National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

Polly Billington Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, and to all who were involved in that incredibly important exercise. I was not aware of it at all until I came into this job and read the full report, as well as the breakdown of all the actions that had been started during his time in office and have been continued by officials now. As he says, the cascading impacts of a national power outage are extraordinary and very quick, which is why we are first investing in the grid to ensure that that remains a very low risk on the national risk register, and secondly taking forward all those actions. I do not have the detail in front of me, but very few of the actions remain open; most have now been completed. We are also, across Government, continuing to organise exercises—on a much smaller scale—to ensure that Ministers are prepared and that we continue to keep on top of the actions, because these are not one-time events. The water industry, to which the right hon. Gentleman rightly referred, must continue to look at preparedness. That is the wider work that we are taking forward on resilience.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for coming to the House and providing clarity and reassurance that the allegations will be taken seriously, but does he agree that alongside the transparency of this process comes the need for responsible reporting and a responsible Opposition? The electricity margin notices are a standard tool that NESO has used for many years, and that includes the time when the Opposition were in government.

[Michael Shanks]

Yes, I agree. At the risk of repeating myself, electricity supplies were maintained throughout this period. Tight margins were caused by unprecedented warm weather—as I think we can all testify, having lived through it that week—and we were not alone in that. Other European countries were facing similar challenges and similar pressures on their electricity systems because of the extreme weather. I say gently that our aim as a House should surely be to do everything we can to prevent that extreme weather from becoming even more frequent, and I hope we will rebuild some of the consensus on that.

My hon. Friend is right to say that the margin notices are a standard operational tool. Although there is enough generation available on the system to meet demand, NESO would like to have an even bigger cushion on that generation, and that is what the electricity margin notices are for. They were withdrawn because that generation was met, and at no point were any customers disconnected.

Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

Polly Billington Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am honoured to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing the debate.

Earlier this year, I travelled to Israel and the occupied west bank as part of a cross-party delegation organised by Yachad. I met survivors of the 7 October attack and Palestinian families driven from their homes and living under daily intimidation from settlers. Let us be clear: illegal settlements are not simply an obstacle to peace; they are a deliberate strategy to make a viable Palestinian state impossible.

I welcome the Government’s decision to recognise the state of Palestine, but recognition must not be simply symbolic. We have a responsibility to make that state viable, and that starts with banning trade with illegal settlements. The UK should not allow goods produced on occupied land to enter our markets, and nor should British businesses profit from activity that our own Government say is illegal. We should also suspend trade concessions and sanction any company bidding for contracts to design, finance or construct illegal settlements, such as those in E1.

There needs to be far greater scrutiny of British money flowing into settlements. No UK charities should retain charitable status while facilitating settlements, and no British financial institutions should be investing in companies sustaining settlement expansion. There must be accountability when British-funded infrastructure is destroyed. In Khirbet Zanuta, I saw the remains of a school partly funded by UK aid. It was destroyed by sustained settler attacks, which forced the community to flee. The British Government should seek compensation from the Israeli Government for the destruction of infrastructure funded by UK taxpayers.

Finally, we must support the institutions of the Palestinian state. Representatives of the Palestinian Authority described to me the financial crisis caused by Israel’s withholding of Palestinian tax and tariff revenues. Its continued withholding weakens the institutions that any future Palestinian state will depend on. If we are serious about nation building, the UK must apply renewed pressure for the release of those revenues in full, without delay.

None of these measures are anti-Israel; they are pro-peace. They are about defending international law, supporting those on both sides working for co-existence, and preserving any realistic prospect of a negotiated two-state solution. My hon. Friend the Minister is a man of principle, and of strong values and determination, and he will resist excuses for not acting. I urge him to apply those principles and that determination to this problem. The world watches us, and we must act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly legitimate point, but the danger is that, if we end up banning all trade with Israel, we fall foul of the other problems I have mentioned.

[Ms Billington]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will make a little bit more progress, and then I will give way.

The second thing we could do and are seriously considering is banning exports of UK goods to the illegal settlements. Members have talked, for instance, of banning the sale of UK machinery. The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, referred to one particular company. Here, too, the challenge is that goods move in and out very freely between the illegal settlements and green-line Israel, and that poses a challenge for us. It is not insurmountable, but it is a challenge.

Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects

Polly Billington Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend knows, the other part of that project is hosted partly in my constituency, and we agree that £2.1 million is a rounding error in the National Grid’s project budget. Does she agree that if we are to establish properly the principle of host communities being able to truly benefit from the energy infrastructure that they will be home to, there should be proper accountability? An energy foundation should be established to benefit that community for energy purposes, rather than it being bought off with playgrounds or university fees for a handful of residents.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

It will not surprise you, Ms Vaz, that I agree with every point that my hon. Friend just made. She and I have spoken about this at length. I was about to say that under the current Sea Link plans—the £2.1 million rounding error of investment—my community is likely to have to bid for £20,000 funding pots. We can barely get a spade in the ground for a playground for £20,000. We want access to bigger sums that can deliver real ambition from these projects in the long term, where and when we need it.

It is worth noting that under National Grid’s plans, training opportunities sit inside the community fund and are counted against the total. That is plainly wrong. Local jobs should be a contractual commitment built into the design project, not a line inside a community fund. The guidance states that community funds are not in addition to benefits such as local employment; I gently suggest that some developers have not read the guidance.

I have raised many times the fact that there is no legal duty on nationally significant infrastructure projects to co-ordinate, even when building in the same area at the same time and impacting the same community. The Minister has heard me talk about this at length. My community is expected to host multiple billion-pound schemes simultaneously without statutory tools to enforce co-ordination. Ofgem now chairs co-ordination meetings, which is welcome, but it can only convene, and there is no obligation to attend and no powers to compel change. Co-ordination by good will is not co-ordination, and there is not even a requirement for community funds to be co-ordinated. In my constituency, we will likely see Sea Link and LionLink running separate investment programmes while co-locating on adjacent land.

My constituents are therefore asking for three things: better management of the cumulative impact on businesses and communities; to be properly compensated when disruption causes real harm in real time; and genuine ambition to protect and nurture nature in how projects are designed and delivered.

That brings me to my second and most important question, as I set out at the beginning. The Theberton Lion in Theberton has lost around £35,000 in trade this year because of road construction for Sizewell C. The landlord, Tom, sees the benefits that Sizewell C will eventually bring, but his business needs help now. Road closures, continual roadworks outside his pub and poor signage have all had a very real effect. The community investment fund is generous, and Sizewell C’s investment fund is held up nationally as what good community investment should look like, but it is not being used to support businesses that are struggling with the real impacts of construction today.

Similarly, the Refill shop in Leiston tells the same story. Amanda runs the shop and, just like Tom, is not against Sizewell C, but her business is struggling today because of the construction works disruption. The support on offer does not reach her, because the strategy has not been designed to help businesses to manage the day-to-day impact.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Vaz.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) not only for securing the debate but for all the conversations we have had. She should never fear repeating the same message; it is important. She does a great job championing her community in this place; she has always sought to do so, in all the meetings I have had with her. I might add that she has also sought to be constructive, as she reflected in her opening remarks. Her constituents are not against the move to clean power, and know how important it is, but they recognise that there are impacts locally. That is a really important place to be on this issue.

Communities that host nationally significant infrastructure obviously experience disruption and change, and that comes with real consequences. I understand the challenges that such infrastructure places on communities at a local level, and it is right that we not only take account of those concerns when they are raised but do everything we can to provide those people with the community benefits. They are hosting infrastructure on behalf of the nation, and they should benefit from that.

This important debate also comes to the heart of the broader question facing the country, and why we have, as a Government, decided to move even further and faster to deliver the infrastructure that not only delivers economic growth and energy security, but gets us off fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Infrastructure does matter, and I am not going to shirk away from making the argument that after a long period of not building the infrastructure this country needs, we have to build it. But communities have to be at the heart of that decision as well.

It is great to see that some young people have joined us for the debate, because at the heart of our reason for building this infrastructure is the future of our planet, as well as our energy security right now. For decades, we have not done enough to tackle the climate crisis, but neither have we done enough to safeguard ourselves from the volatility of fossil fuels, which has put all our bills up year after year. That is what this is all about, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal absolutely supports that point.

It is also an economic opportunity. Just last week, we hit the huge milestone of £100 billion of investment in clean energy since this Government came to office almost exactly two years ago. That is creating jobs and boosting our energy security. As I have said, every wind turbine, every solar panel, every nuclear power station and every bit of transmission line that we build helps to create a more secure and resilient energy system now and in future. I do not say that lightly, as if building those projects does not come at any cost for people locally. New infrastructure does mean difficult decisions, and there will always be local impacts. I fully recognise that will bring concerns for local residents, just as much as it brings huge opportunities nationally.

