Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Swallow Excerpts(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Kyle
I am already working with DSIT on these issues, but because of my hon. Friend’s informed question and the imploration for me to do more I will double down on that. He is giving real voice to an incredibly important part of the defence technology sector which we need to foster. The defence investment plan invests much more in drone technology. We will be investing more than £5 billion in drones over the next four years, and that his constituency will be playing a very key role in that.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue. With the issues around Morrisons Daily and TGJones, a lot of people across the country are worried about the future of their local post offices. Under the decision we made to maintain the current size of the post office network, I have been talking to the Post Office, and it is clear that where there is a risk of disruption that does not mean the service will disappear. Around the country, where there is the potential for a closure, it is advertising for alternative sub-postmasters to take over the businesses.
Human Rights: Supply Chains
Peter Swallow Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The lack of trade union rights globally is seriously worrying. I am a proud trade unionist, and we need to ensure that trade union rights are respected in our UK supply chains. I will come on to that shortly in my speech.
Our country is the birthplace of the trade union movement. We pride ourselves on championing workers’ rights, human rights and our democratic values. Our Labour Government recently passed the Employment Rights Act 2025, the biggest reform of workers’ rights in a generation, bringing more security to millions of workers and making work pay. Our freedoms of association and collective bargaining—some of the most important rights we have—allow workers to have representation in the face of unfair treatment and to advocate for fair pay and protections against dismissal, discrimination and other unfair and inhumane conditions.
The same cannot be said for workers around the world. Workers in 75% of countries are denied the right to freedom of association. In many countries, it is illegal to be a trade unionist. Coupled with attacks on freedom of speech, we have countless reports of human rights activists and environmental defenders being threatened, or even killed, when challenging or opposing abuses by large corporations. With 50 million people trapped in modern slavery globally—a number that is growing every year—and labour rights under threat almost everywhere, it has never been more critical to tackle this issue head on.
Without those freedoms, workers have no power to challenge inhumane conditions that exacerbate inequality and poverty, particularly for women and children. The UK was once a leader on safeguarding human rights and supply chains, but we are now falling behind. Currently, we have a patchwork of narrow legislation and guidelines on businesses and human rights that are not enforcing our moral duty to ensure that our supply chains are free from human rights abuses.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will know that I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which recently published a report called “Forced Labour in the UK’s Supply Chains”. One of our recommendations was that the Government need to strengthen section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and specifically the reporting duty, in a way that reflects the size and capacity of the business in question. Does my hon. Friend agree with that recommendation? Would he like to see more done to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I will come to in just a moment. I strongly support the strengthening of section 54 and its application.
With the UK importing £20 billion-worth of high-risk goods every year, our current framework is not effective enough in preventing goods made with forced labour from entering the UK market, despite the Government’s stated position that no company operating in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chains. The Modern Slavery Act was considered world-leading legislation, as the UK was the first country in the world to introduce such legislation. However, the current transparency and supply chain reporting, as set out in section 54 of the Act, is wholly inadequate, applying only to organisations with a turnover of more than £36 million, and excluding public bodies, meaning many businesses and organisations fall through the cracks.
The exclusion of public bodies from the duty to report on transparency in their supply chains can leave our country’s most important agencies vulnerable to being complicit in horrific human rights abuses, which affect not only the welfare of workers globally, but the stability and growth of our economy. In addition, the transparency reporting duty can be met by an organisation simply declaring that it has taken no steps to address forced labour in its supply chains; that is simply not good enough. Corporate giants with big money are given a free pass to escape their moral responsibilities by not even looking for any abuses present in their supply chains.
