Hair and Beauty Sector Regulation

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. This issue is about tax receipts. I am not talking about stopping people cutting their family members’ hair or stopping genuinely self-employed people running a start-up from home. This is not about where people trade; it is about whether they trade legitimately and how we sustain the next generation of the industry.

I am really glad that the hon. Member mentioned that point, because I want to tell a story that was shared with me by Mike Taylor about an apprentice who has taken up his programme. Mike has an incredible academy that takes on about a dozen young people—mostly NEETS—aged 16 to 18 in Broadstone, where I live. He has an apprentice who every week is travelling from Kent—it is a long way from Kent to Dorset, but he could not find a local training placement—to stay with his aunty in Dorchester for his training so that he can develop his skills. He could not get an apprenticeship close to home. The only opportunity available to him was working for an unscrupulous barber, who paid him just £1 an hour, despite the employer charging customers for his services. That is not entrepreneurship; that is not business. That is exploitation. That young man wants to learn a trade and build a career, and he should not have to choose between exploitation and abandoning his ambitions. Legitimate businesses, like those mentioned by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna), should not have to compete with such people.

That brings me to the issue of public safety. The House of Commons Library notes that anyone can practise as a hairdresser or barber without holding any recognised qualifications. In a profession involving chemicals, blades and close physical contact with the public, that is increasingly difficult to justify. Most practitioners are highly skilled professionals who take enormous pride in their work, but consumers deserve confidence that those offering professional services have met the appropriate standards and wield their scissors safely. Most members of the public would reasonably assume that someone advertising themselves as a professional hairdresser or barber had demonstrated some level of competence, but that assumption cannot always be made. Poorly applied chemicals can cause burns, overuse of bleach can lead to hair loss and poor hygiene standards can contribute to skin conditions such as ringworm.

A mandatory register would help provide the public with confidence that practitioners had achieved recognised qualifications and, just as importantly, it would enhance the reputation of those who already meet those standards every day. This proposal is practical, proportionate and achievable. We are not trying to create a system from scratch. The register already exists, and the Hair and Barber Council already administers it. The infrastructure is in place. We want to build on the infrastructure that is already there. Mandatory registration would simply strengthen and modernise an existing statutory framework for the realities of today.

The sector estimates that costs to hairdressers would be likely to fall if registration was universal, and that registration could become a recognised prerequisite for securing insurance and demonstrating professional competence. It would improve standards for consumers and it would support legitimate businesses. It could help enforcement agencies to tackle the tax evasion, illegal working, employment status abuse and criminal activity associated with rogue businesses. Indeed, support for the proposal now extends beyond the industry itself. The all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, chaired by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), has highlighted concerns about the extraordinary growth in barbering alongside declining tax enforcement activity.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for mentioning the APPG that I chair and the work that we are doing. Does she agree that the Government cannot simply enforce their way out of the problem of illicit activity on the high street and in the sector? When the National Crime Agency conducted its Operation Machinize in November 2025, it visited 2,734 premises up and down the length of the country, but it only closed down 10 of them. Of course, not all of those were hairdressers or barbering salons. Does she agree that a proportionate licensing regime is therefore the right step forward, akin to what the Dutch have done with their Bibob Act, and that that is the right way to seize control of who operates in these sectors and to give the public confidence about who is cutting their hair and who is operating on the high street?

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The vast majority of people in the sector are doing the right thing. The problem is that they are watching other people in the sector with empty chairs all day, and wondering how on earth they support five or six employees or other people working in the space.

The sector has said that it is happy to share the information so that we can know the scale of the industry, how many hairdressers are working in it and where we need more training places. This is a means of using a register that already exists to professionalise the system and help the Government to move it forward for the future. Rather than relying solely on expensive raids and investigations after problems have emerged, the register could allow for standards to be established from the outset, and for the scale and shape of the sector to be mapped, with sufficient training providers in the right place to help people such as the young man who needs to have training available in Kent.

