Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland

Susan Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I will call Susan Murray to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of Susan Murray and the Minister. Because this is a 30-minute debate, there will not be an opportunity for Susan Murray to make a winding-up speech at the end.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Scotland’s contribution to energy security and net zero.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq, and a privilege to lead this debate on a matter that will have such an impact on Scotland’s economy, our cost of living and our national security. Let me be clear at the outset that Scotland plays a disproportionate role in keeping the lights on across Great Britain, and it is leading the way in the shift to clean power.

The evidence is clear: the House of Commons Library noted that in 2024, clean power made up 90% of the generation in Scotland. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has published figures showing that Scotland produces significantly more energy than it consumes, and that it transferred 17 TWh of excess energy to England in 2024. In terms that we can all understand, that is enough energy to power every home in London for two years.

That production benefits us all—it supports energy security, making us resilient to international events, and helps to decarbonise the grid for everyone—but there is a problem that we cannot ignore: despite that enormous contribution, too often Scots do not see a fair share of the benefits in good jobs, local investment or lower bills. The case that I want to make today is simple: Scotland is delivering, so the UK’s policy and delivery machine must now match that pace with fairness, infrastructure and security. The North sea is the place to start.

The Scottish Affairs Committee set out the stark reality: in 2024, oil and gas production reached a 21st-century low—about 75% below the 1999 peak. Decline is not an abstract theory; it is measurable across Scotland. The workforce impact is already significant. The Library notes that there were 121,000 direct and indirect jobs supported by the oil and gas industry in 2023—a 51% fall compared with 2014. If workers leave before the clean energy pipeline reaches its potential, we will lose the skilled labour that is vital to a successful transition.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I completely agree that the oil and gas sector is vital, and that we must secure the workforce in our energy industries, but I would like some clarity on the Liberal Democrats’ position. My understanding is that they support Labour’s ban on new licences, and that they had a manifesto pledge to backdate the energy profits levy. Is that still the Liberal Democrats’ position on the North sea?

[Susan Murray]

The Liberal Democrats are keen that we move to a source of green energy. We are calling for the energy profits levy to be looked at again, as it was introduced as a windfall tax in particular circumstances, when there were very high profits.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward; she is absolutely right to do so. The devolved institutions’ contribution to net zero targets are important, and I am pleased to hear of Scotland’s success. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Northern Ireland shares the commitment to a net zero future by 2050, but our smaller grid, limited renewable capacity and reliance on imported electricity means that achieving that goal is more challenging. Does the hon. Lady agree that we must make sure no part of the United Kingdom is left behind? I wish her well for Scotland, but all devolved nations must be given the necessary tools to succeed in the green energy transition.

[Susan Murray]

I absolutely agree. Although I am focusing on Scotland, it is Scotland as part of the UK and not Scotland alone.

We want to make sure that we do not lose the skilled labour that is vital to a successful transition, because we would then have to pay more later to import the labour and expertise that we should have retained to do the work.

I want to be clear about a point that is often overlooked or used by those with a vested interest against renewables: the UK will need oil and gas for the foreseeable future, even as we decarbonise. In that context, and to secure our own energy security, we should meet as much of the demand for hydrocarbons as possible from a secure, well-regulated domestic supply, rather than simply importing more and losing or exporting jobs.

Importing more does not stop consumption; it simply shifts production elsewhere, often to jurisdictions with lower standards and higher geopolitical risk. Domestic supply, properly regulated, can be the safer bridge while we build out our new low-carbon system at scale and ensure security of supply. Will Ministers pull together existing work into a single transition pathway that links North sea decisions to a workforce plan, covering skills mapping, retraining and support where needed?

If we want a managed transition, we also have to be honest about the urgency of the whole-system needs of a clean grid. A net zero system is essential—Scotland shows that it is possible, and it should be the goal—but a renewables-heavy system needs predictable, low-carbon power alongside renewables, storage and interconnection. That is why I support nuclear, and why small modular reactors should be part of the plan to achieve net zero in Scotland.

