Parental Leave Review

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

“a trade union ‘right to roam’”.

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Member could not have put it better. He has explained the benefits of trade union membership, which is something that Members on the Conservative Benches clearly do not understand.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The Groceries Code Adjudicator’s annual survey shows high levels of compliance by the supermarkets. However, a statutory review will actually commence next month, and I would encourage her and all stakeholders to contribute to it.

[Mr Speaker]

Now it is Chris Law’s turn.

Competition and Markets Authority Chairman

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Following the resignation of the chair of the Competition and Markets Authority, Marcus Bokkerink, the Secretary of State has appointed Doug Gurr as the interim chair for a period of up to 18 months while our new permanent chair is appointed. The Secretary of State has expressed his gratitude for Marcus’s leadership of the board of the CMA since his appointment in September 2022, and for the work of the CMA in that time, particularly in response to cost of living pressures.

As the Prime Minister set out in his speech at the international investment summit, this Government will ensure that every regulator in the UK focuses on growth. Given Doug Gurr’s background and experience as an entrepreneur and business leader, and his clear under-standing of the importance of new and developing technologies such as artificial intelligence, he will bring the necessary strategic leadership to the CMA to enable it to promote growth for the benefit of businesses and consumers. As set out in the industrial strategy Green Paper, the Government will shortly be consulting on a new growth-focused strategic steer for the CMA. While respecting the independence of the CMA and the decision making of its panel members, the steer will be clear about the Government’s expectations of the CMA in supporting growth across the economy.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Growth is the No. 1 mission for this Government, and getting the balance right between protecting consumers and driving up growth in the economy means that we all benefit. That is something we are very clear about on this side of the House, and something that the last Government failed to deliver on.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Yes, he was right. That is the message that the Prime Minister sent out to the regulators at the investment summit, and it is why they have been invited in to give their ideas on growth. We do not think that asking regulators how they are going to stimulate growth is a problem—that is the No. 1 mission of this Government, and everyone should be signed up to delivering on it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Llinos Medi.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

It might be worth the hon. Member putting in for an Adjournment debate.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member for her question. It is important that consumers and small businesses operate on a level playing field; it is also correct that we are very keen to see more growth delivered. We think that will benefit everyone in the economy, but I take the point that a balance has to be struck.

[John Grady]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Thursday 31st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I have to educate the hon. Member on what trade unions do. ASLEF is not a union in the adult social care sector, which is what we are talking about here. We want to work on a tripartite basis—business and workers, together with the Government—to get terms and conditions right. Given that we had the lowest increase in living standards on record under the Conservative Government, I would have thought that he would want to support that too.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Absolutely. We are determined to ensure that the particular sectors that my hon. Friend mentioned, where low pay and insecurity are rife, will benefit. We are working closely with businesses and employers across the spectrum to ensure that we get the proposals right because, for too long, insecurity and low pay have been rife in the UK economy. That has to change.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I gently point out to the hon. Lady that that represents a 0.4% increase on businesses’ total costs—a small price to pay for what the impact assessment says

“will strengthen working conditions for the lowest-paid and most vulnerable in the labour market, increasing fairness and equality across Britain. It will have significant positive impacts on workers who are trapped in insecure work, face discrimination, or suffer from unscrupulous employer behaviour like ‘fire and refire’ practices”.

If the hon. Lady does not support that, I am sure that she can talk to her constituents about why.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

Post Office Horizon

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

As hon. Members will know, convictions across the UK have been quashed through recent legislation, and those affected are now able to apply for financial redress under the Horizon convictions redress scheme. The scheme will be wholly delivered by the Department, not the Post Office. All the forms of redress, including those pursued under the group litigation order, will be delivered by the existing schemes.

Since taking office, this Government have continued to work closely with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to identify those who have had their convictions overturned. Letters have started to be issued to those eligible that will confirm that their conviction has been quashed and provide further information on how to access financial redress. But I would encourage those who believe that they are eligible not to wait for a letter. Please do come forward now and register for the Horizon conviction redress scheme.