A survey by the National Hair and Beauty Federation found that support for a mandatory register in the sector is at around 80%. That figure should give Ministers pause. Industries do not often ask Parliament for regulation, yet this one is—not because it wants bureaucracy, but because it wants a sustainable future. Some critics suggest that registration could increase costs or unnecessary burdens, but I disagree. The greatest threat to consumers and the industry is not professionalisation, but the continued erosion of standards, legitimate businesses being forced from our high streets by those willing to ignore the rules, the loss of apprenticeships, the loss of public confidence and the gradual devaluation of a skilled professional.

When the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 was debated, its promoter described hairdressing as both an art and a science. The Government of the day recognised the need for standards, qualifications and public confidence. They were right then, and those principles remain just as relevant today. Making the register mandatory would not create a new principle; it would just bring what was considered a pioneering proposal in 1964 into the 21st century. It has the potential to increase revenues and make it harder for illegal businesses to operate in our town centres. Ultimately, it would support the next generation of hairdressers and barbers. If it succeeds, perhaps that would mean fewer bad hair days for all of us.

When a profession, its employers, its training providers and its representative bodies are all asking Parliament to act, Parliament should listen. Parliament recognised the importance of standards in hairdressing in 1964. The time has come to finish the job that Parliament started more than 60 years ago. I commend these proposals to the House, and I look forward to working with the Minister to deliver them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

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

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

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

[Phil Brickell]

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

[Kate Dearden]

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

Performance of Royal Mail

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for securing this important debate.

Last year, Royal Mail, which is now owned by a Czech billionaire, was fined £21 million for failing to meet its delivery targets. In the same financial year, its chief executive received a £7 million bonus. That is a third of the cost of a fine paid while the service was failing the people who depend on it. The consequences are felt by my constituents. One resident in Hockley missed multiple hospital appointments because his letters were not delivered, and a resident in Shenstone village missed an insurance claim deadline because essential documents never arrived. Those are not minor inconveniences; they are barriers to healthcare, financial security and everyday life.

Rural communities are particularly badly affected, with some of my villages lucky enough to receive post twice a month, yet Royal Mail dismisses complaints, claiming that there are no problems in the relevant area. That is a stock response I receive that bears no relation to reality. Royal Mail divides areas into 118 overarching postcode areas, which mix dense urban centres with vast rural areas, meaning that the high delivery rates in town centres can hide issues and completely change the way in which we view the figures. We cannot allow Royal Mail to hide behind statistics that fail to reflect the lived experiences of residents.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has spoken very passionately about the experiences of her constituents. My constituents have faced issues in which they have had mail only once every three or four weeks; one constituent did not receive 14 items of post. Does she agree that the Royal Mail’s treatment of Ofcom fines simply as a baked-in operational risk is one reason, among others, why we need a far more muscular regulatory regime?

[Sarah Edwards]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We can infer that there is definitely a baked-in position here, and that is a big problem, as we will hear from many Members. I hope that the importance of Ofcom being able to regulate better will be a crucial part of what we hear from the Minister.

As a member of the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee, I took part in our inquiry into Royal Mail’s performance. We exposed a frustrating cycle of pass the parcel: the Government say that they will strengthen Ofcom’s powers if asked, and Ofcom says that changes are for the Government to make. Meanwhile, Ofcom has admitted that fines against a loss-making company are entirely ineffective in improving services, yet its proposed response to continued failures is more fines. Those statements seem rather at odds with each other. Our Committee has recommended that if Royal Mail fails to improve within six months, the Secretary of State should consult on changing Ofcom’s powers and duties. Five months on, meaningful improvement is yet to materialise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Royal Mail was once widely respected and trusted, but it is now too often a cause of frustration and anger for our constituents. Year after year, Royal Mail is falling short of the targets it must meet by law, and the public’s patience is wearing thin. The danger is that at some point the business can no longer survive. While I have no desire to see that happen, we cannot keep making excuses or dismissing what my constituents are going through. They are missing appointments, receiving important news late, and being let down by a system that cannot be relied on to get the basics right.