The SNP Government’s position is that they do not support building new nuclear power plants in Scotland under current technologies. Meanwhile, the UK Government have confirmed Wylfa in Wales as the site for the UK’s first small modular reactor. The risk is obvious that Scotland will end up hosting more of the infrastructure footprint of the transition but without the benefits, while other parts of the UK will capture more of the firm power investment and the supply chain jobs.

In Scotland, the devolution framework really matters. Nuclear market frameworks and regulations are reserved, while planning and community impacts, along with local skills delivery and many aspects of economic development, are devolved. This cannot work without co-ordination.

Will Ministers request UK-Scottish Government talks on Scotland’s nuclear policy, with SMRs explicitly on the agenda, to highlight the positive economic benefit for Scotland, and to push for equal access to jobs and development across the UK? Scotland hosts major clean power generation and transmission infrastructure, but fairness must follow that footprint.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. I intervene in my capacity as Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, of which she and many other hon. Members here today are valued members. As she knows, our Committee has been examining this entire topic as part of a large-scale inquiry into energy and a just transition.

One of the areas we have turned our attention to is the question of fairness across the UK as we transition to cleaner energy systems. We have heard evidence from Scotland’s community-owned renewable energy sector that they face a significant number of barriers when it comes to connecting their projects to the grid. They also have some unique challenges created by the differences between the grid in Scotland and the grid in England and Wales. Does the hon. Member agree that we must turn our attention to that area if we are going to enable communities to generate their own electricity and power and be the beneficiaries of that?

[Susan Murray]

I absolutely agree. We have a real opportunity with Great British Energy, in the current environment, to take advantage of what the commercial companies are offering with regard to reducing costs for individual homeowners and to use digital technology to ensure that community energy generated into the grid benefits the communities that host the infrastructure that generates that energy.

Communities see the turbines, substations and pylons; as the grid expands, they see that infrastructure expand, too. They live with disruption during construction and operation, and too often they do not see fair value for the disruption that they face. That means that there is an opportunity here. The Government have already been developing the policy infrastructure. DESNZ published a working paper seeking views on the design of a potential mandatory community benefit scheme and the facilitation of shared ownership for low-carbon energy infrastructure. That is not a small thing; it is a recognition that we cannot build at the pace required without public consent, and public consent is strengthened when communities are well-informed and share in the long-term value.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

Do you agree that £9 million in total community benefit for the highlands, and £30 million for Scotland as a whole, is a paltry amount for a multibillion-pound industry?

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I just remind the hon. Member about use of the word “you”? I always get told off by the Deputy Speaker for it. “You” means me, because I am in the Chair. It should be, “Does the hon. Member agree?” But I think we get the point.

[Susan Murray]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, which I absolutely agree with. As I have just said, this is something that needs to be looked at, and there is an opportunity to make sure that communities all across the UK benefit from the power generation that they have to live with locally every day. Will Ministers commit to introducing a consistent community benefit and community energy framework for major low-carbon infrastructure, so that host communities—especially in rural and off-gas-grid areas—share in any long-term benefits?

Beyond the initial generation of power, we forget about the grid. None of our ambitions on net zero or energy security will be met if we cannot move the power that we generate around the UK. We must fix the grid; we must stop paying to waste clean energy. We have built the infrastructure to generate power faster than we have built the network to connect and transport it. The result is that bill payers are burdened with the cost of electricity that they cannot use and that cannot be brought to them.

The National Energy System Operator’s annual balancing costs report sets out the scale of the problem. It reports that grid constraint costs increased by 64% in 2024-25, totalling £1.7 billion. The total energy lost to that failure was 13.5 TWh, which is nearly as much as Scotland sent to England. This is not a theoretical cost; it is money that households and businesses pay because the network cannot always carry the clean power that is available. Will Ministers pledge to accelerate grid development and to drive connections reform at pace and with clear milestones, so that we stop paying for unused electricity and improve resilience, particularly for rural and remote communities?