At present, businesses are able to voluntarily identify, mitigate or prevent any forced labour risks found in their supply chains. Many responsible businesses in the UK want to do the right thing, but are being undercut by corporate giants and less responsible companies. Clear and enforceable rules are needed in order to provide the right guidance for businesses and level the playing field for all. We can address that by introducing mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation to hold all businesses, across all sectors, including financial institutions and the public sector, legally accountable for preventing human rights abuses and environmental harm in their supply chains. Mandatory due diligence would compel corporations to undertake proactive processes to minimise and manage the risk of violations within their operations by, for example, conducting risk assessments, requiring their suppliers to fulfil certain conditions or carrying out unannounced audits.
Internationally, we are far behind our allies and partners. All other G7 nations have introduced or plan to introduce mandatory due diligence laws or import bans on goods made by forced labour. The EU is doing both. With the UK seeking a closer relationship and alignment with the EU, we must catch up.
Businesses themselves have also spoken up. In the last few years, more than 150 businesses and investors, representing more than £4.5 trillion in UK assets, have publicly demanded mandatory standards. The Trades Union Congress, the Ethical Trading Initiative, the British Retail Consortium and the Corporate Justice Coalition, which collectively represent more than 350 high street brands with £800 billion in turnover, have called on the Government to introduce mandatory due diligence laws.
Public support shows that people value companies that responsibly source and produce products we use every day, with four in five adults supporting new laws. By failing to update the current patchwork of legislation and guidelines, and delaying the introduction of human rights and environmental due diligence laws, we are failing workers, communities and environments integrated into our supply chains, failing UK businesses that want to do the right thing and ultimately risking the complicity of the UK economy, as well as our national security.
The Government have already made it clear that supply chain resilience is critical to the UK’s economic security. In June last year, the trade strategy committed to a new supply chain centre within the Department for Business and Trade, which will play a role in supporting businesses to address the risks of forced labour in supply chains. The strategy also launched the responsible business conduct review—the UK’s implementation of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. A year later, Parliament is still waiting for the review to be published and scrutinised, although I very much welcome yesterday’s publication of the action plan for the supply chain centre.
The trade strategy rightly recognised that strengthening responsible business conduct
“is not only a moral imperative”,
but
“a positive part of the Government’s mission to grow the economy.”
Supply chains and the need to ensure that they are free of abuses and harm are embedded in our growth mission. With modern slavery costing the UK economy £60 billion every year, we urgently need to ensure that we do not lose out on more growth, and we can do that by simply introducing new legislation.
The resilience of our economy goes hand in hand with our energy security. The conflict in the middle east and the ongoing Ukraine-Russia war, which have significantly contributed to the cost of living crisis for our constituents, have shown more clearly than ever that the UK must become energy independent and continue focusing on renewable sources of energy.
However, the security of home-grown energy is exposed when we look further into its supply chain. An estimated 98% of solar panels in the UK are produced in China, predominantly in the Xinjiang region, with forced labour from the Uyghur community. Therefore, the UK is at risk of being a dumping ground for slave labour-produced solar panels. We must ensure that, with new legislation on Great British Energy, home-grown energy is produced through ethical means, so that in producing energy to heat our homes, we do not contribute to the inhumane treatment of workers and communities around the world.
In addressing those challenges, we cannot overlook the unbreakable link between safeguarding human rights and protecting the environment in supply chains; when there is a failure to protect one, the other suffers. UK imports of beef, soya, cocoa, rubber and palm oil—also known as forest risk commodities—have wiped out forests the size of our major cities. The UK’s deforestation footprint linked to those imports has increased to 39,000 hectares in the last few years and is likely to be higher. The biggest culprit is corned beef from Brazilian companies such as JBS, which have been linked to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, the lungs of the earth. When communities lose vital access to clean water because of corporate contamination, when indigenous communities lose access to ancestral lands or when environmental defenders are threatened or killed for speaking out against mega-projects that destroy our environment, it becomes a human rights issue.
New legislation must address all human rights and environmental harms in a way that provides clarity to businesses in ensuring that they are conducting themselves responsibly. The legislation needed to address those issues would protect the workers, communities and vital environments involved in producing our everyday goods. Consumers in the UK could be sure that they were shopping responsibly and not contributing to abuses around the world, and businesses could have the clarity they need in order to do the right thing.