Just over a year ago, the Scottish Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, held a session with Royal Mail, Ofcom and consumer groups. We were told then that work was under way to improve the service, but it is hard to see any sign of that on the ground. This year again, in most of Royal Mail’s Scottish postcode areas, it has missed its targets, and constituents continue to write to me about the problems they face. A late birthday card can be forgiven, but too often delivery delays affect more important mail. Royal Mail assured our Committee that a new NHS barcode would allow NHS letters to be picked out and given priority, yet NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has told me that it cannot use the barcode because it does not work with the Royal Mail system that is used for most of its letters.

Royal Mail presented the barcode system as an answer, but it is not working in practice. That has real consequences for my constituents. A disabled constituent recently told me that they no longer have the strength to complain. They have already been on to the sorting office and have seen no improvement. Right now, they are waiting on a letter about a home flu jab. Their post is so unreliable that they believe the letter will arrive late. Another constituent told me how they only realised that they had missed an NHS appointment when they spoke with the hospital directly. When they visited the sorting office, their letters were waiting there, still to be delivered, including one telling them about that appointment.

[Phil Brickell]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate contribution about the experience of her constituents and the real-life impact of Royal Mail’s failures. Does she agree that this is yet another prime example of why it is important to properly regulate a public service? Contrary to what some Members of this House may think, it is not bureaucracy or red tape; it is about securing the proper functioning of a public service.

[Maureen Burke]

I agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for his contribution.

Those are just two dreadful examples that show the heart of the problem. People are losing faith in the Royal Mail because it is letting them down when they need the service most. I know the postal world has changed. We keep in touch differently now, sending fewer letters and more emails around the world. Postal services are changing, but I do not believe that we want to end up in a situation like Denmark, where PostNord has stopped delivering letters altogether. I believe that the public want Royal Mail to have a future, but for that to be possible, management must take responsibility rather than just blame changes in how people use the service, or put the blame on posties.

People are being priced out, and Royal Mail is adding to their anger by putting up stamp prices. How can we expect people to use a service when research from Citizens Advice suggests that one in three adults would struggle to afford a book of first-class stamps? Equally, it will not be possible for the Royal Mail to meet standards with fewer staff, who feel undervalued, as the Communication Workers Union has said. When the previous board brought in lower wages, longer hours and poorer conditions for new staff, it made Royal Mail a less attractive place to work, with up to half of new staff leaving within the first year. Its owners must show that they understand what went wrong, or risk bringing the service closer to collapse.

I would like to sum up by saying this. I wish Royal Mail well and I pay tribute to Britain’s hard-working posties. Royal Mail is an institution and for many of my constituents it is a lifeline. That is why I hope that the promise from management to meet targets by early next year is signed for and delivered on time.

High Street Businesses: Government Support

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing this debate.

I want to focus on an important lever that the Government should pull to regenerate our high streets: tackling the illicit financial activity that is hollowing out towns and undercutting legitimate local businesses. That matters because these streets are the soul of our communities; they are where local traders serve their regulars, and where the greengrocer, butcher and corner café have always been part of who we are as a country.

Despite all the pressures that our high streets face, brilliant independent businesses—whether new ventures like Hive in Westhoughton in my patch, or long-standing local favourites like Serendipity in Horwich, run by Chris and Kath Parbery—are still choosing to invest in our communities. But millions of us no longer recognise the high streets where we grew up. The bakery, now a barber shop, is somehow always empty. The greengrocer is now a vape shop. The pub on the corner is boarded up for the third time in five years. The Woolworths is long gone, replaced first by a pound shop and then by something called an “American candy store”. Now, just like all the empty barber shops, vape shops and mini-marts, the high street is silent.

The number of vape shops in England has grown by nearly 1,200% in a little over a decade. The number of barber shops per 10,000 people in the UK has more than doubled in the same period. Meanwhile, the National Crime Agency assesses that at least £12 billion of criminal cash is generated in this country every single year, and our high streets have regrettably become a primary route for washing those proceeds. Behind some—not all—of the cheap shop fronts sits drug money, trafficking money and money stripped from the most vulnerable in society. The proceeds of human misery are being cleaned through card machines on high streets in every town represented here today.