We have put guidance on gov.uk to help people know where they stand: whether their conviction has been overturned and, if eligible, how to apply for redress through the registration and application process. Victims will be able to choose from two options: first, they can either accept a fixed settlement of £600,000; or, secondly, they can choose a full claim assessment if they believe their losses exceed £600,000 and wish to have their application fully examined by the Government.

No matter what route they choose to take, once an applicant’s eligibility is confirmed, they will be paid a preliminary payment of £200,000. We are making sure that they can access historical data from both the Post Office and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to support their decision and the application. We also recognise that, with the best will and support in the world, in a few cases, some information may not be retrievable, but I assure hon. Members that, even in those cases, we will do all we can to ensure that a fair offer is made to sub-postmasters who have suffered this terrible injustice. This House was united in the last Parliament in its wish to see justice for sub-postmasters. In this Parliament, we intend to deliver on that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say that Members should speak through the Chair, not to the Minister? As an established Member of this House, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to start on the wrong foot with me.

[Justin Madders]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We want payments to be processed as quickly as possible. Data is updated monthly on the Government website. We can see that, in terms of the group litigation order, 210 offers have now been made. Under the Horizon shortfall scheme, of 2,730 claimants, altogether 2,417 offers have been accepted. Of the 110 convictions on the overturned convictions scheme, initial payments have now been made to 103 of those people.

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Post Office Horizon Scandal

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently say to the Chamber that it is a new beginning, and we want to start on the right foot, not the wrong foot. It is difficult to go from Government to Opposition, but there is a two-minute limit for the Opposition and a one-minute limit for the third largest party. Please let’s stick to the rules and start as we mean to go on.

[Justin Madders]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The shadow Secretary of State set out the intent he had in government, which we intend to carry on. We also believe there is absolutely no reason why we should not continue to work on a cross-party basis, as we agree with him on the importance of delivering fast and fair compensation, which is at the heart of all we are trying to achieve. We will be making a statement by the end of July, before the summer recess. As the shadow Secretary of State has already noted, we have committed to do that. We are working at pace with officials, victims and those who have been affected by the scandal to work up the detail, and an announcement will be made in due course.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. In recent years, we, as Members, have reflected on the question of political accountability for decisions that have been taken and actions that have taken place over many years. We will be reflecting on how best to ensure there is genuine political accountability in the system.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I do not see why that point should have come last. [Laughter.]

[Justin Madders]

What a surprise to see the hon. Member in his place today. I am sure that this will not be last time that we have an exchange across the Dispatch Box, but he does raise an important point. We absolutely agree that we need to make it as easy as possible for postmasters to raise their concerns and to get the justice that they have so long waited for.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Monday 22nd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

It is now approaching five years since the towns fund was launched, promising £3.6 billion of investment to level up the country. Most of it remains unspent, and the cross-party Public Accounts Committee has said that the Department for Levelling Up could not

“give any compelling examples of what had been delivered so far”.

That is a damning assessment of this five years of the fund, never mind after 14 years in power—so, Minister, why are this Government such a failure?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Thursday 7th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) is right that too many employers still think they can opt out of paying the minimum wage. Earlier this week, the Low Pay Commission published its 2023 report, which said that non-compliance “appears persistent” in the social care sector. I have heard a range of evidence citing problems with record keeping, exploitation of migrant workers, and workers routinely not being paid for travel time.

It is clear that the social care sector has a real issue with the minimum wage but, when browsing through the latest naming and shaming list published by the Department a couple of week ago, I found only 17 employers classed as being within the social care sector, which is less than 0.1% of the total number of employers in the sector. What will the Minister do to ensure that everyone working in the social care sector gets at least the minimum wage?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Thursday 25th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Postal workers are the bedrock of our communities, but they are being forced to work at unsustainable levels—something that, sadly, has not been recognised in Ofcom’s report on the future of universal service obligations. The input of postal workers is critical to a successful Royal Mail, so please can we have confirmation that their views will be considered in any future decisions?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Monday 22nd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow spokesperson.

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

First, Mr Speaker, may I echo the comments made by the Secretary of State in relation to the late Tony Lloyd, who will be greatly missed in all parts of the House?

