amendments insert new provisions into the Bill, replacing clause 51, and will address unfair practices and access arrangements in the recognition and derecognition process. The amendments will extend the application of unfair practice protections to the point at which the CAC accepts an application for recognition or derecognition, and will ensure that employers cannot increase the size of the bargaining unit for the purposes of the recognition application after the application is made. That will end the deliberate gaming of the system that we have seen in recent years.

The amendments will also delete the second test for determining an unfair practice complaint, which currently requires the CAC to consider how an alleged unfair practice may have affected workers’ votes in the recognition, or derecognition, ballots. They will extend the time limit in which unfair practices can be reported after the ballot closes to five working days. They will ensure that an employer cannot recognise a non-independent trade union after receiving a request for voluntary recognition from an independent trade union as a means of thwarting the independent trade union’s subsequent application to the CAC for statutory recognition.

We will bring forward and formalise the process for agreeing access arrangements between the employer and the union during the recognition and derecognition process. These amendments will streamline the recognition process, reduce opportunities for unfair practices to occur, and ensure that unions that seek recognition have a fair and transparent statutory route to enable them to do so.

Today’s amendments on industrial action rules will reduce the costly, complex and bureaucratic requirements on unions in relation to industrial action and ballot notices, while ensuring that employers have the necessary notice and information to prepare for industrial action. New clause 42 will simplify notice to employers of industrial action ballots and industrial action, reducing the chance of spurious challenge and making the information required more proportionate. New clause 43 will extend industrial action mandates from six to 12 months, reducing the need for repeated ballots. Amendments to clause 61 will mean that the notice period for industrial action will be set at 10 days, giving businesses time to prepare and safeguarding workers’ rights. Amendments to clause 58 will mean that the 50% ballot turnout threshold repeal will be subject to commencement on a date to be set in secondary legislation.

Turning to political fund ballots, new clause 40 and associated amendments remove the requirement for unions to hold a ballot every 10 years on maintaining a political fund. Instead, unions will provide reminders about members’ right to opt out every 10 years, ensuring transparency without imposing costly and time-consuming ballots.

The Bill will bring together the various agencies and enforcement bodies that enforce employment rights in the new Fair Work Agency, so that where employers are not doing what is right, a simplified and strengthened enforcement system will protect workers and ensure justice in the workplace. The Fair Work Agency needs the right tools to do the job. A series of amendments form a package that will give the Fair Work Agency the tools that it needs to hold all employers to account more effectively. That is fair for workers and businesses.

The Government are moving amendments to introduce new powers that are key to the Fair Work Agency’s core enforcement role. New clauses 44 to 56 create a civil penalty regime. Under the regime, enforcement officers will be able to issue notices of underpayment, and impose a penalty on employers who have underpaid individuals, in breach of statutory pay rights that are within the remit of the Fair Work Agency. As a result, the agency may be able to help workers get the money they are owed more quickly than if they had to go through an employment tribunal. Where proceedings before the tribunal are necessary, we want the Fair Work Agency to be able to support individuals and ensure that the tribunal’s time is used as effectively as possible. New clause 57 does that by enabling the agency to bring proceedings before the employment tribunal if individuals are unwilling or unable to. Under clause 58, the agency can also offer advice and assistance to individuals bringing employment-related cases before the courts or tribunals.

The Government are also moving amendments to upgrade the powers that the Fair Work Agency will need to tackle labour abuse effectively. The Bill Committee heard from stakeholders, including Eleanor Lyons, the UK Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, about bad practices in the social care sector. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority is prevented from investigating many cases because they do not meet the modern slavery threshold. The Fraud Act 2006 covers situations that amount to labour abuse but fall short of being modern slavery. Today we are bringing forward two amendments that will deliver the Government’s commitment to give the Fair Work Agency the strong powers that it needs to tackle labour exploitation. We will enable Fair Work Agency enforcement officers to use their powers to investigate such cases, helping the agency to protect the most vulnerable in the workforce. We will also give enforcement officers the ability to issue special warnings following arrests. In practice, that means telling suspects that if they refuse to answer questions about certain items or their whereabouts, that could be used against them in court.

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

Only 21 employers have been prosecuted for national minimum wage violations since 2007. The measures that the Minister is bringing forward will improve enforcement. He touched on the Modern Slavery Act 2015, but he did not address the points made in the debate yesterday. Will he use this opportunity to say more about the Government’s intention to update the Modern Slavery Act?

“Chapter 4A

Debate between Liam Byrne and Justin Madders

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

The answer is in the Department’s press release, which cites Simon Deakin, professor of law at the University of Cambridge, no less. He has said:

“The consensus on the economic impacts of labour laws is that, far from being harmful to growth, they contribute positively to productivity. Labour laws also help ensure that growth is more inclusive and that gains are distributed more widely across society.”

I am sure that the right hon. Member wants to see that happen.

Amendments in relation to the rights in clauses 2 and 3 to reasonable notice of shifts and payment for short-notice cancellation, curtailment and movement of shifts will ensure that the rights work appropriately for workers whose contracts specify the timing of at least some of their shifts; provide that a worker is entitled to a payment from their employer only for a shift cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice if they reasonably believed they would be needed to work the shift; and allow employers to disclose personal information about a worker in notices of exceptions, where appropriate and in accordance with data protection law, and ensure that the usual burden of proof applies where it is alleged that such a notice is untrue.

