Statutory Menstrual Leave

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

You will not be surprised to hear me say, Mr Mundell, that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for the way in which he introduced this debate, and other hon. Members for the excellent speeches that followed.

I recently met a constituent who lives in Chesser and has adenomyosis. During our meeting, she told me about the debilitating impact of the condition on her personal life and her work life, and it was a real insight for me. On some days, her pain is so severe that she struggles to walk or move around her home, even to reach the toilet. She also reminded me just how common endometriosis and adenomyosis are: given that around 10% of menstruators suffer from one of the two conditions, there could be thousands of people in Edinburgh South West who currently suffer from the regular and excruciating pain that they cause.

Although my constituent now has an employer who understands and accommodates her health needs and allows her to work from home or take leave for her condition, that has not always been the case. She recounted the degrading experience of having to explain her health issues in detail to a former employer, just for taking time off. Despite that, she was still given a written warning. It is such inconsistency among employers that motivated her to sign the petition and to meet me to ask, very politely, that I attend this debate on her behalf.

As we have already heard, up to one in six women with endometriosis have to leave the workplace due to their condition. For some women, that will be because they really cannot work due to the pain they suffer. Sadly, for other women, who can work and want to work, it may come down to a lack of accommodating workplaces. We have to be honest about that situation and say that it is discrimination.

I recognise the Government’s position that the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 should ensure the flexibility that is required for women affected by these conditions to take leave or for adjustments to be made for them. However, laws are only useful if they are respected and enforced. None the less, I hope that the reforms introduced in the Employment Rights Act 2025, including statutory sick pay, will ensure that further accommodations can be made.

I hope that the Minister will give some guarantee today that the Government will look at menstrual leave schemes abroad to inform the evidence-based best practice that we need in the UK. I also hope that the Government will do what they can to support businesses or organisations that decide to introduce such practice in the interim, simply because it is the right thing to do. I must be honest and say that I had not heard of the endometriosis-friendly employer scheme before, so it would also be interesting to hear what the Government are doing to support that scheme.

The data from the schemes implemented abroad show that they are unlikely to be abused. Although the petition we are discussing today relates to the scheme in Portugal, the introduction of a similar menstrual leave policy in Spain has not led to an avalanche of sick days being taken as a result. Although I know there have been some concerns about how easy it is to access that scheme, the Spanish allowance has been used just 1,550 times. It will hardly have a significant impact on the Spanish economy, but it will be a huge benefit to the women who are able to access it.

Equally, such schemes can help employees avoid having repeatedly to justify in detail absences that they require. With the Portuguese system of requiring only one initial confirmation of diagnosis, employees will likely be spared uncomfortable and degrading conversations with superiors and work colleagues about this medical condition.

I hope the Government will look to the positive impact of those schemes abroad and build up best practice for the UK. I want to make one last point: when I spoke about this debate on my Facebook page, many women who responded said that they were keener for GPs to be better informed about the condition, and for diagnosis to happen much quicker. I could not believe it took just over nine months for a diagnosis to take place—

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

Nine years.

[Dr Arthur]

Nine years—apologies. It took just over nine years for a diagnosis to take place, given the pain we have heard about. We have heard in this debate about the real human impact that delay causes. That must be impacting our economy too, so I hope the Government will commit to studying the effect of these conditions on the economy, and perhaps that will justify action in this domain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank everyone for their powerful and often personal contributions today. First, I want to recognise Michelle Dewar, the tenacious campaigner behind today’s petition for menstrual relief. She is a great champion for women suffering with endometriosis and adenomyosis, and I congratulate her on securing over 100,000 signatures—not an easy task, but it showcases the strength of feeling from many on this important topic.