The all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which I chair, has spent the past year speaking to individuals on the frontline with responsibility for tackling the explosion of cash-intensive businesses. Representatives from the banking sector told me that they hold significant data on suspicious cash flows but lack the legal architecture to share it usefully. Legitimate hard-working barbers being driven out by criminal operators told me that their trade is being tarnished in plain sight. Officials in local government told me that they watch shops close one week and reopen the next under a new name and a new nominee director, with the unpaid business rates simply written off.

The NCA’s Operation Machinize has shown what is possible. In my constituency, Horwich Mini Market on Lee Lane was closed for three months last year after the seizure of almost 20,000 illegal cigarettes, hundreds of illegal vapes and 7 kg of illegal tobacco. The nearby Texaco service station on Chorley New Road was prosecuted in December 2024—the first prosecution of its kind in the north-west of England—with more than 7,000 illegal vapes seized across four visits. But let us be honest: Operation Machinize has visited more than 2,500 premises across two waves, and its initial wave produced only 10 permanent closures—that is 10 out of 2,500 businesses. Organised crime will absorb that figure as an operating cost and shrug it off by the end of the week.

After years of austerity and inaction under successive Governments, I know that this Government understand the severity of the situation facing our country. Measures announced include a new £30 million high street organised crime unit, which I was proud to lobby the Chancellor for before last year’s Budget, and 75 new officers in the worst-affected regions, including the north-west of England. Trading Standards will receive £6 million, after a decade of cuts that halved its capacity.

Other measures include a new cross-Government taskforce, 350 new His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs investigators, a new abusive phoenixism taskforce and a consultation on extending closure orders. All that shows real progress, and the APPG that I chair has campaigned hard for many of those measures, so it would be remiss of me not to thank the Minister and his colleagues across Government for their work over the last two years.

But money alone will not finish the job. The criminals hollowing out all our communities have to know that they are no longer welcome, and that must mean three things. First, we should adopt a British equivalent to the Dutch Bibob regime. The officials in the port city of Rotterdam I met earlier this year told me how they have spent 14 years dismantling the organised criminal infrastructure that we are struggling against in the UK. Dutch officials in one Rotterdam suburb told me how their integrity screening regime reduced the number of firms from 111 to 65 without recourse to a single criminal prosecution, removing suspicious businesses en masse. We should learn from our Dutch counterparts and give our local authorities similar powers to refuse permits to applicants linked to criminal intelligence and to look through nominee directors for the real money behind them.

Secondly, we should move to mandatory licensing for barbers, vape shops and the other high-risk sectors that have become criminal franchises in plain sight on our high streets. If someone needs a licence to sell a pint of beer, someone should need one to open a barber shop or a vape store.

Thirdly, we should extend closure powers so that persistent offenders are shut down for good. Members of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute overwhelmingly back the idea: 98% support extending closure orders and 97% support permanent closure for repeat offenders. And let us remove, in a single line of legislation, the absurd £1,000 cash seizure threshold that lets criminals wave goodbye to trading standards officers with fistfuls of notes in their hands. Let officers seize every pound of ill-gotten gains from the till.

Our high streets are where this country lives. They bind our communities together and they are where the next generation of British entrepreneurs will cut their teeth. Businesses like Hive, Serendipity and Blackedge Brewery are proof that there is still enormous pride, creativity and resilience in our towns. They are worth fighting for, so let us do so.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

There will now be a five-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions.

Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I welcome the hon. Member to his new responsibilities, though I must say that I really liked his predecessor—I got into terrible trouble when I tweeted that, so maybe I should not say it in the House either. It is good to see the hon. Member in his place. He makes an interesting argument and one that I would expect him to make. It is true that I am bound by collective responsibility. I am not trying to evade that; it is just that sometimes I do not know the answers to all the questions that apply to somebody else’s portfolio.