My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal powerfully outlined some examples of the impact of Sizewell C, one of the most important energy projects that we are building. The last time we built a nuclear power station in this country, I was not even born, so it is really important that we push forward on those projects. However, I recognise that the scale of Sizewell C has an impact on roads and local businesses. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend again to talk specifically about that point; I would also be happy to set up a meeting with her and the team at Sizewell C, because I know that they are also seized of the importance of getting this right.

I should also say that this is partly why we have a rigorous planning system. All nationally significant infrastructure projects have to address the cumulative impacts to which my hon. Friend referred, and there are many opportunities for communities to have their say. I recognise that communities do not always feel that that is taken into account, but I say genuinely that it is taken into account. Projects have to demonstrate that they have considered the cumulative impact of other NSIPs as part of their process through the system.

I have said that communities providing a service to the country by hosting this infrastructure have to benefit from it. We have already taken decisive steps to ensure that they have tangible and lasting benefits. For the first time ever, we have announced community benefits from network infrastructure: direct bill discounts for consumers, so that those closest to transmission lines and substation upgrades feel the benefit in their energy bills, but also wider community benefits, so that communities can benefit from funding. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other hon. Members raised a point about long-term, sustainable and really impactful benefits. My constituency is close to some of the biggest onshore wind farms in Europe, and in truth we have not seen the long-lasting community benefits that we might have seen. This is about trying to shift that, so that there are real investments in communities.

[Ms Billington]

I recognise what my hon. Friend says, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) pointed out, these are guidelines at the moment rather than obligations. Because they are only guidelines, they can be ignored. Including things like jobs and traineeships within the community allowance limits the genuine potential benefit for host communities. We are grateful that we now have biodiversity net gain for nationally significant infrastructure projects. There should be a similar obligation to make sure that communities benefit and have ownership of and accountability for how that money is spent. I will say this now on the record: £2.1 million, as my hon. Friend said, is a rounding error. That should be multiplied by 10 if we are really going to get the benefit for our communities in the long term.

[Michael Shanks]

Let me come to both of those points. First, we are potentially confusing two different things. Community benefits for transmission infrastructure are mandatory; we have separately consulted on whether community benefits for wider energy projects should be mandatory, and we will respond to that consultation soon, because I recognise many of the points that have been made. What we do not want to do, though, is create one-size-fits-all solutions in Whitehall that will work differently in different communities. As a Minister, I do not want to sit here and say: “This is how your community benefit will work in your community.” Instead, I want to empower communities to figure out how that works best in their local area. I have seen models of that in all the visits that I have made across the country.

The minimum standards should be there to make sure that the process is transparent, with communities and not developers in the driving seat, and that there is long-term certainty. I do not think that we should say that play parks and cycle paths are bad things to invest in, but there should be some long-term investments alongside them. I have seen some good examples, just in the past few weeks, of that being done well. We need to separate out those two things.

I have wrestled with the cost point as well. In principle, I would like to see communities having even more community benefits, but we have to recognise that the cost of them will be borne by bill payers right across the country. The balance that we are trying to strike, as a Government determined to tackle the cost of living, is to have communities benefiting as much as they possibly can but without putting up bills significantly for all bill payers across the country, which would be a disproportionate impact at a time when the affordability crisis is our No. 1 priority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I take that point, to an extent, although being off the gas grid does not mean being off grid from electricity, so those people will benefit from cheaper electricity bills. I think that electrification is the answer, to support households off heating oil wherever possible. I know that that is not possible in every case, but there will be a lot of households that we can move away from heating oil, which protects them in the long term. We have also provided support for people on heating oil in the ongoing middle east crisis.

We have produced a working paper and a call for evidence on community benefits, which we are going through at the moment. We are also going further around shared ownership of low-carbon infrastructure. This Government do not see this issue as being just about community benefits. It is also about how we get communities either owning the entirety of the infrastructure themselves and holding the wealth that is generated in their community, or at least owning a share in it.

To their credit, in the Infrastructure Act 2015 the previous Government—although I suspect that they may not have realised this when they passed the Act—created a power to allow shared ownership. It was never enacted. We are now seeking to work out how to enact it so that communities can genuinely own a share. We know the difference that it makes: ownership matters, because it puts communities right in the driving seat when it comes to what they spend that money on. Whether they choose to make long-term or shorter-term decisions would be in their hands. That makes a hugely important difference to communities, as I have seen on visits.