Endometriosis is a condition where endometrial tissue, similar to the lining of the uterus, grows in other places such as the ovaries and fallopian tubes. One in 10 women of reproductive age suffer with it, making it the second most common gynaecological condition in the UK. Common symptoms include chronic pelvic pain and heavy menstrual bleeding, making normal activities difficult. It predominantly affects women during their reproductive years. Adenomyosis, an often overlooked condition, has similar symptoms, but is where the lining of the womb starts growing into the muscle in the wall of the womb. It is commonly diagnosed in women over the age of 30, but can also affect younger women, as we heard today. Similar to endometriosis, it affects one in 10 women, with nearly 70% of women waiting over five years to get a diagnosis.

Michelle’s own journey with endometriosis began 24 years ago, causing her to miss school every month from the age of 14. Shockingly, it was not until she was 23, nine years later, that she received a diagnosis. Unfortunately, as we have heard today, her story is far from uncommon, with many women not receiving a timely diagnosis. It takes on average eight years and 10 months from the first GP visit to get a diagnosis.

Women’s symptoms are often dismissed and normalised, leaving them to struggle on with their pain, without treatment, without understanding and without support. The lack of understanding and knowledge of what constitutes a normal period or menstrual cycle also delays women seeking help and can leave family and friends uncertain how to provide support. No woman or girl knows what a normal level of period pain is without input from others, and lack of awareness leads to her not being well equipped to advocate strongly for herself with medical practitioners. We also need to recognise that there is still embarrassment and stigma around talking about periods, which can add to the challenge of getting adequate medical care when something is not right.

Recognising the challenges women face in their engagement with the healthcare system, in 2022 the then Conservative Government published the women’s health strategy for England, a 10-year programme committed to improving women’s health. The strategy seeks to address disparities in women’s healthcare and the under-representation of women in medical research. One of the strategy’s eight priority areas is menstrual health and gynaecological conditions, including greater awareness, earlier diagnosis and better treatment of endometriosis and adenomyosis.

As we have heard many times today, all aspects of the lives of women struggling with those conditions and enduring awful pain every month are impacted. It affects their relationships, their overall wellbeing and also their careers, and such debilitating conditions impact on earnings in the long term. Office for National Statistics data published last year shows a drop in monthly earnings among women aged 25 to 54 diagnosed with endometriosis from one to five years after diagnosis, compared with the two-year period before being diagnosed with the condition. Average pay decreased each year post diagnosis, culminating in a £130 monthly reduction in the four to five years post-diagnosis period. Although it is likely that different factors contribute to this change, it is none the less worrying that there is such a statistically significant drop in earnings post diagnosis.

Prompt diagnosis of these conditions is vital and the roll-out of community diagnostic centres will help immensely. Many of my own constituents stand to benefit from the recently opened community diagnostic centre in the Belfry in Redhill, which will deliver much needed extra capacity to perform diagnostic scans. That is exactly the kind of practical measure that can help women to get answers more quickly when their symptoms and pain suggest that something is wrong.

When a woman is suffering symptoms that mean that she is unable to work, the current option available to her is to take sick leave. That option is available to any employee with any condition or illness that leaves them unable to work. It is a broad, non-discriminatory entitlement available across almost all conditions. From 6 April this year, following recent changes by this Labour Government, when a person is unable to work due to ill health, they are entitled to statutory sick pay from the first day of illness. It is also relevant to note that statutory sick pay is now available to all eligible employees, regardless of their earnings.

The current approach to statutory sick pay therefore allows any woman who requires two to three days off every month due to endometriosis or adenomyosis to take the time she needs with sick pay. For that reason, the introduction of a specific menstrual leave is unnecessary as statutory sick pay already delivers what is being asked for. Statutory sick pay is the better mechanism to use, because it does not discriminate or restrict provision to highly specific conditions. Lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis are just a few examples of conditions that are equally debilitating and involve regular flare-ups—so it is entirely right that they are covered too.

[Dr Arthur]

The hon. Lady has done a great job of outlining the changes to workers’ rights in terms of sick pay. Can she confirm that her party voted against those measures? She has explained the benefit to women with these conditions, but the hon, Lady’s party absolutely opposed those measures.