As we have heard from the shadow Secretary of State, the whole country has been levelled down since 2010 at an average rate of £10,200 per person. That is a damning indictment of this Government, but with about 1,300 projects funded by the future high streets fund, the towns deals and levelling-up funds, that decline should, in theory, not have happened. How many of those projects have now been completed and what evidence does the Department have that those projects have contributed to reducing regional inequalities?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Thursday 30th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Fire and rehire is rife in this country. Research published by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that, between March 2020 and July 2021, 43,000 employers changed their employees’ contracts through fire and rehire techniques. The Government promised in March 2022 that they would take action following the P&O scandal, and we now learn that it will be a full two years since that time before anything actually changes. Given the propensity for using fire and rehire tactics, can the Minister tell us how many employees he estimates will have had their contract changed through fire and rehire in that two-year period?

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

One would have thought so, and that is probably why the Equality and Human Rights Commission has expressed great alarm at this Bill. If the Government want to give themselves the power to threaten every firefighter, every teaching assistant and every paramedic with the sack when they exercise their democratic right to withhold their labour, they should think very carefully about what they do with that power, because in a free society no Minister should hold that power—not that Ministers seem to understand what this Bill actually does, because the Minister said last time:

“The reality is that nobody will be sacked as a result of this legislation.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2023; Vol. 733, c. 103.]

I know that the Government chose to bypass the normal line-by-line consideration of this Bill, but one would have hoped that the Minister had read as far as the schedule, because it does actually contain the power to sack people for going on strike.

Even if the Government do not understand the powers they are giving themselves under the Bill, they ought to understand the principle of the withdrawal of labour in the event of a dispute. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) has mentioned, many Conservative Members withdrew their labour the other night. In fact, 200 of them had no difficulty in doing so. Indeed, former Prime Minister Johnson withdrew his labour after he disagreed with the report from the Privileges Committee. So they should understand that the principle of people withdrawing their labour is an important one. It is a basic and fundamental right that every one of our citizens should enjoy in a free and democratic society. We are not serfs required to provide toil to the lord of the manor or conscripts engaged in a war against an invading force; we are citizens of this country, and in a free country the right to withdraw labour should be protected and respected.

Even if Conservative Members believe that the requirement to send someone into work against their will is somehow consistent with a free and democratic society, they should at least consider the fact that the Bill as it stands means an employee can be sacked for failing to comply with a work notice, even if they say they have not received it. Yes, someone can be sacked for not complying with a work notice without any challenge to it legally, and they can also be sacked for not complying with it even if they have never seen it. How is that justice, how is that reasonable and how is that good industrial relations? It is a recipe for injustice, for toxicity and for abuse by employers who want to get rid of the most troublesome employees.

I will not list all the organisations that have condemned this Bill, but two of the main employers in the key rail and health sectors have called this out for what it is, because they know that rather than resolve industrial disputes, this Bill will prolong them. They know that the kind of restrictions this Bill places on people are anti-democratic and not in the best traditions of this country. It is no wonder that even members of the Cabinet have criticised this Bill. Indeed, this week we had the shameful news that the United Nations, through the International Labour Organisation, has called on the Government to respect international law, such is the threat that this Bill poses to it. No, we cannot accept this tawdry, vindictive, unworkable disgrace of a Bill. This Bill attacks the people who keep this country going, and the sooner the Government realise that the politics of division will not work, the better.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Here we are again. It has been nearly nine months since the Bill was introduced, during which time five different members of the Government have spoken in support of the Bill from the Front Bench, most of them making one appearance before never being seen again. I congratulate the Solicitor General on making it back for a second appearance.

Although, of course, the question of retained EU law needs to be addressed, our main contention is that the way in which the Bill attempted to do that was reckless, unnecessary and undemocratic. To some extent, we have seen an end to that kamikaze approach, which is of course welcome, although it does not mean that all our concerns have been dealt with.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Thursday 18th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Ministers have promised an employment Bill more than 20 times, but they have consistently failed to deliver. It seems that not a week goes by without a company in the gig economy announcing that it is stripping back workers’ rights and protections, presumably because they are confident that this Government will not legislate to introduce protections in the gig economy. Will the Minister come clean on the Government’s plans? If they are not going to bring in any protections for gig economy workers, will he now apologise to them for another failed promise?

