Employment Rights Bill

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

Lords amendment 23 and amendments 106 to 120 have a core purpose of stopping this country slipping into the rates of youth unemployment seen in other European countries, where getting a first chance feels more like a lottery than a smooth passage into the workforce. Labour Members often like to cast themselves as the party of social mobility, but the reality is that if they remove probation periods—the chance for an employer to take a chance on somebody—they will kill social mobility. The debates in the other place highlighted the impact of not having a qualifying period not just on businesses, but the police and GPs. No proposal has been accepted by the Government that reconciles the promise to introduce a day one right to claim unfair dismissal with a commitment to a light-touch process for probation. At this stage, the only way to avoid undermining the Government’s 80% employment target is to accept the Lords amendment that reduces that period.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Does the shadow Minister understand the difference between fair dismissal and unfair dismissal?

[Andrew Griffith]

The shadow Minister absolutely understands that. He does so and understands the implication of clause 23 from having spoken to Make UK, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses, all of whom urge the Government to rethink on this clause. Business does not recognise a process that ends in a full legal tribunal, flanked by lawyers, after typically a two-year wait and lost management time, as light-touch. Legal fees alone for defending an unfair dismissal case range from £15,000 to £20,000.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, as has been said a number of times, today’s proceedings are not the end for this Bill, because ahead there is the long task of implementing this manifesto commitment. I look forward to, I hope, playing some part in scrutinising the many statutory instruments that will be brought forward, which I am sure will gainfully employ the time of many hon. Members throughout the years to come.

[Sam Rushworth]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—like most Labour Members, I am proud to be supported by trade unions. Others have mentioned the absence of Reform Members from this debate, and of course we know why they are not here: they do not support the measures in the Employment Rights Bill, but they do not have the guts to say that to their voters.

I am here to speak on behalf of my constituents, particularly those who feel insecure at work. They are the people who do not have assets and safety nets, who are not mobile and confident, who live pay day to pay day, and who feel that they must take whatever pay and conditions they are offered because they are terrified of the alternative. It is 12 years since this party announced a commitment to end exploitative zero-hours contracts as a means of controlling workers and avoiding employment obligations.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am a former teaching assistant, and many teaching assistants were working under a form of zero-hours contracts. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill, as well as bringing back the negotiating body for teaching assistants and support staff at school, will greatly help them by taking away the zero-hours contracts under which they previously suffered?

[Sam Rushworth]

The Bill absolutely will do so.

I remember speaking to a young couple when I was canvassing 12 years ago. The young woman had just had a baby, but because she was on a zero-hours contract, she was unable to get the maternity rights to which she was otherwise entitled. Her young partner, who likewise was on a zero-hours contract, talked about his pay and conditions at work, and after asking him why he did not challenge his employer, I understood that so many young people do not feel able to do so because they feel so insecure and sometimes just so grateful to be in a job. That is why I am speaking against Lords amendment 1.

It is absolutely right that the onus be placed on the employer to ensure that people are given regular contracts, and that we are not asking people who are often the most vulnerable and insecure workers to go to their employer and start asserting and demanding their rights. I have met many constituents over the past year or so, and I have learnt about the sheer vulnerability that, sadly, many working people feel, such as a tenant who tells me that they are frightened of demanding rights from their landlord because they fear they will be evicted. Of course, Reform also voted against our reforms banning no-fault evictions.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. He quite rightly mentioned that the Reform UK Members are not in their place, and does he agree with me that this really is a travesty? When we think about the social media posts that they put out and the grand speeches they give up and down this land, does he agree with me that it really is a travesty for them to claim to be on the side of working people when they have the audacity to vote in this House against a Bill introduced by a Labour Government on the side of working people?

[Sam Rushworth]

It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I completely agree with that assessment. They are clearly not on the side of my constituents or the people I am talking about, who just do not feel that they can assert their rights. Too many feel completely powerless, so it is right that we put the onus where it is. I will vote against the attempts in the Lords to water down that part of the Bill.

[Michael Wheeler]

On accessing the rights in the Bill, does my hon. Friend agree that, for people going about their busy daily lives at work and possibly struggling to make ends meet, there is a fundamental difference between a right to a contract with guaranteed hours and a right to request one?