[Rebecca Paul]

That is absolutely right. I am explaining the current system and why we do not need an additional level of menstrual leave. What the hon Gentleman said is correct and yes, we opposed those changes.

The approach taken in Portugal has been mentioned a number of times during this debate and in the petition itself, so it is important that I address the situation. Portugal introduced a menstrual leave policy last year, which gives the right to up to three days of paid leave per month for women diagnosed with endometriosis or adenomyosis and who suffer from severe and disabling pain. However, it is important to note key differences between the Portuguese system and ours which explain the difference in approach.

First, in Portugal, the first three days of ordinary sickness absence are generally unpaid, with sickness benefit usually only starting from day four. As I have just explained, in the UK statutory sick pay now begins from the first day of illness. Portugal has created a diagnosis-specific exception within a less generous baseline sickness system. The implementation of the same policy in the UK would therefore not deliver the same kind of incremental benefit because our general sick pay framework already covers short absences from day one and does not require a sick note for only three days’ absence.

It is also important to note that the protected characteristic of “disability” under the Equality Act 2010 may cover some women suffering from severe endometriosis or adenomyosis, depending on the effect that the condition has on their day-to-day activities. Where that is the case, they are protected from discrimination and their employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments. Reasonable adjustments can include changes such as phased returns to work, part-time working or flexible hours to support women to continue working when they are able to despite their condition.

The Conservative position is that a specific menstrual leave is not required. We are comfortable that existing sick leave provisions and discrimination protections already adequately protect women suffering with these conditions and ensure that they can take the time off they require every month. However, that does not mean that we do not think action is needed. We urge the Government to do all that they can to raise awareness of how severe these conditions can be and ensure that the NHS provides early diagnosis and treatment. We need to end the situation where women spend years in agony with no answers and support, and where employers are ignorant of how debilitating these conditions can be.

Post Office Green Paper

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

In a previous statement, I learned that the directly managed post office in Wester Hailes in Edinburgh South West was to close. It was a really concerning time for the community, but Mohammed Arshad and his sons Aamir and Adam stepped up and absorbed the service into their shop, Plaza News. Residents now have longer opening hours in which to access services, and they can do their banking, pay bills and get their passport checked. It is the most British of places; people queue to send their parcel via Royal Mail, Parcelforce, DPD or, if they are feeling brave, Evri, while browsing wool, knitting needles and knitting patterns in the aisle. It is a fantastic place. While news of the transition was concerning, particularly when it first broke, I really think that the community has ended up in a better place. Can the Minister reassure Mohammed and his sons that what has been announced today will enable them to serve their community more, rather than less?

[Blair McDougall]

I am very happy to reassure Mohammed and his sons about that, and to thank them for the work that they do for the community. My hon. Friend mentions the post office staying open for longer; that is typical of postmasters, who are not just running a business, but have a really clear sense that they are serving their community. That is why getting this right, and succeeding with the vision that we have set out in this Green Paper, is so important.

Sale of Fireworks

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard; surely you are irreplaceable.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

You have 10 minutes—that is a joke.

[Dr Arthur]

A change in this domain is inevitable. The Government can choose to be proactive, or they will end up reacting to events—perhaps when someone is killed. It is really important to remember that.

When we had this debate last year, I spoke about the lawlessness we saw in my constituency and in Edinburgh more widely in 2024. Across the city, police officers and firefighters were attacked with fireworks, bricks and bottles, our public transport system was heavily targeted, and a red panda in Edinburgh zoo died. In my constituency, disorder in areas that included Sighthill, Oxgangs, Calder Road and Broomhouse left my constituents terrified and afraid to leave their houses, and a care home, petrol station and care dealership were attacked. It is shameful that disorder of that level took place, and that it was in large part fuelled by easy access to large stocks of fireworks.