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Thursday 11th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

What an absolute shambles. I think that the Secretary of State is the sixth different Government representative at the Dispatch Box on this Bill, and unfortunately for her she is the one who will have to hear from us the words that no Government Minister wants to hear: we told you so. We did, repeatedly, as did the Institute of Directors, the TUC, the Bar Council and a host of other organisations.

It has to be asked: why did not the Government listen to those experts in the first place? It was completely unrealistic, reckless and frankly arrogant to think that they could strike 4,000 laws from the statute book in the timescale set out in the Bill. It is no use blaming the blob, the anti-growth coalition or the BBC. This humiliating U-turn is completely down to Government hubris that has found them crashing up against reality, so will the Secretary of State apologise to the entire House, and to all the trade unions and business, legal and environmental groups that were told by the Government that they were wrong?

Will the Secretary of State also apologise for announcing this policy change not to the House but to her friends—or should I say now her former friends—in the European Research Group and to the press? Can she tell us at what point the Government decided on this change of course and on what basis they have chosen the 600 regulations to be removed—or is it 2,000 now, because she mentioned that in her statement as well?

Although we welcome the humiliating climbdown that sees the cliff edge go, the Bill still gives enormous powers to Ministers and at last the cat is out of the bag about what they want to do with them. We are concerned that, although the mode of delivery has changed, the destination has remained the same. That is revealed in the “Smarter regulation to grow the economy” paper released yesterday, which contains a clear plan to water down TUPE and working time rights. We have warned time and again of the threat to workers’ rights in the Bill and in response the Minister said:

“The Government have no intention of abandoning our strong record on workers’ rights, having raised domestic standards over recent years to make them some of the highest in the world.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2022; c. 144.]

Well, we can strike that from the record, as we can strike the Secretary of State’s leadership hopes. How can a Government elected on a manifesto promise to

“build on existing employment law”

justify an approach that will water down workers’ protections? It just goes to show that you cannot trust the Tories with workers’ rights.

[Kemi Badenoch]

One of the things that I have found most illuminating about this process is how little those on the Opposition Front Bench understand what we are doing. They simply stand up and repeat their usual talking lines. We have made repeated commitments that we are not watering down workers’ rights in this House. If the hon. Gentleman actually read and understood what we have written, he would understand that we are maintaining workers’ rights but reducing the bureaucracy. That would save £1 billion and is something that both workers and employers want. I know that it is really tough and there are lots of words in it, but the truth is, I say to those on the Opposition Benches, that I can explain it but I cannot understand it for them.

This is a very simple change in approach. We are having the exact same effect that we were always going to have. We are removing more than 2,000 pieces of EU legislation. It is delightful to see those on the Labour Front Bench and the ERG on the same side for once, as they claim to be. If I am upsetting people on both sides, I am probably taking the pragmatic middle ground and I am pleased to be doing so.

There is so much opportunity we can take on EU law reform and that is what this programme is about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Tomorrow, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill comes back before us. It will see vital employment rights such as holiday pay, TUPE and maternity protections scrapped at the end of this year if Ministers do not act. Labour Members believe in strong employment protections, so will the Government vote with us tomorrow to ensure that those vital rights are saved?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Minister says “when parliamentary time allows”, but the Government could have provided time by putting an employment Bill in the Queen’s Speech. On neonatal pay, flexible working and an enforcement body to protect workers’ rights, this Government promise a lot but deliver very little. Ministers have promised an employment Bill over 20 times, yet it still appears nowhere in the legislative programme. Is not the only job that this Government are interested in protecting the Prime Minister’s?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

That was a pretty strong-sounding answer from the Minister, but let us see whether those fine words are put into practice. An audit undertaken two years ago found that 17% of organisations—more than 2,500—that should have published a modern slavery statement had failed to do so. Can the Minister tell us what action has been taken since then to ensure that they do?