[Sam Rushworth]

There is a difference. My hon. Friend is an expert in this field, having come to us from USDAW, and I know that those who worked on the Bill will have thought this through carefully. It certainly chimes with my experience. People should not need to have to request and assert their rights; they should be given those rights. That is what this Government are doing.

[Gareth Snell]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of Unison and the GMB, and during the election I received financial support from trade unions. One thing I found when I was a trade union official was that it was not necessarily people who were not confident in asserting their own rights. A number of workers simply did not know what their rights were. Oddly enough, employers were not running around handing out little laminated cards saying, “Here are all the rights you can ask me for.” If employers are not made to tell them their rights, how else are employees meant to find out?

[Sam Rushworth]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is what the Bill speaks to. There is a power gap between the ordinary working person who does not necessarily know their rights and is unable to assert them, and the sort of person who, for example, might buy a house in their girlfriend’s name. I will progress.

I also oppose the attempt, in Lords amendment 106, to water down the Bill by requiring six months for protection from unfair dismissal. There is of course a difference between unfair dismissal and fair dismissal. No employer is prevented from using fair grounds to dismiss an employee. The previous Government extended the time before you could even claim unfair dismissal to two years. That left far too many people vulnerable to being dismissed at a whim, or dismissed because they had demanded their rights at work.

I had an experience of that myself. I have never talked about it before, because I signed a non-disclosure agreement. Shortly after becoming the branch rep for the University and College Union when I was a college lecturer, I pointed out that the college I was teaching at was not paying the minimum wage to some of its staff. The college then attempted to dismiss me for bringing it into disrepute. Thankfully, I was able to take on one of the top employment lawyers in the area at the time—only because they had forced me to teach an HR course—and give myself a crash course in human rights law. I left that place with a payout.

I remember the shame I felt at the time for signing the non-disclosure agreement. I wanted to fight for other people, but at the end of the day I was terrified that I was going to miss my next mortgage payment and I was thinking of my children. That is the position that far too many people find themselves in. So what we are doing on non-disclosure is right. I have to ask all Members, as they vote on whether to water this down, whose side they are on. Will they be on the side of those seeking to cover up sexual harassment, rather than on the side of the whistleblowers?

In my mind’s eye, as I vote this evening, will be real people in my Bishop Auckland constituency. I want to tell the House about two or three of them. A few months ago, I received correspondence from a parish councillor who is also a local farmer and a member of the Labour party. He told me of his concern that every day he saw two women sitting in the bus shelter in a cold hilltop village. He approached them to ask them what they were doing there, because they were there for several hours. It turned out that they were care workers. They were dropped off in the morning and did a visit. At another point in the day they would do another visit, and another visit later. But they were only paid for the specific time that they were in people’s houses; they were not paid for the entirety of the day. That is a workaround to avoid paying them the minimum wage. The Bill makes provision for a fair pay agreement in adult social care to address such practices. By the way, he then opened the village hall for them and made sure they had a warm space to wait in each day between shifts.

[Jayne Kirkham]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I, too, was a Unison rep, and I have taken contributions from Unison and other unions towards my election expenses. The point my hon. Friend makes is very real in Cornwall too. Migrant care workers were left on a bench in a village from the early morning shift to the late evening shift. That must be addressed, and it will be addressed under the Bill.

[Sam Rushworth]

It will, absolutely. We should not have people working in those kinds of conditions and that sort of poverty in 2025.

[Laurence Turner]

My hon. Friend speaks about care workers. Does he agree that one issue so brutally exposed during the pandemic was the fact that many thousands of care workers were classed as workers, not employees? As a consequence, they could not get full access to sick pay. One consequence of that was that the fatality rates among both residents and workers were much higher in the care homes that did not make that provision available. If the provisions in the Bill were in place then, many thousands of lives could have been saved.

[Sam Rushworth]

My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. Another great provision in the Bill is that right to sick pay, which is so important and would have been so important for many care workers during the pandemic.

In my mind’s eye are those women sitting at that bus stop in the cold. Two other people I met who were also care workers—one lives in High Etherley and the other in Etherley Dene—told me similar stories. They did not vote for me. They did not vote for anybody, because they did not believe that anybody could fix their problems. They just told me that their lives were tough. They had to pay for their own uniforms. They were not really getting the minimum wage for their work. They felt disrespected by everybody. They felt vulnerable and left behind. But I made them a promise that if I came to this place, I would speak up for them. I am doing that today and I am voting for them today.