The grid is not just an infrastructure issue; it is an opportunity to redevelop our industrial heartlands. If Scotland is powering the transition, Scotland should also help to build it. Scotland has a proven history in heavy engineering and industrial delivery, with ports, fabrication, and a supply chain shaped by decades of offshore work. The transition should not become a story of “import the kit, export the jobs”.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The hon. Member has already covered the EPL, but it is important to recognise that Scottish Renewables and Offshore Energies UK wrote jointly to the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressing their deep concerns about its impact on the transition. It will not be possible to deliver the renewables transition we all want if the North sea is allowed—or even forced—to decline at the rate it is doing, and not enough effort is put into the renewables side and supporting that transition. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government need to address that rapidly? We need pace of decision making and certainty for investors and developers if we are to ensure that we make that transition effectively, which will provide the jobs for the skilled workforce she rightly referred to.

[Susan Murray]

I absolutely agree: the vision is there, but we take too long to make decisions. When that happens, our workforce make their own decisions, and businesses do not come that might have considered coming. We have to support the opportunity that is available to us.

We must look seriously at how we encourage companies to build the components of the green revolution here. We have the skills and a history of great steelworks and dockyards. Those can be revitalised, and our communities alongside them.

However, building at home extends further than just good practice: it reduces risk to supply and security. The National Cyber Security Centre publishes dedicated supply chain security principles to help organisations manage supply chain risk. That is the mindset we need for critical national infrastructure, and we have seen why it matters. UK authorities have been looking into reported cyber-security concerns linked to remote-access features in some electric buses imported from China—the same place that much of our green technology comes from. This is not about sensationalising or point scoring: if supplier risks matter for buses, they certainly matter for the systems that keep the lights on and our countries running. Will the Minister use the industrial strategy to set out clear UK content and supply chain commitments, to ensure that demand for grid and energy production components is not only met in a timely manner but protected from foreign interference?

I finish by returning to the household reality, because net zero will not be delivered by megawatts alone; it will be delivered in homes and communities, and it must be made simple, safe and scalable. The Climate Change Committee’s progress report found a 56% increase in heat pump installations in 2024, driven by increased support from Government schemes, but it is clear that scaling remains the challenge. Households respond to a simple proposition: reliable installers, clear standards, stable support and aftercare. That too should be treated as part of the mission to build a UK production base. A national retrofit and heat pump supply chain would create skilled work in every community. Will Ministers treat heat pumps and retrofits as part of the same mission, supporting an installer pipeline, quality assurance, consumer protection and an end-to-end journey from advice, to finance, to installation, to aftercare?

Scotland is delivering Britain’s energy security and clean power. Now the Government must deliver for Scotland, with fairness, jobs and infrastructure that turn Scotland’s contribution into lower bills and better energy security for everyone.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I call Minister—and birthday boy—Michael Shanks to respond for the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Susan Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I always welcome consensus in the House, so I am delighted to hear that there is still consensus on rooftop solar. The Conservatives have moved away from so many of their previous positions and I was not sure if this was going to be another, although I wonder why that rooftop solar was not built over the past 14 years. But we will leave that to one side.

On the hon. Gentleman’s question about land use, we have been clear that ground-mounted solar will play an important part as the energy cannot all be generated from rooftop solar, but we want to ensure that communities are part of the decision making. The planning process is hugely important in that, but we also recognise that some communities have felt that there has not been a joined-up strategic approach. That is why we are publishing the strategic spatial energy plan, alongside the land use framework. Even in our most ambitious scenarios, 0.4% of land will be taken up with solar.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

12. What steps he is taking to provide funding for renewable energy sources.

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

Great British Energy and Great British Energy Nuclear will invest over £8.3 billion this Parliament in home-grown clean power. We will keep backing renewables through contracts for difference, which secured record amounts of solar and the world’s largest floating offshore wind farm last year. Allocation round 7 will build on this success, for which we have already announced a budget of over £1 billion across offshore wind. The results will be announced in due course.

[Susan Murray]

Across Scotland and the UK, towns that once powered our economy have been left behind, as coalmines, steelworks, dockyards and, as we are now hearing, refineries and chemical plants are closing down, taking generations of skilled workers with them. We now have a chance to revive those communities by rebuilding British manufacturing to supply the components for our green transition, as well as for the wider net zero economy. As the Government prepare to conclude their consultation on the future of the North sea, do the Government plan to invest in the factories of Britain and in upskilling our workforce to be the innovative and sustainable local supply chain that the North sea and our net zero economy need?