[Ms Billington]

That is definitely the case for renewable energy generation projects, but we are talking about infrastructure projects. There needs to be some kind of mechanism by which we have some ownership and accountability for the communities that are hosting infrastructure projects. There particularly needs to be an energy foundation that allows them to reduce their energy bills, which would also take some of the overall burden off the grid.

[Michael Shanks]

I do not think we are disagreeing. Energy generation projects are infrastructure projects: whether the community owns them or not, the infrastructure still needs to be built. I would just like to see more communities owning those projects. We said in the local power plan that we want to make it possible to sell power locally, which would actively bring down bills, and for that wealth to be held locally. The grid and network infrastructure has to be built alongside that, which in previous years has not happened as much as it should have.

One of the biggest changes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal mentioned, has been about the cumulative impact and the sense that there has not been sufficient planning or a strategic approach. We will shift that with the national strategic spatial energy plan and, from that, the centralised network plan. We should have been doing that years ago. We have built lots of renewables projects, but have not worked out how we are connecting them to the grid. That is costing us in constraint payments, but it also means that we do not have as strategically aligned a grid as we should have. Unfortunately, we have to start from where we are. We will plan it more strategically moving forward, but I recognise my hon. Friend’s points.

Returning to the central point of this debate, I recognise that communities should absolutely be at the forefront of the energy transition. We want to see much more community and shared ownership as well as partnerships with communities, but the Government are also unashamedly building the energy infrastructure that this country needs to weather the uncertain world we live in today. That will protect us in the future and unlock huge economic benefits from electrification and the industries of the future. That means building things, and they have to be built somewhere.

My hon. Friend has frequently made the point that she agrees, but that she thinks Suffolk Coastal has faced a disproportionate number of those projects. I have some sympathy with her. We have to do everything we can to make sure that her communities and others like them benefit. The hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) made a point about pumped-storage hydro, which is an example of the infrastructure our country needs. We need to get the community benefits right that come with these projects.

We have made huge progress in two years, but I am not going to stand here and say that the job is done. We need to continue to make sure that communities benefit as much as possible—not least because, in a fractured debate on the energy transition, we have a job to do to convince the public that this is a journey that benefits all of us. It will bring down bills and protect us in an uncertain world. Fundamentally, if communities are hosting it, they are doing the country a favour and we thank them for it, but they should also get some benefit.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal again for securing the debate. I look forward to meeting with her again; she should never fear bringing up these issues with me again and again, because they are hugely important. I take them seriously, and so do the Government. I hope that together we will find a way through.

Question put and agreed to.

Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions

Polly Billington Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but I do just need to explain to the hon. Lady that we are not lifting any sanctions. We are implementing new sanctions, which only come into force today. Up until now, it has been perfectly legal to import Russian oil products processed in a third country into the UK—up until now. It is only now, because of this Government, with the new sanctions that come into force today, that that will not be possible. I really do hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her comments.

The whole of this House stands 100% beside Ukraine. I myself am probably the longest standing critic of Putin in this House. Back in 2014, when others were in government and not doing anything about the invasion of Crimea, I was saying that we should be tackling Russian aggression, because otherwise, if Putin was allowed to take Crimea with impunity, he would come for the rest. I do recognise that Liberal Democrat Members have been calling in the Business and Trade Committee and elsewhere for us to tackle precisely this issue of Russian crude oil processed in other countries that ends up coming into the UK. Up until now, that has been a source of income for Putin, but we are the Government who are stopping this, not enabling it.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the clarity my hon. Friend provides for us on this issue, because it has been of extreme concern for a number of colleagues. Does he think that wider global insecurity around energy requires global co-operation and collaboration, and that the UK Government could lead on that? We are hosting the G20 next year. In the process of building up to that, could we consider ensuring that global energy security is the priority for the G20 summit?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes an immensely important point on energy security, which is one reason why we are passionately committed to trying to make sure we are not reliant on oil or oil products from anywhere else in the world, and that we are able to not only meet our net zero targets, but be energy resilient for ourselves. She is also right that we need to work alongside our allies, not only—I would argue—on energy security but in relation to imposing sanctions. We must co-operate with other countries. As I say, our set of processes is remarkably similar to those of Australia, Canada—I think—and several other countries. We need to move forward together if we are to defeat Putin and to ensure we have energy security for our own households and our own businesses.