I want to make sure that the hon. Member understands that, up until today, it has been perfectly legal for people to bring products that originated from Russian crude oil and that have been refined in a third country into the UK. It is only now that we are changing that.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

As someone who has been sanctioned by the Russian state and worked on tackling financial crime in British business for more than a decade, it was apparent to me after only a cursory review of the gov.uk website that this is a new general licence to allow the roll-out of the new regime that the Minister has mentioned today. I thank him for coming to the House to set the record straight, but can he also assuage my constituents’ fears and say that, although we have heard a lot of rhetoric and bluster in the Chamber today, this really will be a new regime and it will be strengthened?

[Chris Bryant]

Well, I apologise for the rhetoric and bluster, but it is my general way of doing things, so it seems a particularly cruel attack from my colleague!

The serious point to make is that I am proud of what we are doing today. I am not hiding away from what we are doing, but we could definitely have communicated it better, and that is entirely my fault.

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that is core to the talks that are going on right now between unions and management. That is exactly why we are so keen to ensure that the talks are productive and come to a settlement that deals with the issues that he describes.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his constructive engagement with me over the past few weeks on Royal Mail’s poor services in my Bolton West constituency. I know that he shares my utter frustration at the current service provision. May I flag with the Minister a letter that I sent to Horwich constituents on 13 February, updating them on the progress that I had made with the Minister on this matter? A constituent got in touch to say that the letter was only received on 25 February, some 12 days later, alongside missing correspondence from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the NHS and the Department for Work and Pensions. Another constituent in Bolton received a Christmas card on 7 March that had been posted before 14 December. When will my constituents see an improvement in Royal Mail services?

[Mr Speaker]

Can we try to shorten the questions? Some people are not going to get in, and that really worries me, as this subject matters to all of us—especially me, as I have the best post offices and the best posties.

Sale of Fireworks

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. It is also a pleasure to follow my friend the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), who is a committed campaigner on this issue.

Here we are again, though: another fireworks petition, another debate and, unfortunately, another year without meaningful change on the important issue of fireworks laws. I said last year that we would have to have this debate every year. I know that the Minister will listen, and I hope that we will not all be here again in 2027. We are going to continue banging on about this, and I thank the campaigners and all the petitioners, particularly the Firework Impact Coalition, a cross-sector coalition of charities for veterans, vets, pets, animals and children, all of which want to see change in the law.

Fireworks laws are not fit for purpose—there is cross-party consensus on that. It was true in 2022, when I tabled the Misuse of Fireworks Bill on the enforcement of fireworks, and it was just as true in 2024, when I tabled the Fireworks Bill on the licensing of fireworks. We know that it has been a really hard year for many people, and the misery of fireworks has added to that. The last August to December period was one of the worst that I can ever remember, with families being kept up at all hours by huge, loud displays and fireworks being aggressively marketed on TikTok, not as family-friendly events, but as weapons and instruments of antisocial behaviour. The impact of that is huge.

There are impacts on animals, whether wildlife or pets, and in rural areas and the countryside. There are impacts for those with mental health issues, such as PTSD. It is not just veterans who serve in warzones, but those who work in charities and humanitarian organisations, who have contacted me to say that they have been traumatised by fireworks. There are also impacts on children. When I visit schools, particularly primary schools, I ask how many children are kept up each night because of fireworks, and every single hand goes up. If it is not the fireworks waking them up, they are woken up by their pet being absolutely terrified. That has a really bad impact, particularly on children with special educational needs.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech about the need for change in the law, and the impact on humans and animals. One of my constituents got in touch with me to talk about the massive detrimental impact that the irresponsible launching of fireworks had during bonfire night weekend. She talked about how the next day her horses were spinning around in their stables and sweating profusely, displaying flehmen responses and windsucking on doors. When she spoke to the Greater Manchester police, they essentially said in writing that the lack of legislation meant that they could not act. To quote my constituent, it was obvious from speaking to “so many different professionals” that all they could really say was that “their hands are tied”. It is clear to me, from the contributions we have heard today, that it is imperative for the Government to change the law, to protect the individuals and animals that are so detrimentally impacted by fireworks.