[Michael Shanks]

Yes. The hon. Lady touches on a number of points. The transition means building on the industrial strategy that we outlined as a Government, because are not agnostic about industrial policy—we care that things are built in this country again. That is why there is a £1 billion supply chain fund to ensure that we get the economic advantage of the clean power transition, as well as energy security. There is a broader question around building up the skills to ensure that there is a future workforce that can take advantage of that. She and I both know that that sits with the Scottish Government, who are woefully underfunding further education—a route that so many young Scots might take to create the opportunity to embark on a career in the energy sector—so I hope there will be a change of Government in Scotland soon.

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Susan Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I agree that this announcement is devastating for Mossmorran and for the communities around Fife. Hundreds of highly skilled workers now face an uncertain future and it is clear that the closure of this cornerstone facility reflects a deeper failure to provide the stable, long-term industrial environment that businesses need if they are to invest and grow in Scotland. For many years, the Liberal Democrats have warned that the absence of a coherent industrial strategy, first abandoned by the previous Conservative Government and then left to drift further by this Labour Government, has created damaging uncertainty for our manufacturing and energy sectors. Will the Minister assure this House that the energy sector is at the heart of the Government’s industrial strategy?

Exxon’s statement made clear that the current economic and policy environment has made continued operations uncompetitive. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the UK remains a viable place for energy production and to prevent further closures of major industrial sites?

We also cannot ignore the human impact. Many of the workers are among the most experienced and specialised in the sector, yet only 50 roles are being offered elsewhere and that is nearly 500 miles away. Can the Minister tell the House how many have been offered and accepted relocation, and what support has been put in place locally for those who simply cannot uproot their lives, families and communities?

Further, the Exxon closure will see many highly qualified and specialised workers laid off at a time of severe cost of living pressures. What immediate and long-term measures are the Government putting in place to ensure that those individuals can transition to appropriate, well-paid employment? Communities in Fife deserve clarity, certainty and a real plan for the future. I urge the Minister to act quickly, decisively and collaboratively to protect the workers and to ensure that Scotland’s industrial base has a sustainable future.

[Chris McDonald]

I agree with the hon. Member that at its crux there has been a failure of long-term planning in industry. We can see that when we contrast the two ethylene plants in Scotland. The plant at Grangemouth imports a lot of its ethylene from the US, which is in plentiful supply and comes at a much lower cost. That required a significant investment in the port infrastructure at that plant. ExxonMobil was aware that, in order to ensure that Mossmorran was sustainable, it would need to make a similar investment. It would have been possible for it to have made that investment some years ago, but at this stage, an investment of about $1 billion that would not come to fruition within the next five years is judged by the company not to be sustainable. Of course businesses require some certainty in order to invest; I made that point at Energy questions this morning. The certainty provided by our industrial strategy—in particular, this Government’s commitment to renewable energy technologies—is allowing investment to come in.

I agree with the hon. Member that our focus absolutely needs to be on the employees. I understand that no employees have been offered relocation yet, but it is the company’s view that 50 such posts are available and it is inviting expressions of interest from employees at this stage. I understand that the other plant is a very long way away, and that relocation will not be suitable for everyone—perhaps people do not want to uproot their families or they are embedded in their local communities—but if some workers want to take up that opportunity, I am pleased that it is there. With the offer of relocation for 50 employees and 50 employees being retained, we can see a way forward for about 60% of the permanent employees at the moment. Clearly, I would expect the taskforce to provide support for the other 40%, and the UK Government are working with the Scottish Government and the local authority on that.

We must not ignore the jobs that are being created every day and every week in Scotland in our new clean energy industries, with up to 60,000 jobs by 2030. Fundamentally, this is about supporting that transition. It is my expectation that, as these new jobs are created, people will transition across. As I have said, I lived through a terrible transition in the past. The mission of this Government is to ensure that we have a supportive transition for workers and communities in Scotland and around the UK.

Carbon Budget Delivery Plan

Susan Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I will do my best. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing the debate and bringing attention to this matter.

Although some may deny its impact or severity, climate change represents the greatest modern threat to our planet. The data is clear. If we continue down our current path, millions of lives will be lost and our way of life will be changed forever. We have an opportunity to show the world that there is an alternative path to save lives and avoid catastrophe.