British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme

Polly Billington Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am thankful for the right hon. Member’s acknowledgment of the work we are doing to invest in Wales—not only the small modular reactor, which we are already starting to construct the site for, but the investment in two AI growth zones. This is a Government that, since we came into office, take investment into Wales and the reindustrialisation of Wales incredibly seriously, and both those things are starting now.

On food and agriculture, I spoke just yesterday with the Environment Secretary. We are in touch over these issues and sit in the same committees where we talk about all the specific challenges as we scenario plan for impacts that may or may not result from the conflict in the middle east. That work will continue, and she can rest assured that farmers, alongside other key sectors in our economy, are at the forefront of our mind.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for this statement and, importantly, for recognising the energy-intensive industries, especially those that are essential for growth and without which we cannot prosper. It is a start, but can I make a plea for consideration of the sectors of our economy that do not so obviously sit in a globally competitive environment but are still vital for our economy, especially hospitality? Our restaurants and cafés are not able to move elsewhere, but are caught in a situation where there is no current help to support them to shift to clean or cheaper energy so that they can keep doing what they do well: making people happy. Would he agree to meet me and colleagues who are seeking to secure a stable future for this important sector?

[Peter Kyle]

My hon. Friend gives voice to the hospitality sector, and she is absolutely right: the hospitality sector is important for so many reasons. For many people, it is the most interaction they have with the frontline of the economy. It is the place people go for light relief and fun—and, my goodness, we deserve more fun as a country more often. It is also often the first part of the pathway into the economy, because many people’s first job is in hospitality. I recognise that hospitality is an incredibly important part of our economy, for all those reasons.

What the hospitality sector needs first and foremost is economic growth, so that people have more money in their pockets to spend. That is why today’s news that we reached economic growth of 0.5% in the quarter leading up to the end of February is so significant. Embedding the foundations for growth in our economy is what hospitality needs more than anything else. Of course, I meet UKHospitality regularly and I have roundtables with the sector. I represent Hove, which has a thriving hospitality sector, where I meet people on the frontline all the time. I always enjoy engaging with my hon. Friend on these issues too.

Jane Austen

Polly Billington Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I rise to speak in this debate simply because I love Jane Austen and all her works. We commemorate her in this debate, as we did on the 250th anniversary of her birth on Tuesday. Today, there has been a statement in the House on the Government’s launch of their strategy to counter violence against women and girls.

One might ask: what is the link? Jane knew about coercive control and the endless structural limitations on women without means, income or property. From Charlotte Lucas in “Pride and Prejudice” to Harriet Smith in “Emma” and the Dashwood family—a mother and two daughters brought low, fallen on hard times, because of the death of the father—there are many examples of how women have to navigate a world with the odds stacked against them.

Jane Austen is a comic genius, and I do not want to sideline her wit. It is because of her ability to describe with humour the realities of life for women in the 19th century that her stories resonate across those centuries. The context may have changed, but the fundamental truths are the same—not the idea that any young gentleman with means is in want of a wife, but the constraints, limits, dangers and insecurities of life for women. Those truths echo across time, as well as echoing through the streets of my constituency.

Jane Austen’s sense of place was as acute as her observation of the social and economic condition of women, as demonstrated by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). Ramsgate, in my constituency, is portrayed in her novels as a place of ill repute. In “Mansfield Park”, it is referred to as a place where bad things happen. In “Pride and Prejudice”, it plays a larger role. Mr Wickham, who as we all know is a walking cautionary tale for all young women, plans to “elope”, as they call it, with Georgiana Darcy to Ramsgate. Of the bad’uns in Austen’s books, Mr Wickham, as a walking cautionary tale, is outdone only by the red flag of Frank Churchill going to London to get his hair cut. I can tell Members that reading that at the age of 17 helped me a lot later on.

The fact is, with Georgiana Darcy, her brother had to intervene to stop that elopement happening. In the novel, that is portrayed as a proof-point that Mr Darcy is a morally strong and decisive figure, and not the terrible bore that Lizzy Bennet thought he was at first. Avoiding or surviving such an abuse of power, however, should not rely on good relatives or friends; not all women have a Mr Darcy to intervene. That is why, nowadays, we need support for all—so that risks are reduced for all women.