[Sarah Owen]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that horrific example, an example we will have heard time and again across the country. We hear of it throughout the year, but particularly on bonfire night and during the seasons when fireworks are most prevalent. There is a perverse loophole in our law, which my private Member’s Bill would tighten, allowing unlicensed sellers to actually go and sell fireworks during the busiest times for them. In Luton, during that period when unlicensed sellers can sell fireworks, we had somebody marketing them online with a balaclava on his face. The aim was to cause damage, not happiness and joy.

We absolutely need to close that loophole and we need to lower the decibel limits to 90 dB. Not only is that popular—one third of Brits want to see that happen—but it is necessary for animals, people with PTSD, veterans, and those who have sustained burn injuries as a result of fireworks. A change in the law cannot come soon enough. We have seen a change in the law in the Netherlands, where injuries and serious burns incidents have gone down considerably.

My Fireworks Bill is still on the books. Although it is not likely to progress, I suggest to the Minister that it is a really good place to start, and I am willing to work with anybody to see that happen. When we look at our fireworks laws, I know that everybody is onside with wanting positive change, not just for ourselves, but for our communities, for our animals and for residents who have frankly had enough.

Fairtrade Certification

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for excellently setting the scene, for his contribution today and for his hard work on this subject over the years, which is not forgotten about and provides extra context to the debate and to his speech.

The fairtrade system sets standards across the globe on ethical sourcing, fair wages, safer working conditions and proper environmental practices—four things that probably all of us in this Chamber would fully support. Fairtrade is a well-known organisation and it plays a key part across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including in schools, so I am pleased to participate in this debate. In Northern Ireland— I hope this is true on the mainland too—children are very much aware of the Fairtrade organisation at an early age. As a result, they are well placed to tell their parents and other adults and remind them of the role they can play. The Minister is not responsible for education, but perhaps he can give us some idea of what is done to encourage schools more strongly?

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making an important point about young children in schools. Last month, Joshua, Leyla and Elizabeth from St George’s primary school in my constituency wrote to me about their campaign to promote sustainable palm oil labelling. They are carrying on a fine tradition in Bolton, where one of the first Fairtrade shops in the country, Justicia, opened in 1985. Does the hon. Member agree with Joshua, Leyla, Elizabeth and myself that sustainable palm oil labelling is crucial for informing consumers and promoting ethical businesses, alongside greater Fairtrade initiatives?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do. I am greatly encouraged by what the hon. Gentleman said, and by those three young children in particular in relation to their work on palm oil. That is one of the campaigns that school children in Northern Ireland are also part of. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that, and I am sure that the children he mentioned will be given a copy of Hansard, where their names will be printed for posterity. I thank them for all that they are doing—well done! That encourages me when it comes to the greater picture for children.

UK businesses use Fairtrade to demonstrate commitment to ethical practices. Northern Ireland has held Fairtrade status as a region since 2004. It is something we are greatly committed to and have a great interest in. The NI Fairtrade forum works with councils, schools, businesses and communities to increase awareness. One of my staff members remembers that in primary school they celebrated a Fairtrade week, when all pupils had to bring in the labels of any foods or packaging they could find in their homes that were Fairtrade. I can imagine children scouring their cupboards to find something in their house—hopefully there were plenty of products that represented Fairtrade.

Fairtrade products are widely available in supermarkets across Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Glasgow North referred to some of the businesses that carry Fairtrade products. I am glad to report that the likes of Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and the Co-op all carry Fairtrade products that are sourced globally. Those shops are making these products practically and physically available across Northern Ireland, and they take in a large proportion of shoppers—although not all of them, of course.