In 2024, after that disorder, I visited the police. They issued me with photographs of fireworks they had confiscated from a gentleman who had them in the back of his van, and who was selling them to young people for a profit. In 2025, an individual was caught with £42,000-worth of fireworks that he intended to sell to people on the street. Since then, firework exclusion zones have been set up in Scotland, and those are important, but they are ultimately difficult to enforce.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point on firework control zones. They were sold as a bit of a silver bullet, but unfortunately I heard from fire chiefs and police officers during my time as a councillor that they had been given no additional resources or funding to enforce them. That is surely a must.

[Dr Arthur]

Absolutely. The planning and resourcing that goes into enforcing these zones in Edinburgh is absolutely incredible, and I thank the police for the work they do—they often face real risks.

We have to tackle the import and sale of fireworks. Last year, in response to the events of 2024, my office undertook a local campaign where we wrote to all the supermarkets asking them to end their sale of fireworks. I thank Hannah from my office for doing that. I am proud that all the major supermarkets in Edinburgh South West have stopped selling fireworks—that is a fantastic achievement. The same is true across much of the city, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) were able to copy what we did and achieve the same in their constituencies.

Around that time, I was copied into an email from the British Fireworks Association to the chief executive of Asda, which had just agreed to stop selling fireworks in my constituency. The email said that the people behind the campaign in Edinburgh South West—my constituents—were from very small, ill-informed and vocal self-interest groups. These are pet lovers, veterans—we have a lot of veterans in my constituency—people who may be neurodiverse and people who have simply had enough. The email said that regulations ensure that customers are purchasing fireworks from a trusted source, often with clear instructions and safety warnings. “Often with instructions”—it is absolutely incredible.

Thankfully, with the supermarkets’ help, the situation across Edinburgh South West really improved in 2025, and I thank them. While the police were called to some antisocial behaviour incidents, those involved dispersed when officers arrived and no serious offences were committed. That may be because the police were able to prosecute quite a number of people who had been caught. I cannot commend strongly enough the work of community groups and the police in the build-up to 5 November last year. Many months of work paid off, and I am proud of the small contribution that my office made. The level of violence in Edinburgh South West was much lower, at least in part because it was harder to buy fireworks.

The Government have to look at that and think about the role of organised displays, such as Edinburgh’s Diwali and Hogmanay displays, as well as those organised by groups such as the Currie, Balerno and District Round Table. The Government must think about whether anybody else really needs to be able to buy fireworks. Do we want to be proactive as a Government and keep people safe, or wait until more people are injured? It is incumbent on the Government to act. The Netherlands started 2026 with a fireworks ban. Would it not be great if this country did the same to start 2027?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend mentioned drones, which I know can provide really spectacular sound and light shows, but I would be slightly nervous about endorsing the use of drones instead of fireworks. Richmond Park has some of the most contested airspace of anywhere in the country. We are very used to the impact of noise from aircraft in my constituency. I certainly do not want to add drones to the congestion in the skies over our heads. I will come to this shortly, but my hon. Friend is exactly right about needing to strike a balance between the enjoyment that fireworks can give and their impact on not just people, but animals.

Fireworks are explosives and can be dangerous, so there are strict rules in place regulating their sale, possession and use. They include essential safety provisions, conformity to the relevant tests and correct application of kitemarks. The 2015 regulations categorise fireworks according to their net explosive content, discharge, safety distances and noise level. Category F1 fireworks present a low hazard and are intended for use in confined areas, although they must not be sold to anyone under the age of 16. Categories F2 and F3 are low to medium hazard and intended for outdoor use. Category F4 is high hazard and can be supplied only to persons with specialist knowledge. There already exists a range of regulations, although the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley made the important point that it is hard to enforce those regulations until after the firework has exploded, by which time it will obviously be too late.

[Dr Arthur]

The safe distance for a category F3 firework is 25 metres, but at the point of sale no questions are asked about where these things will be ignited. Very few people in Edinburgh South West have 25 metres of space to let off a firework in their garden.