Eloping sounds romantic, and seaside resorts such as Ramsgate have often had a saucy or edgy reputation. Indeed, this week, a blue plaque dedicated to Jane Austen has been installed in Ramsgate to acknowledge her link to the town. Her brother, Francis—better known as Frank—was a Royal Navy officer in the town. There are some suggestions that she disliked it, given that it was disreputable, but she was able to develop characters and so forth on the basis of it.

The reality for women now, as then, is that their lives can be ruined by the actions of men like Wickham. It is therefore right for the Government to declare that violence against women and girls is an emergency. It is a problem even older than Jane Austen’s wonderful novel. On this day, when we commemorate her genius, we should also remember that her stories reveal that misogyny, violence and coercion have been a daily reality for women for centuries.

Jane Austen’s cultural contribution stretches well beyond the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and beyond the stories of romance, helping us to understand women’s condition. Although things have improved—indeed, have been transformed—for most of us, the fear of financial hardship and the risk of being subject to the whims and power of men still loom large in the lives of many women. Let us make Jane Austen’s legacy an effort to consign that fear to history.

Seasonal Work

Polly Billington Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was interested in him suggesting that it was Labour’s principles that are causing the problem. Which bit of our plan for small and medium-sized businesses, action to tackle late payments, reducing regulatory burdens and expanding access to finance does he disagree with?

[Nigel Huddleston]

This is just noise. The hon. Lady needs to speak to businesses in her constituency—[Interruption.] The facts are the national insurance increases, the business rates increases and the additional burdens on businesses. If anybody on the Government Benches can name any major business organisation that welcomes the employment Bill—the unemployment Bill, as we call it—I would welcome them doing so now, but I do not think they can. They are anti-business: that is the point. The Conservatives are pro-business, they are anti-business. The principle is key: to be pro-business means to be pro-workers and pro-public sector, because that is how the taxes are generated. The Government have the exact different—

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the important ways we will get the welfare bill down as well as getting more money into people’s pockets, and ultimately more money into tills. Instead of fantastical unfunded tax cuts, we are giving real help to high streets across the country. Millions of British people will benefit from the £5 billion Pride in Place programme, which puts local people in 339 neighbourhoods in the driving seat of renewing their own areas.

[Ms Billington]

I am grateful to the Government for the fact that Ramsgate in particular is benefiting from the Pride in Place fund. More widely, on the matter of seasonal work, which is vital for coastal communities such as mine, can the Minister confirm that seasonal and hospitality workers will benefit from many of the measures in the Budget that will tackle the cost of living and raise their wages, such as increases to the minimum wage, cuts to energy bills and the freezing of bus and train fares?

North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

Polly Billington Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

The right hon. Member asks a serious question, and I am trying to give him an answer, if he would but listen for a few moments. We take the issue of job losses seriously—of course we do—but we have to recognise that over 70,000 jobs have been lost over the past 10 years because there has not been a credible plan on the future of the North sea. We are going to deliver that alongside new jobs in the energy future.

I also say to the right hon. Member that I am somewhat confused what the SNP’s policy is on this because, as far as I understood it, it is exactly the same as this Government’s policy, which is to look at the licensing position. If he is telling us now that the SNP’s position has changed, that is news to me and, I suspect, to the House, but of course, the SNP has not published the draft energy strategy, which has been in draft form for two years, so it is hard for anyone to know.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the UK arm of the company, which is an in-demand business with a highly skilled workforce and many successful contracts, has a long-term future in the UK, particularly in the context of our clean energy jobs plan announced last week and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) pointed out, some of the risks around the development of offshore wind in Holland?

[Michael Shanks]

We have obviously been liaising with the company over quite a long period of time on the restructuring; indeed, the previous Government did as well. We have been looking at this issue and will continue to work very closely with the company to ensure that there is a viable long-term future for the UK part. But it is an in-demand business and, as I said just last month, it expanded some of its contracts, which shows that it is successful. Of course, it has a highly skilled workforce working in a huge range of jobs right across oil and gas.