Let us honest about the situation: some smaller, perhaps family-run, businesses will struggle slightly more because producers are paid a fair minimum price and premium. Smaller businesses with tight margins and sometimes unpredictable cash-flow will struggle to source Fairtrade products, for fear of passing the cost increases to customers. It is not possible for everyone to source Fairtrade products, but for those who commit to it and wish to do it, there is a way of making it happen. The smaller businesses in my constituency rely on the local wholesalers and independent distributors which, again, may not carry a whole range of Fairtrade products. Some of those suppliers perhaps need a greater awareness, so they can do more. People want to do their best, but in terms of finance they must work with what is available to them.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North also referred to the role of churches. I am pleased to say that in my Strangford constituency there are a great many churches and churchgoers—those who practice their faith in a very practical and physical way. They are committed to Fairtrade because of their beliefs. They also want to do their best to help in a physical way, which they do by purchasing available Fairtrade products so that the money goes to people who need it in the right places. It is a pleasure to thank all the people in Northern Ireland who buy from and support the Fairtrade networks. Northern Ireland has some strong Fairtrade networks, and we should be proud of that, but of course people want to do more. The hon. Gentleman was right when he said that people want Fairtrade. I think most people I meet, if not every person, wants Fairtrade, but some may be restricted by what is available on the shelf or where they shop.

I am so proud of the education on Fairtrade in schools and universities—the very thing referred to by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) in his intervention. It is really encouraging to know that our children probably know more about it than their parents, and that they want to do something about it. There is an innocence that children have, where they see the good—things can be very black and white for them, but it is good that they have that.

The United Kingdom Government can do more to incentivise public bodies such as schools and hospitals to consider options for Fairtrade, such as tea and coffee, or prioritise ethical trade standards to make procurement easier for small public bodies. I should have welcomed the Minister to his place; it is always a pleasure to see him. He has been a busy man today—he has been in the Chamber and now he is here, so he has definitely earned his money today. Can he indicate what has been done to encourage public bodies to purchase Fairtrade goods? I know there is a campaign, but for those who are maybe hesitant, is there is a follow-up to encourage them?

Fairtrade plays a positive role by promoting ethical standards in Northern Ireland and further afield in the United Kingdom. It strengthens our commitments to human rights. I am a great believer in and a huge supporter of human rights, and Fairtrade helps us to support human rights across the world. We can make an impact through everyday purchasing, and to build on that I ask the Government again to do more to make the procurement process easier. If that is possible, it would be a step in the right direction. I thank all Members for their participation in advance of the debate, and I look forward to the other contributions and to the Minister’s response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I can assure the hon. Lady that we are in constant contact with the Energy Secretary. When I was at DSIT, we co-chaired the AI energy council, and we are working together to get the transition to renewable power done as swiftly as possible, generating the wealth that our country needs from the transition period. Also, we are lowering bills and, through some targeted interventions, ensuring that those key businesses get the support they need on the challenges with energy prices and supply that we inherited when we came into office.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

T6. Horwich trailer manufacturer Indespension tells me that the post-Brexit regulatory system has significantly increased the approval cost for new trailer designs because of differing rules between GB, EU and Northern Irish markets. The business now spends more than £100,000 a year completing relevant paperwork. What measures is the Secretary of State taking to remove the administrative burden on firms so that instead of form filling, they can invest and create the well-paid jobs that I want to see in my local economy?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s passionate question. As he will know, we have struck a trade deal with the EU and reset the relationship with it. We will continue to build on that to deliver for all parts of our economy.

Whistleblowers

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this important debate, during which I wish to talk about the contribution of whistleblowers through the specific lens of tackling economic crime—an endeavour to which I dedicated almost 15 years of my life.

Economic crime costs this country an eye-watering £350 billion a year. That is the equivalent of 15% of our GDP, siphoned away by fraudsters, the corrupt, bribe takers, and the organised crime gangs that thrive off illicit finance, and yet the UK allocates a meagre 0.05% of its GDP to law enforcement agencies that are tasked with combating this national threat. Our public finances are in a very challenging position, so we need to give those agencies cost-effective tools to catch the criminals, recover stolen assets and hold corporations to account. That is why we must empower one of our most powerful underutilised resources: whistleblowers.

Whistleblowers are the eyes and ears inside organisations where economic crime is committed. They are our frontline allies. Often, they are the only ones who can see fraud taking place or corruption being buried, and yet all too often they are ignored, unsupported or, regrettably, even punished for speaking out. Let me be clear: if we are serious about tackling economic crime, we must also be serious about supporting whistleblowers.