[Sarah Olney]

And certainly not in London, I can confirm. The hon. Member is absolutely right about the regulations that exist for the sale of fireworks, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she thinks more could be done to enforce the existing regulations, as the hon. Member suggests, or whether we need to look at a wholesale change of regulations on sale to address some of the issues that Members have raised.

As I mentioned, I represent a constituency that is much blighted by aircraft noise. We know as well as anybody the impact that regular, ongoing noise, particularly late at night and early in the morning, can have on residents’ health and ability to sleep, particularly young children.

Almost every Member here has called for the limit on the decibel level to be reduced it from 120 dB to 90 dB. Whatever fireworks are sold, whatever use they are intended for and whichever celebration they are intended to mark, reducing the decibel limit would strike the right balance between our human need for celebration and our need for sleep and peace of mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for her powerful speech. I hear and understand the urgency for action, and colleagues’ reflections on having been here in Westminster Hall this time last year, debating fireworks. I am not able to provide a timeline at this stage, but I would of course be happy to work with her and colleagues across the House on next steps as the Department progresses. We will be building on the work and evidence base of my predecessor, working with devolved Administrations to understand the work they are undertaking and their evidence base, and looking at examples from countries that are taking action across the globe to understand, first and foremost, how we can safeguard our communities.

Safety is paramount. One of my first acts as a Minister was to launch a public campaign during firework season, promoting considerate use and focusing on the safe use of fireworks, including their disposal. Colleagues have talked about encouraging responsible behaviour and safer celebrations at private displays.

[Dr Arthur]

It would be good to see an evaluation of the campaign that the Minister launched, which I thank her for running. It seems that the Government accept that there are impacts on pets and veterans, and they thank the emergency services for all they do and the risks they take on that evening, but all those people—the pet owners, veterans, emergency services and, I expect, even the Minister—must be a little frustrated that there is no timeline for even the start of some action. Does she share that frustration?

[Kate Dearden]

I am working at pace with my colleagues in the Department, building the evidence base, speaking to as many people as possible, and looking to understand not only those frustrations, but the real life stories that colleagues have shared, today and since I was appointed to this role, as well as those from my constituents.

INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Dr Scott Arthur to ask a succinct question.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

No pressure, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his statement and for not giving up on these workers. He was slightly generous in describing the situation inherited from the SNP and the Tories as “managed decline”, but perhaps that was because it is Christmastime. It is great to see my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), on the Front Bench, and I thank him for all his work in saving these jobs as well. On Monday, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and I were at a meeting with representatives of the aviation sector, where Grangemouth was mentioned repeatedly. The aviation sector is desperate for more sustainable aviation fuel production in the UK and it is targeting Grangemouth as a potential source. Does the Minister agree with the sector about that?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Minister, I need you to lead by giving an answer that is the definition of succinct.

Seasonal Work

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. We see that the hospitality sector is hard-hit, because numbers for the sector are easily available, and there have been a great many reports about the job losses there, but multiple sectors will be hit by these changes. As he points out, the problem is not just the tax hit but the regulatory burden, and that reinforces my point that the Government do not understand business.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

In 2023, just under 4,600 licensed premises closed down across the UK. Was the 2024 Labour Budget to blame for that?

[Nigel Huddleston]

No, the pandemic was largely to blame for that, but to ensure that we recovered from the pandemic, and to help save lives and livelihoods, which included supporting the hospitality sector, the Government spent £400 billion, so I am afraid I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Of course, few members of the Cabinet have ever worked in the private sector, and I do not think any of them have actually run their own business—maybe one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Griffiths]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which takes me back to the conversation I had with Catherine this weekend. I hope she will not mind me saying this: she was so emotional that she was almost in tears at the prospect of a tourist tax being imposed by a Sussex mayor, who will come in next year—actually, that has been delayed into another year as well, hasn’t it? The rapid roll-out is not going quite so well. The emotion and fear that I heard in Catherine’s voice when we talked about that tax will not leave me for a long time. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising what a pernicious tax that could be.