DWP Estate: Office Closures

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

It looks as though the Department for Work and Pensions does not believe in levelling up, does not believe in its own rhetoric on jobs, and does not believe in keeping people in work. We hear that offices will be closed in Stoke, Southend, Peterborough, Chesterfield, Aberdeen, Kirkcaldy, Barrow, Bishop Auckland, Doncaster and Burnley, taking jobs out of these communities. Can the Minister answer these questions for the Members in Stoke, in Wellingborough and in Stockton whose communities and constituents will be concerned about the news today? We have heard that up to 12,000 jobs might be affected, but how many of the workers will be able to find new jobs locally within the Department? Can the Minister guarantee that there will no compulsory redundancies?

I appreciate that staff are being informed only this morning, but this is the correct forum for the Minister to answer these important questions. The PSC Union has said that its members are facing spiralling workloads. Is it not the case that the Department actually needs more staff, not fewer? If these closures are allowed to go ahead, we will face the absurd prospect of making staff redundant in one area, while recruiting new staff in another to do exactly the same job. That will be both costly and inefficient, so can the Minister confirm that that will not be allowed to happen?

If these closures go ahead, local communities will be faced with the loss of hundreds of good jobs potentially. Many of the closures are in areas of economic deprivation that can hardly afford to lose good-quality public sector jobs. Will there be a plan to help those communities attract well-paid jobs back to their local areas? This all comes at a time when families and working people are being hit hard by the cost of living crisis made by this Government. The price of petrol, food and energy is still soaring and people are worried about the future. Has there been any assessment of the impact that these job losses will have on the local economy? I think the Minister indicated in his previous answer that there had not been, but I would be grateful if he could confirm that. Has any consideration been given to the effect that this will have on the high streets of the affected towns? Will we see yet more boarded-up buildings? This is the opposite of levelling up; this is levelling down and it is closing down.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I apologise for once again returning to the subject of integrated care boards. One important question remains unanswered following yesterday’s debate. If we are to have truly integrated health and social care, all voices need a seat at the table: public health; social care; mental health; the workforce; and, of course, patients and carers. As matters currently stands, there is nothing guaranteeing each of those groups a seat at the table. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that none of them should be missed out, so what will he do, for example, if an ICB decides to exclude the patient’s voice?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

This is Mrs Hoyle’s effort, but there we are.

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

Congratulations to Mrs Hoyle on a job well done.

New investment is welcome, but it is no consolation to those patients missing out because the rest of the NHS estate is being starved of investment. We have seen a 23% increase in treatments being delayed or cancelled in the last year because of infrastructure failures, and the maintenance backlog went up by another 50% last year. We are not going to see those record waiting lists drop if operations are cancelled because basic repairs are not done, so will the Secretary of State tell us by what date we will see no more delays to treatment because of crumbling buildings?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head up to Bolton, to Yasmin Qureshi. [Interruption.] No, we cannot, so we will go first to shadow Minister Justin Madders.

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

The Government’s road map yesterday said:

“While self-isolation is critically important to halting the spread of the disease, it is never easy for those affected.”

We agree with that. We have been making that point for months, along with most of the expert advisers in the Government, which is why creating a scheme that only one in eight people qualify for was never going to work. Will the Minister tell us why, despite yesterday’s announcement, it is still the case that only one in eight people who test positive will actually qualify for a self-isolation payment?

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is important that we have targeted support and that we support the people who need assistance, so that they can self-isolate. It is, exactly as I outlined in my first answer, what we have been doing, and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, we will continue to look after people through the pandemic. Our undertaking is to make sure that we protect people, whether they are self-isolating or unable to work for other reasons, such as shielding, throughout the duration of the pandemic. The hon. Gentleman will be hearing much more about that from the Chancellor next week during the Budget.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) [V]]

Undoubtedly the furlough scheme has prevented mass unemployment, but when companies such as BA use millions of pounds of public money to furlough their staff at the same time as handing out redundancy notices, it is a kick in the teeth to those workers and the taxpayer. It is concerning that reports today suggest that the furlough scheme may be wound down after June. Would it not be an obscenity if, whether through employer decisions or Government inaction, those people whose jobs we have been trying to save end up redundant anyway?

[Mr Speaker]

Before the Prime Minister answers, will Members please ensure that they do not have political slogans behind them when they are speaking?

Loan Charge

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Thursday 4th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Some might say that there is a leaky Parliament at the moment, so we will take it from there.