Steps have been taken to create a Britain at the forefront of climate action, but there are still gaping holes. Although we have enormous capacity for green energy production through wind, tidal and solar, we do not yet take full advantage of it. My constituents in Mid Dunbartonshire demand that we act faster. We must take the opportunity to produce wind turbines domestically; less than half of the wind turbines operating in the UK contain any British component. Instead, we ship turbines in from countries such as China, undermining their green credentials and costing British jobs.

We are not moving fast enough to upgrade our grid, meaning that we are restricting the energy output at some sites for as much as 71% of the time. At the same time, we seem to be ignoring the potential of community energy and local projects to take pressure off the wider grid and to provide cheaper bills to British people. It is clear that although we have incredible potential, we need to move faster to exploit it.

The Government must place decarbonisation at the heart of the UK’s industrial strategy. The net zero sector is growing three times faster than the overall UK economy and jobs in the sector pay almost 15% more than the national average. If we want good, long-term jobs for British people, we must look seriously at green energy. We can create manufacturing jobs producing the technology, jobs working on the grid, jobs working on offshore sites and many more, but only if we take climate change seriously. That means ensuring that workers and communities in sectors such as North sea oil and gas are not left behind as the industry declines, but supported to move into new, clean industries. Even if all our energy came from renewables we would need oil and gas for the foreseeable future, but it makes no sense to import gas, which is four times as polluting as local production.

The Liberal Democrats would introduce a carbon tariff to level the playing field and minimise carbon emissions. The skills already built up in Scotland’s energy sector are the skills that we need for offshore wind, grid upgrades and new green technologies, but there is an urgent need to invest in more skill training and housing if we want the sector to thrive, grow and build new sustainable jobs and communities.

The Government have listened to the Liberal Democrats before on green energy. I urge them to do so again to help create a cleaner, fairer future for our children, and across the world.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call Sureena Brackenridge —you have two minutes.

Employment Rights Bill

Susan Murray Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I know that this is something that affects the community that right hon. Lady represents, and that she is a tireless champion for her community here in Parliament, via the all-party parliamentary group on heritage rail. I will come to that amendment specifically, so I think it is best that I leave the answer until then. If she wants to come back to me once she has heard the explanation as to why we will not support amendment 61, I will happily take another intervention.

I will start by speaking to the amendments that the Government made in another place. The majority of them reinforce and strengthen existing measures in the Bill by making technical adjustments. They close loopholes to safeguard policy functionality, resolve uncertainty and ensure that measures are comprehensive and effectively deliver the policy as intended, as set out by the plan to make work pay. Some of the substantial amendments follow excellent campaigning by Members of this House and the other place, and demonstrate that the Government are listening and taking action, where appropriate.

The Government’s amendments on zero-hours contracts strengthen and clarify provisions that were already in the Bill when it left this place. Our commitment to banning exploitative zero-hours contracts is the culmination of years of campaigning by Labour MPs, trade unions and the wider Labour movement. For too long, these contracts have been used to replace full-time jobs. The Government amendments tabled in the other place reflect our commitment to getting the detail right, and were informed by extensive engagement with a wide range of businesses, trade unions and other expert stakeholders.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

My husband suffered a catastrophic brain haemorrhage, which meant that he could not return to his work, but after he began to recover, he started to work again in another job, helped by a zero-hours contract. It meant that if he was not well enough to work, he could agree with his employer that his hours could be adjusted to suit. The practical and fair solution is to give staff a right to request a zero-hours contract, rather than replacing a requirement for businesses to offer a zero-hours contract.

[Peter Kyle]

I hope that the hon. Lady will pass on my sympathy and encouragement, and that of the whole House, to her husband, who has shown tenacity and resilience. I will come to the relevant part of the Bill shortly but, in summary, we feel that putting the onus on employees to request, rather than on employers to deliver, such contracts would alienate several categories of workers, particularly younger workers and those with vulnerabilities. I will come to that in a minute, and it would be a delight to take any further interventions that she might have then.