Finally, the Employment Rights Bill is not just good for workers; it is also good for businesses. So many family businesses in Bishop Auckland, Shildon, Crook and Barnard Castle all tell me the same thing. They tell me how much they enjoy contributing to our local economy and how important it is to them that they are a responsible, decent employer. But they tell me how tough it is when there is a race to the bottom. They want employment rights strengthened. They do not want the watered-down version coming to us from the Lords. They want the full-fat version of this Bill, because they know it is good for their workers and good for their businesses.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I would like to start by thanking all Members who have contributed to the debate, but especially the new ministerial team and senior Ministers across the Government who recommitted to this legislation in public, and especially to the previous ministerial team who advanced the Bill as it went through the Commons.

In my constituency, of the six key pledges on our leaflets, this was the one that got the younger generation interested and engaged. They were worried about where they would work, how they would work and how they would get ahead in life. The vast majority of young people across this country are aware that the path to a better life comes through the workplace.

What do we see when we look at these Lords amendments? It is another week, another paltry attempt by the Opposition parties in the Lords to undermine my constituents’ rights at work. A couple of weeks back, there was an Opposition day motion that told my constituents that if they worked behind a bar, they should have fewer rights than if they worked behind a desk. These amendments are just another feeble attempt at watering down a popular and generationally crucial piece of legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank]

I agree on the misinformation being put out about hypothetical situations, which are often talked about when we discuss hospitality.

I recognise the point being put forward for small businesses, but I also recognise that those businesses have the right to a probation period, and to other employment models, such as part time working. I have seen that happen quite frequently.

[Sam Rushworth]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives bequeathed us an economy in which more and more people were moving out of work and becoming long-term sick? A lot of that sickness was driven by mental health disorders— in particular, anxiety, worry and stress, which are driven by an insecure labour market. Does he also agree that the measures in the Bill to make people safer and more protected at work will improve mental wellbeing and productivity, and be good for economic growth?

[Euan Stainbank]

I fully agree that the economic benefit of security in the workplace is evident. I have worked in some of the most insecure industries in hospitality, and people trying to rush themselves back into work was a severe issue, especially just after the pandemic, because they did not have another source of income. If they had to isolate, there was financial support, luckily, which was just about enough to cover wages for a period, administered by local authorities. However, there were still a lot more people who tried to drive themselves back into the workplace. I remember coming back after a 10-day isolation period after having covid, and I could tell that I was not prepared physically or mentally to re-enter the workplace. It did make me think that I wanted to call in sick. It is then substantially more difficult for someone to re-enter work, especially in high-intensity industries. We often forget how physically intensive hospitality and retail workplaces, where people are working on zero-hours contracts, can be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

That is an interesting question. There is a great interplay with rights for self-employed people. We are committing to a review on that in due course, together with a wider look at the parental leave system. We will get back to the hon. Lady on that.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I welcome this Government’s commitment to getting more disposable income in the pockets of working people. At Christmas time a lot of people will want to buy concert tickets; what conversations is the Minister having with Cabinet colleagues on reforming the secondary ticketing market?

[Justin Madders]

Hopefully, we will make an announcement very shortly about plans in that area.

Critical Minerals: Domestic Production

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Westminster Hall

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) on securing this important debate. As he set out, critical minerals are essential for our transition away from fossil fuels while offering economic opportunities in areas where extraction is undertaken, such as Cornwall. I remember many family holidays to Cornwall—coming from Norfolk, we did have to get away sometimes—and enjoying visits to the Poldark tin mine, which I believe is in the constituency of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George).

Clearly, a lot of focus has been on Cornwall, but—as has been mentioned—this is an opportunity across the country. The International Energy Agency has stated that the world in 2040 is expected to need four times as many critical minerals for clean energy technologies as it does today, so as a nation, we need the right materials if we are to make that clean energy transition. We need the lithium, cobalt, and graphite for electric vehicle batteries; the silicon and tin for our electronics; and the rare earth metals for electric cars and wind turbines. While we will always rely on international supply chains, we have to maximise where the UK can produce domestically and make our supply chains more resilient. As has been said, that will also boost our energy and national security.

A strong case for increasing the domestic production of minerals has been made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as well as the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), who referred to the importance of skills. I hope that he would acknowledge the work that his predecessor, Steve Double, did in pushing that agenda in the last Parliament. I admire the passion that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) has to go more fast and furious; I wonder if his constituents will share that when they see not the promised £300 cut in energy bills, but the pylons being imposed on communities without proper consultation, particularly in my constituency and across the east of England.