[Justin Madders]

I am sure that many Cabinet meetings have similar difficulties.

My constituent tells me that, having submitted his tax returns each year when he was working, they have never been queried. He states that, by doing that, HMRC has at the very least implicitly, if not explicitly, accepted that any moneys that he received in the form of a loan were just that. However, it is the retrospective nature and long reach of the loan charge that is so hard for him to accept. I understand that it has been claimed that HMRC has always said that these arrangements were unacceptable, but I have not seen anything prior to 2016 to suggest that that was the case.

When the Minister responds, can he say whether in future I should advise my constituents that they should no longer consider HMRC responses to tax returns to be final, that they can be reopened at any point and that any schemes registered with HMRC can be overturned decades in future? Can he also advise me whether any companies that made loans will be pursued for employer national insurance contributions? What if the company is no longer trading? Will the employees’ national insurance records be updated?

I also want to say a few words about the human cost of all this. HMRC has admitted in response to freedom of information requests that no assessment was made of the likely number of taxpayer bankruptcies that will result from this charge, yet the official HMRC statement—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. No photographs.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

You were holding your phone up.

[Justin Madders]

I will carry on.

The HMRC statement says:

“The government anticipates that some of these individuals will become insolvent as a result.”

It also says that the measure

“is not expected to have a material impact on family formation, stability or breakdown.”

I find that statement unbelievable on two counts. First, it is unbelievable how little understanding or empathy there is for those facing bankruptcy. Anyone who has spent more than five minutes in the real world will know that individual insolvency has a massive impact on families. My other huge reservation about that statement is that it appears to say that no assessment has been made of the number of bankruptcies, yet it claims that there will be “some” insolvencies. If people have to be made bankrupt, I think we are all clear that something has gone terribly wrong.

Finally—and before we get the paddles out—I would like to ask the Government to think about what kind of message this whole mess is sending out to entrepreneurs, the people the Conservative party used to consider the bedrock of its support. Under this Government, those people are being left with the distinct impression that HMRC is prioritising the recovery of tax revenue over justice by targeting individuals rather than the promoters of the schemes, many of whom still enjoy generous contracts with Government. They knew what they were doing but appear to have accepted no responsibility for their actions and faced no consequences. The suggestion that some public sector employers were insisting that the people paying the price now would only be employed if they agreed to accept the kind of contract that HMRC is now declaring unlawful is an outrage.

Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 21st January 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 1, in clause 5, page 3, line 44, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—

‘(5) Any statutory instrument which contains regulations issued under this Act may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”

This amendment would make all regulations issued under this Act subject to the affirmative procedure and require approval from Parliament before they become law.

[Justin Madders]

We want to ensure that there are appropriate safeguards with regard to costs, not least because the Bill currently gives the Secretary of State authority not only to facilitate a continuation of existing arrangements, but to enter into any number of bilateral agreements with individual member states, with very little opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. It also provides the authority to strengthen existing reciprocal healthcare agreements with countries outside the EU, or to implement new ones across the globe, in line with the Government’s aspiration to develop trading arrangements with countries beyond the EU. There is therefore a potential for the establishment of multiple complex agreements.

New clause 1 addresses the important point that the Bill before us is rightly intended to provide for all reciprocal healthcare arrangements in the future, and to provide for all eventualities. As we know, a no-deal Brexit could lead to a multitude of new bilateral agreements within the EU27, let alone the rest of the world. At this stage, none of us can be clear about how many of those agreements will come into being. We cannot assess their likely cost or impact, and, indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment is inadequate in that regard. It suggests that the cost will be similar to, or lower than, the current £630 million per year.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Justin Madders

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let us hear from the north-west champion, Justin Madders.

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

Saving the best till last, as always, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

At least you now know where you need to be.

[Justin Madders]

Indeed.

A number of planning applications for fracking have recently been submitted in my constituency, causing much consternation locally. That has not been helped by a local political group arguing that councils should determine those applications by way of a local referendum. As the Leader of the House knows, that would be a deeply irresponsible move. Not only would such a decision not be effective, but it could leave a council open to a costly legal challenge. May we have a debate on the precise discretion that is available to councils to consider such controversial planning applications?