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

The Minister will have seen the appalling evidence that the Business and Trade Committee took from McDonald’s, where the BBC investigation exposed allegations from hundreds of young workers who were suffering harassment, and even allegations from one worker of managers soliciting them for sex in return for scheduling shifts. The tightening up that he proposes is very welcome. When does he think he will set out the detail—[Interruption.] When will he set out the detail of, for example, the period of time that someone must work before being offered a zero-hours contract?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his question. We are aiming to work on this once the Bill has passed this stage, and consultation will take place in due course. I have to say that the chuntering from those on the Conservative Benches really shows how they fail to appreciate the power imbalance that there is in some workplaces and the exploitation and harassment that arise from that.

Our measures on guaranteed hours, reasonable notice of shifts, and payment for short-notice cancellations seek to ensure that workers, often in fragmented sectors with little voice of their own, do not bear all the risk of uncertain demand. However, we recognise that there are cases where unions and employers, working together, may want to agree more tailored rights than the provisions allow, which would benefit both the workers and the employer given the unique context of that particular sector. Unions, businesses and trade associations have made a case for that flexibility in their meetings with us. We want to allow for that, while also providing a baseline for sectors where unionisation is uncommon or agreement cannot be reached. New clause 33 and associated amendments will allow employers and unions to collectively agree to modify or opt out of the zero-hours contract measures.

Like the other workers covered by this part of the Bill, agency workers deserve a baseline of security and access to a contract that reflects their regular hours. Many agency workers have a preference for guaranteed hours, according to survey evidence. We know that 55% of agency workers requested a permanent contract with their hirer between January 2019 and September 2020, according to the Department for Business and Trade’s agency worker survey. We are keen not to see a wholesale shift from directly engaged workers to agency workers as a way for employers to avoid the zero-hours provisions in the Bill.

New clause 32, new schedule 1 and associated amendments will narrow the broad power currently in the Bill and instead include provisions for similar rights to be extended to agency workers. Hirers, agencies and agency workers can then be clear where responsibilities will rest in relation to the new rights. These amendments reflect the call for clarity from stakeholders in their response to the Government’s public consultation on this issue. Given the important role that agency work plays in businesses and public services, we recognise the need to work with the recruitment sector, employers and trade unions to design detailed provisions for regulations that work—that is, regulations that achieve the policy objective of extending rights to agency workers without unintended consequences for employment agencies and hirers—and we will work on that in due course.

The Government have also tabled amendments in relation to dismissal and redundancy practices. This Bill will help employers to raise standards in relation to these practices, so that the vast majority of businesses that do the right thing by their workers will no longer be undercut by those with low standards.

Royal Mail Takeover

Debate between Liam Byrne and Justin Madders

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome the statement made by this hard-working Minister. I take it from the announcement that Mr Křetínský has cleared the investment screening tests that the Cabinet Office is responsible for. It would be useful to have that confirmed.

Let me press my hon. Friend about the universal service obligation. Is it his intention that beyond the initial five years he will seek six-day delivery and a universal service obligation in place for Royal Mail for as long as His Majesty’s Government retain the golden share?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his comments. The golden share is to deal with tax residency and headquarters being domiciled in the UK. Obviously, there will be discussions about the universal service obligation. We know that this is a fast-moving market, and that will be for determination by Ofcom some time next year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Liam Byrne and Justin Madders

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

That certainly took the nation’s interest in more than one way. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has already announced a review into it, and we will look at secondary pricing. The whole system needs urgent reconsideration, and we understand that the Competition and Markets Authority is looking into the matter, too.

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

What thought has the Secretary of State given to attending the Williams inquiry? The Post Office scandal is unfinished business. It is now vital that we not only learn the lessons, but accelerate redress for the innocent and, crucially, punish the guilty fast.

Post Office Horizon

Debate between Liam Byrne and Justin Madders

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

We promised to update Parliament before the summer recess, and we have done that by way of a written ministerial statement. I note that, when the shadow Minister was the Minister, he came and answered on most occasions for the Government. We certainly did not take that as an indication that the Government were taking this matter any less seriously than they should, and that is not the case now either. I understand the frustration that the shadow Secretary of State has about the number of letters that have gone out, but there have been difficulties in corroborating some of that data. I understand that, when he made that promise as a Minister, he did so in good faith, but it has turned out that additional physical checks have been required. We have had to access court documents—sometimes stretching back decades—which has meant that there have been delays. The Ministry of Justice has put more resource into that to ensure that work carries on at pace.

As the shadow Secretary of State has noted, the website is now up and running and applicants can register on it. I am pleased to report that, as of this morning, 89 people have already done so. We hope that, once verification checks have been completed, payments can be processed within 10 working days. We understand that the question on the Court of Appeal was discussed at length during the passage of the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Act 2024. The matter deserves further consideration, and I understand that the Minister for postal services has had conversations on what we can do in that respect.

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

I welcome the answer provided by my hon. Friend. He will remember that, when the Select Committee reported just four or five months ago, we noted that 80% of the budget for redress had not been paid out. We suggested to the now shadow Secretary of State a number of measures to put into the Bill to speed up the process. Those amendments were rejected. Can the Minister now assure us that he has a grip on this and that we will now begin to see cheques in the post much faster?