We are moving to a world powered by critical minerals and demand is increasing. Indeed, the UK’s 2022 critical mineral strategy, to which the hon. Member for St Ives referred, stated that global demand for electric vehicle battery minerals is projected to increase by up to 13 times over the next decade or so, exceeding the rate at which new primary and secondary sources are being developed.

The UK has 18 metals and minerals on its critical raw minerals list, and another six are classified as having elevated criticality. China is the biggest producer of 12 of those minerals. Despite the significant deposits of lithium, particularly in Cornwall, and the tin, manganese and tungsten across south-west England, Cumbria, Wales and Scotland, we are almost wholly dependent on imports for our critical minerals, as has been mentioned.

Many of the UK’s vital sectors rely on those minerals, which is why last year we launched a task and finish group on industry resilience, particularly focusing on aerospace, energy, automotive, chemicals and other sectors. While we were in government, we adopted a comprehensive approach to critical minerals, engaging readily with our foreign partners and allies, as well as with industry. That is why we published the first ever critical minerals strategy, which was then refreshed last year to reflect the changing global landscape and the pace of change we need to see.

In partnership with the British Geological Survey, we launched the Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre to help to monitor the supply chain risks and assess the importance of different minerals over time, a point made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). We also ramped up work through the Critical Imports Council in April, so there is a lot for this Government to build on.

We know that critical minerals supply chains are complex and vulnerable to disruption, and that production is centred and highly concentrated in certain countries. In some cases, single nations are responsible for half of worldwide production, and are often vulnerable to aggressive debt regimes implemented by states with which the UK directly competes. The level of concentration is even higher for processing operations: China’s share of refining is about 35% for nickel, 50% to 70% for lithium and cobalt, and around 90% for rare earth elements.

All those issues present challenges to the UK’s security of supply, so we must accelerate the growth of our domestic capabilities and back UK critical minerals producers to take advantage of opportunities along the whole length of the value chain. Cornish Lithium, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, is enjoying successes in extracting lithium from granite. Weardale Lithium is also exploring the potential for lithium extraction and geothermal energy from water. Green Lithium, which has also been referred to, has plans to build and operate the first UK merchant lithium refinery in Teesside. There are opportunities around the country.

The UK is also well placed to lead on midstream processing, including refining and materials manufacturing, building on the globally competitive chemicals and metals sectors that we enjoy. That is why the previous Government invested in critical minerals programmes and explored regulatory mechanisms to promote battery and waste electrical and electronic equipment recycling. As of April, there were 50 projects at various stages of development to mine, process and recycle critical minerals domestically.

The UK is a pioneer in recovering critical minerals from waste. Companies such as Altilium, which has operations in Plymouth, are working to develop battery recycling capabilities, so that the raw materials can be extracted and can re-enter the supply chain. That will become increasingly important because, by 2040, recycling is expected to account for up to 20% of battery mineral demand for electric vehicles.

Critical minerals will become ever more important as we seek to bolster our energy security and domestic resilience. There is particular demand for their use in electric vehicles. As has been referred to by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East, in government, we took the decision to push back some of those targets: we moved the target for ending the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035, bringing us in line with the major car manufacturing countries around the world. Yet this Government have tied themselves in knots about their policy on mandates. Can the Minister provide some clarity on the Government’s policy to address the uncertainty facing supply chains, including those in the critical minerals sector?

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning Weardale Lithium, which is in my constituency, as is Northern Lithium. The regulatory framework for companies trying to invest in lithium is not supportive, and they face waits of one or two years for planning approval from the Environment Agency.

I will also say that Nissan in Sunderland is not at all happy: it already had a plan in place to hit the 2030 target for electric vehicles. It is going to stick to its original plan, but it wants a Government that will match its ambition.

[James Wild]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman— I hope he will forgive me; I did not realise that Weardale Lithium is in his constituency, otherwise I would have acknowledged that. He is absolutely right about the regulatory issues that we face. Every MP will know of the difficulties that the Environment Agency causes companies due to its slow decision making and the fact that there is often a lack of certainty. Different car manufacturers, even just in this country, have different views. I acknowledge Nissan’s point, but other companies in this country take a different view.