[Dr Arthur]

I am really looking forward to a tourist tax coming to Edinburgh next year. Like local authorities in England, we benefit greatly from tourism—it is fantastic for the city—but it does have impacts on the operation of the council with things like litter and so on. The tourist tax will help the council to make the city better for both citizens and tourists; the idea is that it will actually drive tourism and bring more business to the city. I am sure the hon. Lady is well travelled—she has probably been to many places across Europe without ever thinking twice about paying the tourist tax, and she will have benefited from how that money is invested in those local economies. What is different about English towns and cities that means a tourist tax just is not going to work here?

[Alison Griffiths]

I am delighted to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, because there is a very important difference. Right now in the UK, the tourist economy is being hammered by the increased minimum wage, the Employment Rights Bill and high energy costs—I could go on. Businesses on our high streets are suffering, in particular seasonal businesses, which are having to bear the brunt of the Employment Rights Bill. If you had met the hotel owner in Bognor Regis—a tourist town—I think you would really be questioning what you are saying.

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I grew up just four or five miles from the plant, and I have to say that it is an area still recovering from Thatcher’s economic vandalism. I thank the Minister for his statement and for the work he has done over many months, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for her work. She stands in solidarity with these workers, and we should stand in solidarity with her, no matter which party we are from.

On 1 September we learned that it had been almost a year since any Minister from the Scottish Government had contacted the management team at Mossmorran—almost a year. It had been four years since any Minister from the Scottish Government had contacted the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or the Health and Safety Executive about the management of the site. On 29 July, the Scottish Government were asked when they last proactively contacted the UK Government about the operation of the Mossmorran site, but they could not name a date, and going back to 2020 there was no evidence of any proactive engagement. We have heard bluster from the SNP this evening. Have the Scottish Government approached a Minister with any kind of coherent plan to support these workers or save the plant?

[Chris McDonald]

What my hon. Friend identifies is the different approach under this Government—a Government who have an active industrial policy and work in partnership with industry, in the same way that I saw other European Governments did when I worked in industry. He tells a sorry tale about the lack of involvement and engagement of the previous Westminster Government and the SNP Scottish Government regarding the ownership of the plant. That is in stark contrast with my predecessor in this role and the previous Secretary of State, as was also highlighted today by the Energy Minister with regard to the refining sector—another sector about which we are desperately concerned. Until this Government took action to meet the management, there had not been a meeting with a Westminster Government Minister for 13 years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What steps he is taking to encourage investment in businesses.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to encourage investment in businesses.

[The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)]

We are delivering bold action to drive investment and growth nationwide. Our modern industrial strategy is cutting red tape, saving businesses nearly £6 billion a year, and unlocking quicker, simpler ways to do business. We are investing £6.6 billion through the British Business Bank to help innovative firms scale, and we are rebuilding our infrastructure with a 10-year strategy, backed by at least £725 billion-worth of Government capital, providing the certainty needed to boost productivity, secure growth and jobs, and deliver sustainable growth right around the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

Warrington has been at the centre of previous industrial revolutions, and we are determined that it will be at the forefront of the industrial revolution that is unfolding, with a wave of digital technology and AI flowing across the world. We will use all the agency of this Government to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom benefit equally from that. My hon. Friend will know that work such as that by Platform on the transformation of the Unilever site in Warrington is exactly the kind of bold, future-facing investment that we want to enable. That is why we delivered the AI opportunities action plan so swiftly. We will create AI growth zones across the United Kingdom to create the infrastructure in which new businesses and businesses that are transforming places and communities such as Warrington will be at the forefront and able to grasp the very best of the global economy in the regions and nations of every part of the United Kingdom.