The evidence is compelling. Research by the campaign group Spotlight on Corruption found that in the United States from 1986 to 2022, whistleblowers were responsible for 69% of all the proceeds that the Department of Justice recovered through civil fraud cases involving Government funds. That it not a trickle; it amounts to an incredible $50.4 billion out of the $72.6 billion recovered by the US DOJ in that period. That is a flood of stolen public money returned to taxpayers because someone had the courage to speak up. The UK should learn from that example.

Our system does not work as well as it could for whistleblowers. Speaking up about wrongdoing can lead to the end of someone’s career, and it can mean personal, psychological and financial ruin, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) admirably spoke about. As researchers at the Centre for Finance and Security at RUSI have made clear, moral motivation alone is not enough to sustain a whistleblowing culture. We need a systemic shift and a new approach that recognises whistleblowers as vital sources of intelligence, not just idealists acting out of principle.

The Post Office Horizon scandal came to light not because of Government oversight, but because brave individuals took it upon themselves to blow the whistle. The Danske Bank money laundering affair, which involved €200 billion in illicit funds flowing through Estonia, unravelled thanks to an insider who refused to look away. Those are not isolated examples; they are warnings of what happens when systems fail and people are silenced. We must do better.

What can be done? The all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, of which I am a member, has put forward two measures in its economic crime manifesto that could make the UK a leader, not a laggard, when it comes to whistleblower protection and impact.

First, the manifesto proposes that companies must be required to investigate whistleblower concerns relating to economic crime, with independent oversight of those investigations. Too many companies currently treat whistleblowing as a reputational threat to manage, not a red flag to act on. I know that myself having spent more than a decade tackling economic crime and bribery in the financial services sector. Employees raise concerns, but they can be swiftly buried or dismissed, and there is no statutory duty to take the disclosures seriously and no independent body to check whether an investigation was conducted fairly, or even at all. That must change. We should compel companies to treat whistleblowing disclosures with the seriousness they deserve and ensure oversight to prevent cover-ups; otherwise, the very people who know what is happening are driven into silence or despair.

Secondly, the Government should look at the merits of establishing a central, easily accessible, secure and responsive whistleblowing body that can offer advice, support and a safe route to report wrongdoing. Currently, potential whistleblowers are left navigating a bureaucratic maze. They often do not know who to turn to and, when they do, they might be met with silence, confusion or—worse—retaliation. We must take this out of the shadows. A central body would not only simplify the process for blowing the whistle, but build trust, ensure consistency and act as a much-needed conduit between whistleblowers and law enforcement.

I welcome the leadership shown by the Serious Fraud Office under its director Nick Ephgrave. The SFO has rightly identified whistleblower incentivisation reform as a key strategic priority for 2025-26. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset mentioned, it is vital that we have a framework for rewarding and supporting those who blow the whistle. I accept that that marks a critical shift in thinking, from viewing whistleblowers as risks to seeing them as assets. Strengthening our whistleblowing framework would help law enforcement gather evidence earlier, reduce investigative delays and save public funds.

With the withdrawal of US leadership on this front internationally, has the Minister considered that strengthening our own whistleblowing framework and incentivisation schemes could prompt more whistleblowers from other jurisdictions to view the UK as a jurisdiction of choice in which to blow the whistle? That could have economic benefits for our agencies and the Exchequer.

Ultimately, we need to engender a cultural shift—one that reframes whistleblowing not as betrayal, but as public service, and says to financial professionals, civil servants and corporate employees alike, “If you see wrongdoing, we’ve got your back.” That is why I pay tribute to the whistleblowing charity Protect, which for decades has supported individuals who took the hardest step of all: to tell the truth in the face of adversity. Its work is so important, because economic crime is not victimless. It robs pensioners, rips off taxpayers and funds everything from kleptocracy abroad to serious organised criminals peddling drugs or firearms at home.

Whistleblowers help us see the unseen, name the unnamed and hold the untouchable to account. I call on the Minister to look at giving whistleblowers the legal backing and institutional support they deserve; learn from the United States, where whistleblowing incentives drive billions in recoveries; and, above all, let us create a system that protects those who protect the public interest.