The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, who secured the debate, said that we need to elevate the importance of this issue and give it a much higher profile. I do not disagree, although I would say that we have set out quite a strong foundation for doing that. Given the centrality of the issue, I was surprised that there was only one passing reference to critical minerals in the Government’s industrial strategy, published a month ago, which is supposed to be the Government’s blueprint for growth. Given that passing reference, are critical minerals really a priority issue for the Government? I hope we will get some reassurance from the Minister on that.

Business confidence has plummeted as a result of the Budget. Although there is an abundance of minerals in the ground, especially in areas that need investment and more jobs, does the Minister recognise the damage that has been done to the UK’s attractiveness to investors as a result of the measures in the Budget? Apparently the Minister will announce that the Government are launching a critical minerals strategy next year—wow. Given the importance of the issue, why is there not more urgency from the Government to do that? That strategy joins a long list of other consultations and commitments that will come in that year. Labour Members have had 14 years to get ready, but they do not seem to be.

Industry needs certainty about what the plan is to ensure that our critical minerals supply chains are strong, sustainable and resilient for now and for many years to come. Let us hope that the Minister can offer that security.

Budget Resolutions

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

I am pretty sure that at the time, the now Chancellor described the increase as a “jobs tax”, and that is exactly what this is. What we are seeing is not a need to balance the nation’s books on the back of a global supply chain squeeze, higher energy costs due to the war in Ukraine and the aftermath of covid, but a Government coming in with premeditated plans that they did not share with the British people, and setting the biggest-ever tax raid Budget in British history. That is an enormous difference, and business understands it; it can see through this Government.

One of the UK’s leading hospitality entrepreneurs is Luke Johnson, who runs Gail’s, which I believe some of my Liberal Democrat colleagues are rather keen on—they are the party of Gail’s. He said:

“It is heartbreaking that Britain’s proud record of innovation, flexibility and business success is being thrown away thanks to that old knee-jerk Labour instinct of taxing success.”

I agree.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is clear that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the way in which the Budget raises revenue. Does he oppose the £22 billion investment in the NHS, the investment in special educational needs and disabilities education, or the increases in the schools budget?

[Andrew Griffith]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a long and successful career in this House, but he will not have very long to wait; if he is concerned about a lack of investment in the NHS, I ask him to sit down with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and ask exactly what the rate of growth will be for NHS spending and departmental spending in the years ’26-27 and ’27-28. Then perhaps he could come back and tell me what he thinks about that level of spending growth.

The Government talk of stabilising the economy—we have heard a lot about that—but this is not a Budget for stability; it is anything but. Let me educate Labour colleagues. There is nothing stable about lowering the rate of economic growth. All that does is create a more fragile and susceptible economy. There is nothing sustainable about a Government changing the fiscal rules after saying that they would not. Even with the potentially unsustainable levels of departmental spend, there is nothing stable in a Government having a razor-thin level of headroom that the OBR quantifies at only £10 billion—just one third of the level that the Chancellor’s predecessor set—to ensure that they remain within the fiscal rules, which they have just made up, by the way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

I think people do feel betrayed. We need to conduct our politics as honestly as we can. The Labour Government broke their promise not to raise taxes on working people, because, as the OBR has made clear, the NICs raise will overwhelmingly fall on working people. In fact, if we go through the numbers, as I did, it turns out that there is a bigger reduction in wages than there is net receipt to the Exchequer. That is quite a remarkable achievement—probably only a Labour Government could do that.

Of course, the Government have also put up the cost of getting on the bus. If ever there was a symbol of working people, travelling from my constituency to a low-paid job in Hull, that is it. It will cost them £500 a year extra out of taxed income. I do not know why the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) is grinning—I know he grins a lot, but it should not be funny to him that someone in a low-wage job who travels into Hull every day will pay £500 a year more because of the decisions his Government are making. For a couple, it is £1,000 a year. That cost is real, and it should not be glossed over.

There is just one train station in my constituency, and people who live in Withernsea have no choice but to travel 26 miles to get there. The Prime Minister’s constituents are blessed with a pick and mix of ways to get to the office: the tube, the overground, trains, Ubers, Bolts, and even Boris bikes. That is not the case in rural and coastal East Yorkshire: my constituents get the bus at 7 o’clock in the morning, and they get another bus at 6 o’clock at night. That is their lived reality, and the serious impact of this Budget should be recognised.