I have a few asks of the Government. Parliament continues to await the publication of two reviews set out in the trade strategy last year. Can the Minister confirm when the responsible business conduct review and the national baseline assessment will be published, the key outcomes that should be expected from those reviews, and a timeline for moving from review to action on the recommendations of each report? Given the interconnectedness of human rights, labour rights and environmental harm, can she confirm that the Government will engage in meaningful action to address this issue by adopting a thorough and holistic, rather than narrow, approach to responsible business conduct?
Do the Government agree that we need cross-cutting and holistic legislation to provide clarity and certainty to UK businesses, rather than a patchwork approach that burdens businesses that act responsibly while enabling irresponsible businesses to undercut them? Failure to act on human rights abuses and environmental harm will damage the resilience of our supply chains and our economy. Introducing the human rights and environmental safeguards to UK supply chains set out in my speech is not just the right thing to do economically; it is our ethical and moral duty to ensure that the protections that we enjoy in the UK are shared across the world.
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Swallow Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for her work in championing small businesses in her constituency, particularly the Electech cluster, where businesses such as Teleplan Forsberg, Like Technologies and Mazuma are working in the clean energy sector. Our clean energy industry sector plan focuses on capitalising on the strengths of these businesses and doubling investment levels across our frontier industries to more than £30 billion a year by 2035. That will directly support businesses in that cluster. I would of course be delighted to come and visit.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Our plan to make work pay will bring employment rights legislation into the 21st century by extending the protections given by the best British companies to millions more workers, including those in Bracknell Forest. We are delivering this change in partnership with businesses, trade unions, public sector employers and civil society. When implemented, the Employment Rights Act 2025 will increase protection from sexual harassment, extend and strengthen statutory sick pay, end exploitative zero hours contracts, and tackle fire and rehire, with over 18 million workers gaining greater fairness and security.
Peter Swallow
Across the country, millions of fathers can be denied time off work to spend with a newborn child. Thousands of carers are out of work because employers will not give them the flexibility they need. This Government are delivering day one paternity leave, and we are listening on carer’s leave. I know what a difference that will make to my constituents. Can the Minister think why the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and his Reform MPs voted against this change?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for his really important question; he is absolutely right to raise this issue. Reform voted against the Employment Rights Act at every single opportunity. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) would row back on the protections that we have given to 18 million workers across the country, including the vital day one paternity leave and parental leave, statutory sick pay for the lowest paid, protections for pregnant workers, increased protection from unfair dismissal, an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts, a new right to bereavement leave and so much more. Reform is simply not the party for working people; Labour is. Reform Members voted against the Act, and their plans would threaten employment up and down the country.
Sale of Fireworks
Peter Swallow Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robbie Moore
I agree. For those who have anxiety-related issues, fireworks are an absolute trigger point when they are let off. The noise that they create and the resulting heightened levels of anxiety need to be noted by the Minister, who I hope will respond positively.
Peter Swallow
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being generous with his time. I have had constituents contact me about this issue. Many of them recognise the importance of fireworks as a great British tradition on fireworks night and other such nights, but they want more regulation around the times of year at which fireworks can be enjoyed—and until what time in the evening—and around their volume, so that people are able to enjoy fireworks on great occasions in a responsible way that reflects that they are not as enjoyable for those with trauma, and those with pets. Does the hon. Member agree that we can get that balance right?
Robbie Moore
I agree that it is about making sure that we are not only introducing tougher regulation and enforcement but that those who use fireworks are using them appropriately. This does not necessarily need to be about a ban on fireworks; much tougher measures can be brought in with licensing on the decibels associated with fireworks. I urge the Government to look at that and not just respond, “We are going to take this away and think about it,” because that is the response that we have had for far too long.