[Dr Arthur]

One of the great things about Edinburgh South West is that it has a flourishing renewables sector, which I think is reaching critical mass. A few weeks ago, I attended a fantastic roundtable that demonstrated the industry’s desire to work with the UK Government to make their industrial strategy a complete success. Will the Secretary of State commit to meeting organisations in Edinburgh South West to discuss how we can ensure that our industrial strategy brings as many jobs as possible to Scotland’s capital?

[Peter Kyle]

Again, my hon. Friend is a great advocate for the community that he represents in Parliament. I am very excited to meet the businesses that he references. We hit a milestone in the second quarter of this year, because the UK started to produce more than 50% of its energy using renewables. His community as well as other communities around the UK will benefit from the transition to renewables. This is an exciting time to do business, and this is an exciting sector of our economy; it is one of the fastest growing sectors in the global economy, and right here in the UK we are benefiting the most from it.

North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I take the hon. Lady’s first point with a pinch of salt, after her second point that this comes as a hammer blow to the community. There is no hammer blow; those jobs have been protected—today 2,000 workers are waking up and doing the same job they were doing last week.

I am often in Aberdeen but I do not pretend that I hear as much from people there as the hon. Lady does from her constituents. Although I have made an effort to be there as often as possible to hear the concerns, I recognise that we need to move further and faster than the previous Government did for 14 years, and the Scottish Government did for 18 years, to put a credible plan in place for the future of those jobs. That means not only investing in future jobs, but ensuring the processes are in place so that people can take advantage of those jobs much more easily. Passporting, which was stuck in the mud for years, is now being delivered because we helped to unlock it. There is a lot more to do, and we will say that in the coming weeks when we publish our future of the North sea plan, but we are the ones driving forward investment that creates the jobs of the future. I am afraid that other parties—I did not count the hon. Lady’s party as one of those until today—are harking back to the past rather than recognising that the jobs of the future need to go hand in hand with good, well-paid oil and gas jobs in the short term.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and the confidence that he is showing in those workers. We have heard from the SNP. The difference between Labour and the SNP just now is that the SNP wants to scrap the energy profits levy but does not know what it will replace it with other than something that is fairer. Does the Minister think that is the kind of leadership we need in the oil and gas sector?

[Michael Shanks]

We recognise that the energy profits levy will come to an end and have consulted on what the future of that looks like with industry. It is a matter for the Chancellor to outline tax policy, as is standard practice in this House; it is not for me to comment on that. But there is a broader question about how we ensure that we drive forward investment. Talking down the investment in carbon capture, hydrogen, offshore wind and the supply chains is not the way to drive forward the jobs of the future, alongside the critical, important oil and gas jobs that will be with us for decades to come.

Employment Rights Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

No, I do not think so. Forty-eight hours is a reasonable amount of notice in any sector. That is the kind of notice that enables, for example, parents to rearrange childcare, or other members of the family to rearrange their shifts. The 48 hours is a proper definition of reasonable notice, and 48 hours is 48 hours, whether you work on an oil rig or in a shop. I disagree that it is context-dependent.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I am passionate about ensuring that single parents can enter the workforce, and a big barrier to that is childcare. When thinking about which amendments the hon. Member will support, has she discussed the matter with any organisations representing single parents? Forty-eight hours does not seem like a lot of time.

[Sarah Olney]

As someone with a long history of having to arrange childcare at short notice, I am well aware of the limitations that needing to arrange childcare presents, particularly for working women, both those who are single parents and those in a relationship. Forty-eight hours is not ideal, but it is a reasonable compromise, and it is absolutely vital that employers have clarity about what “reasonable notice” looks like in this circumstance.

I wish to speak in favour of Lords amendment 48. Businesses, particularly those in the hospitality sector, that rely on seasonal workers are particularly vulnerable to changes in labour regulations and the knock-on impacts on the cost and availability of labour. The sustainability of farming businesses, for example, depends on being able to get the right people to the right place at the right time, and obstacles to that can have a big impact on ability to generate produce for sale, and therefore on the sustainability of the business. If we allow a different set of regulations to apply to seasonal work, a clear definition of “seasonal work” must be created to prevent employers from avoiding their legitimate responsibilities by claiming seasonal work in inappropriate circumstances. While we do not believe that this legislation should create contrasting employment law requirements for businesses, we continue to defend the principle that businesses should be properly considered when secondary legislation is created, so I urge Members to support the amendment.