Another broken promise was to pensioners, who were told that they would have security in retirement—that their benefits would not be touched. Taking £300 from the very poorest pensioners is not keeping that promise. [Interruption.] The very poorest pensioners are those eligible for pension credit.

[Sam Rushworth]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I will not. The very poorest pensioners are those eligible for pension credit, and nearly 900,000 of them will not get that £300. That is the truth—there is no point denying it.

Finally, there is the awful betrayal of British farmers, many of whom work from dawn to dusk to ensure our supermarkets are full of fresh fruit and veg. According to my constituent William Hodgson, who runs a small family farm near Withernsea, it is a “rural catastrophe”. I ask the Government to think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Conservative party was keen for us all to declare our membership of trade unions in the debate on the Employment Rights Bill, so we should probably all declare that most of us received funding from businesses during the general election campaign. I certainly did, and I pay tribute to the small businesses in my constituency. Some 89% of them are considered microbusinesses with fewer than 10 employees, so the majority will pay less national insurance under this Budget. I thank the Chancellor for protecting working people and small businesses.

Listening to Conservative Members, as we have been doing for the past five hours, it seems that many of them see the business community as caring about nothing but quick profits and avoiding tax, but the local businesses that I speak to are proud not only to deliver quality products and services, but to create good jobs and strengthen the local economy. They have been doing that in trying circumstances, and many of them have supported Labour candidates at this election because they want a Government who match their ambition. When I ask them what they want to see from Government, they say they want not only a fair tax system but investment, and that is what this Budget delivers. They want a secure power supply. They also want faster planning decisions, including the young farmer who came to see me because he has been pushed back for two years now in his attempt to just build some pig pens.

The biggest barrier, however, is that businesses cannot get the staff, and this is true from manufacturing to hospitality. Britain is held back by a skills shortage, so I welcome a Budget that will invest in Britain’s most precious, productive asset: her people. When we invest in faster NHS appointments, in emergency dentistry, in mental health, in SEND provision, in specialist teachers in STEM subjects and in childcare, we invest in business too, because these are the people who will rebuild Britain.

The people of Durham have been held back for too long. In the past 14 years, our life expectancy has fallen behind. Our children are shorter, and the number of children in care has increased by 250%, so we can see the impact of austerity in people’s bodies and family life. I welcome a Budget that has brought the end of austerity and begun the long, hard job of rebuilding this country. I also welcome a Budget that has put more money in people’s pockets, including by honouring the triple lock, which the Conservatives failed to do in 2022, costing pensioners in my constituency £488.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We come to the final Back-Bench speaker, Patrick Hurley.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. I know from talking to pubs that they are also very worried about the rise in antisocial behaviour and crime in our high streets and town centres. She and the pubs and other members of the night-time economy that she works with will, I hope, be reassured by some of the measures that we have taken in the Budget to begin the process of cracking down on antisocial behaviour.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

12. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support fair trade for producers.

[The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom is committed to advancing both free and fair trade around the world that is inclusive, sustainable and seeks to reduce poverty. The UK’s aid-for-trade programmes, including the new Trade Centre of Expertise announced by the Prime Minister on 24 October, build the capacity of producers, businesses and Governments in developing countries to participate in, and prosper from, global trade. I can assure my hon. Friend that the UK is committed to making the world a safe and more prosperous place through strengthening our international development work, as set out in our recent manifesto.

[Sam Rushworth]

Children from Timothy Hackworth primary school in Shildon wrote to ask me to raise fair trade with the Minister as part of their fair trade week. They included Ashton, who reminded me of the privilege that we have to serve in this place. They would also like to know whether the Minister has met representatives of the Fair Trade Foundation since his appointment, and whether he considers that Britain’s leadership on fair trade policies can make a meaningful contribution to reducing poverty in sub-Saharan Africa.

[Mr Alexander]

First, let me commend my hon. Friend for his work with the local primary school. I know how assiduous he is in advancing the interests of his constituents. I can assure him that we fully understand the importance of fair trade. I have met a representative of the Fair Trade Foundation in recent weeks, and I pay particular tribute to the work that Fairtrade is doing with the Co-op. Thousands of farmers producing goods such as tea, coffee, sugar and flowers are helped by Co-ops in our high streets across the country. It is now the UK’s largest seller of fair trade products, and it deserves our commendation too.