The wider question about investment into renewables is also one that we should take seriously. We have a huge opportunity in the United Kingdom to capitalise on the economic opportunities that come from offshore and onshore wind, hydrogen and carbon capture, but that requires consistency and a view that the UK is a safe place to invest—things that were threatened by the Conservatives.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Polly Billington Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether he was aware that the Chinese company that is now in possession of British Steel was sold it by a Conservative Government of which he was part?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course I am, because I just said that. I have just admitted that it was a mistake, but I ask everybody what they were saying at the time. Of course, there is silence. It is easy to be wise after the event, but I am worried about my steelworkers—I am worried about their future.

Employment Rights Bill

Polly Billington Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

My generation and those younger than me are the keenest yet for more family time, but their primary concern is paying the bills. The rate of paternity leave, the huge swathes of discrimination for returning mothers and the lack of protections mean that dads cannot even take what they are entitled to. We have to change that. I am proud of this Bill and proud of our Government, and I am very hopeful for dads.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I am a proud member of the GMB.

I stand to speak against amendment 289, which would exclude the hospitality sector and sports venues from the Bill’s duty for employers not to permit harassment of their employees. The first time I was harassed at work was when I was 14 years old, waiting tables at a charity event. The second time was when I was 16, in a bistro, except this time I was being paid for the experience. After that, it was when I was a student working in a bar, then when I worked in a canteen, and then in a warehouse. It is because of that experience—one shared by people of both sexes and all ages, but particularly the young and particularly women, across this country—that I was, I am not going to lie, absolutely gobsmacked by the amendment tabled by the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), to the protection from harassment clause, which would exclude those working in the hospitality sector or sports venues.

The Conservative party is arguing that some kind of harassment is okay and that if you are working in the hospitality sector or in a sports venue, it is fine. Tories seem to believe that if you go to a pub, your right to harass bar staff is greater than their right not to be harassed. I have to say, that is quite an extraordinary thing to argue for, but I am glad that they are at least being honest with us. Jobs in hospitality often involve insecure work on low pay that is reliant on tips. In Margate, Ramsgate and Broadstairs, thousands of people work in jobs like that, and I do not see why it should be deemed acceptable for them to be harassed in their job, but not people who work in an office.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and I am a proud member of the GMB. Does my hon. Friend agree that even more concerning are the calls from the Opposition Benches, and particularly from the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), for the Equality Act to be scrapped, which would mean that laws covering sexual harassment and equal pay would be completely removed from the workplace? This is a really troubling agenda from the Conservatives, and I believe it is in keeping with this amendment.

[Ms Billington]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is indeed a very worrying direction of travel from the Conservatives.

We on the Labour Benches think that people should not be allowed to harass any workers. I honestly did not expect this to be a controversial aspect of the Bill for the Conservatives. Perhaps I am being uncharitable, so I would really appreciate it if the shadow Secretary of State, who is now in his place, could answer a few questions. When did it become Conservative party policy to allow staff to be harassed? Why does that apply only to staff working in hospitality and sports venues and not to all workers? Why is it all right to harass bar staff but not office staff?

[Alison Griffiths]

I know that the hon. Lady has not been in the Chamber for most of the debate, so she will have missed many of the discussions where my hon. Friends have explained the nuance of our position on this, which relates to the law of unintended consequences where publicans and nightclub owners could be responsible for policing the words of their customers. That is clearly not a tenable situation, but I will repeat the words of all of my colleagues on this side of the House: sexual harassment is abhorrent. We do not condone it in any shape or form, and I ask her to withdraw the insinuation that anyone on this side of the House has any truck with such behaviour.

[Ms Billington]

I would like to emphasise that I listened closely to the opening speeches when the hon. Lady’s colleagues were talking about amendment 289. I heard clearly, for example, some confusion over whether sexual harassment was a crime or a civil offence, so I will not take any lessons from the Conservatives on their understanding of employment law or, indeed, what is considered acceptable at work.

The amendment is utterly disgraceful. I am proud that this Labour Government have brought forward a Bill to stop workers being harassed wherever they work. It is just a shame that the Conservative party does not agree. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), and apparently the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), think that it is wrong that pub landlords will have to be responsible for kicking out customers. He talked about it being a “banter ban”, but pub managers have always known the importance of keeping rowdy behaviour in limits and protecting their staff and customers from being pestered or being made the unwilling butt of so-called jokes. This law—

[Alison Griffiths]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Ms Billington]

No, I will not give way.

This law will strengthen their hand. I say, in the words of the greatest pub manager of all time—Peggy Mitchell—to the proposers of the amendment, “Get outta my pub!”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Quite. I call Dr Jeevun Sandher.