Lords amendment 46, tabled by my good friend and Richmond Park predecessor Baroness Kramer, would introduce protections for whistleblowers. It follows her long-standing campaign for support for whistleblowers, and I pay tribute to her commitment to the cause.

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The current framework for whistleblowing applies only if somebody has lost their job. It does not address the duty on businesses to follow up whistleblowers’ serious concerns about crimes. That urgently needs to be addressed.

Too many whistleblowers who raised serious concerns about matters ranging from fraud to patient safety are ignored by their employers, or are reticent to speak out because of fears of unfair repercussions. The new clause in Lords amendment 46 has received the support of numerous international civil society organisations, including Protect and Spotlight on Corruption. It would be a long-overdue update to our once world-leading whistleblowing legislation, and I urge colleagues from across the House to support the change.

I support Lords amendment 47, which would expand the right to be accompanied to employment hearings to include certified professional companions. Currently, employees may be accompanied only by certified trade union representatives, leaving many workers to navigate proceedings alone. Although trade unions provide valuable support to their members, only 22% of workers are in a trade union, including only 12% of private sector workers, with recent figures at a record low. The current provisions made sense at a time when trade union membership was higher nationally, but those provisions have become largely outdated as trade union membership has fallen and the labour market has modernised. Without the amendment, we consign many employees facing unfair dismissal to navigating the requirements of disciplinary hearings on their own, without any kind of professional or educated support.

[Dr Arthur]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the best protection against unfair dismissal is trade union membership?

[Sarah Olney]

No, I do not. I think that people should have the freedom not to join a trade union if that is what they wish, not least because their trade union contributions might go to a party that they do not vote for. Many professions these days are better represented not by trade unions that cover a whole range of different employment categories but by professional bodies. As an accountant, I was a member of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. Had I been facing a disciplinary in relation to my professional duties, I would have been much better represented by a fellow member of that body than by a trade union.

Jaguar Land Rover Cyber-attack

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about personal data. When I was the data Minister, that was one of the things I was trying to push very strongly—there is no point in trying to get people to give data if it is not then secure. That is the single most important part of what we have to do, not least because if people do not trust that their data is going to be secure, it is perfectly understandable that they are not going to surrender it. That does not just apply to Government, although it is very important in Government; it applies across all sorts of different companies.

I slightly take issue with the right hon. Gentleman’s delineation of those three groups; I think there is just one, which is a bunch of criminals. Their intent sometimes mixes a desire for cash with a desire for some kind of spurious infamy, but I just think of all of them as criminals. As for my inimitable style, I can neither confirm nor deny it.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I agree with those Members who have raised concerns about the impact that this cyber-attack might have on jobs. It also has an impact on our reputation as a country when two iconic brands basically have to go offline. I do not expect that this will be the last attack on either a retailer or an automotive company, but the risks to automotive companies are particularly acute, because going forward, cars are basically going to be computers on wheels. Customers will be concerned about what attacks mean for their security, but also about what the impact on the automated features within the car means for driver safety. The Minister said that the UK is increasingly a target; is that because of the interest in the UK, or because we are more susceptible?

[Chris Bryant]

No, I meant that every country in the world is increasingly susceptible, not just the UK. This is a growing business, and the worst thing we could do would be to feed that business model. I would urge caution about one thing. It may well be that we do not know all the incidents that have taken place, because understandably, lots of companies will not want to make them known publicly if they feel that they have managed to deal with the issue fairly swiftly. That is why, as I said, we consulted on the issue of ransomware earlier this summer, and I was gratified by the response we had from more than 70% of businesses.