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Swallow Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Kyle
Again, the Conservatives had 14 years in which the economy was changing. They had the chance to tackle zero-hours contracts, and what did they do? Nothing. They had the chance to tackle fire and rehire, and they did nothing. They had the chance to tackle the challenges of being an app-based employee, and they chose to do nothing. We are acting to modernise the economy and the relationship out there between businesses and workers because that is what is needed. It is what workers and businesses need, and it is what this Government are delivering.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Swallow Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to finally get an invitation to somewhere. We understand that there are significant pressures for many businesses, and the global situation certainly will not provide reassurance in the short term. The measures in the Employment Rights Bill are not in effect yet and will take some time to come in. Since the election, nearly 200,000 jobs have been created, so the labour market is holding up particularly strongly. There are particular issues such as making sure we get probationary periods right and that zero-hours contracts are monitored in the right way, and we are working with business on that.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Gareth Thomas
I commend my hon. Friend for meeting with Berkshire Growth Hub. Growth hubs play a crucial role in local economies. We want to supplement their work with our business growth service, which is set to launch later this year, and we are working with Skills England to identify the skills shortages in particular areas. I am happy to ensure that Skills England talks to Berkshire Growth Hub through my hon. Friend, so that the particular skills challenges in Berkshire are understood by Skills England.
UK-US Trade and Tariffs
Peter Swallow Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have constituency interests that are similar to his, and the close alignment between ourselves and the US on defence and security matters is an enduring and huge asset to both countries, so I share the sentiments he has raised. He asks whether we can engage US counter- parts in this conversation about a more constructive way forward. Yes, that was always part of our thinking, and our trading bodies in the UK have excellent US links in the main, and they engage in similar activity around that. On his specific point, I have no detail to give him— I have no knowledge of anything like that being used as a bargaining chip, but if I need to give him additional information, I am happy to write to him to provide that.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Bracknell is home to the UK and European headquarters of many US companies, as well as to many UK businesses that do business in America. Can the Secretary of State assure businesses in Bracknell that this Government’s position is that barriers to trade are bad for growth on both sides of the Atlantic, and that he is working hard with a cool head to secure a trade deal?
Jonathan Reynolds
My hon. Friend is right; Bracknell has some tremendous businesses, such as Honeywell, Dell and 3M, so he will be seeking to promote and defend particular constituency interests. I have had tremendous support for the approach that I have mapped out today not just from UK businesses but from US businesses as well, particularly those with an economic relationship with the UK. Right now people are seeking evidence that countries around the world are trying to deal with this difficult situation in the right way, in their own national interests but also in a way that gives us an opportunity to strengthen rather than weaken those important trading relationships.
Royal Mail Takeover
Peter Swallow Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. Is he now the rebellious Back Bencher, I wonder? We all share those concerns about the universal service obligation. This deal is not contingent on the universal service obligation. We have had discussions on how we improve the current state of affairs, because it is clearly not good enough. I hope that his constituents will see an improvement in service as a result of this deal.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Barely a week goes by without a constituent reaching out to me to express frustration at the quality of service they receive from our local Royal Mail delivery services. What will the announcement mean for them and for the quality of service that they receive?
Justin Madders
We hope that the deal will lead to an improvement in service. Specific investment commitments are being made as part of the deal, which we hope will be used to drive up standards. I think that everyone is committed to seeing an improvement on where we are at the moment.
Future of the Post Office
Peter Swallow Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
If everybody gives short questions—and short answers, Minister—we can get this done in the next 15 minutes.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
My constituents in Crowthorne are rightly proud of our high street, but as there is no direct access on that street to banking services or a post office branch, they struggle to access vital services. Does the Minister agree that today’s announcement highlights the need to roll out more banking hubs, while setting out a viable future for post offices, so that communities such as mine can access the vital services they need?
Gareth Thomas
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to see a faster roll-out of banking hubs. Given that the Conservative party sat back and did nothing while 9,500 bank branches closed, the urgency of the task of rolling out banking branches and improving the banking offer through the post office is acutely felt by my Department.