Technical changes include clarification of how zero-hours contract provisions apply to agency workers; reinforcement of the guaranteed hours provisions in relation to workers with annualised contracts and interaction with unfair dismissal; refinement of the right to payment for short-notice provisions, in relation to when payments and notices of exemptions are due; and expansion of those provisions to staff employed by both Houses. Together, these amendments strengthen the legislation by ensuring it is fair, proportionate and clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

It is great to know that Zelda is in the Chamber with us today, and that my right hon. Friend is also in the Chamber to give voice to so many campaigners and the work she has done. The Prime Minister has confirmed that the road map remains as is.

In another place, we made two amendments to strengthen the provisions in the Bill that protect victims, while preserving NDAs to protect legitimate business interests. The new clause will allow workers to speak freely about their experiences and allow those who have witnessed misconduct or have knowledge of it to call it out by voiding a non-disclosure agreement that has been used to try to silence victims. The Government will consult on related secondary legislation before commencing the measure.

The Government propose two new amendments. The first will extend the scope of the clause to include staff of both Houses. We are proposing that change following discussions with parliamentary authorities. The second amendment is designed to give disabled workers more protection. It will extend the scope of relevant discrimination to include a failure to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons under section 21 of the Equality Act 2010. That will ensure that all forms of harassment and discrimination in the Equality Act are covered.

I will now set out the Government’s position on the 28 non-Government amendments made to the Bill in the other place, which cover 12 policy areas. Lords amendment 1 addresses provisions on zero-hours contracts and seeks to change the onus from the employer to the employee on the right to guaranteed hours. The amendment shifts it from a duty on employers to offer guaranteed hours to qualifying workers to a model where employees must actively request them. The Government believe that the duty to offer guaranteed hours should lie with the employer. A right-to-request model could create undesirable barriers, making it especially difficult for vulnerable workers on exploitative zero-hours contracts to access their right to guaranteed hours, especially as many such workers are younger and may be in their first job. As of June 2025, approximately 480,000 people in employment aged 16 to 24 are on zero-hours contracts. That is out of a total of 1.18 million workers on zero-hours contracts overall. Our position strikes a fair balance between protection and choice. For that reason, the Government do not support the amendment.

[Susan Murray]

I think we have a difference in how we look at Lords amendment 1. It does not water down the Bill; it adds more flexibility so that people get the opportunity to have the kind of employment that works for them. That is particularly important in an environment where we are trying to get people off disability benefits and back into work.

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s thoughtful intervention. I still believe that in order to exercise rights, people have to know that they exist. The majority of people—young people in particular—entering the workforce in such numbers via zero-hours contracts simply would not know that those rights exist for them. By changing the onus so it is on employers, it clarifies the rights they have and ensures that every workplace must offer equal access to employment hours. This Bill includes flexibilities, and I think those will encompass the situations over which she has legitimate concern.

Lords amendments 7 and 8 seek to provide that a short-notice cancellation payment is due only where the shift is cancelled less than 48 hours before it is due to start. The Government intend to set out short notice period regulations following a consultation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Susan Murray Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady about the huge importance of hospitality to all our communities and to helping many people who have difficult routes into employment to get their first steps back into a job. One of the steps we have taken is to set up our hospitality fund, working with the great organisation Pub is The Hub, to help landlords to diversify what they offer and drive more footfall into the pub. The fund also supports charities that are working with those furthest away from the jobs market to get into jobs. It is strongly supported by hospitality businesses through the Hospitality Sector Council. As I have said, we have a commitment to a small business strategy and we will set out further measures to help hospitality in that regard.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

14. What recent assessment his Department has made of trends in the level of operating costs for SMEs.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Over the past five years, SMEs have faced a challenging operating environment because of the consequences of the Liz Truss Budget, the poorly negotiated trade deal with Europe, covid and increasing global uncertainty. Interest rates have come down four times under this Government, we have negotiated a new trade deal with Europe and, complementing our industrial and trade strategies, we will bring forward an SME strategy to put in place further long-term support to help SMEs start up and expand.

[Susan Murray]

In my constituency and across Scotland, small and medium-sized businesses have taken blow after blow. The Conservatives bungled Brexit, increasing import costs, and energy costs are soaring. Most recently, the hike in national insurance contributions is decimating job opportunities in small and medium-sized businesses. What are the Government doing to support SMEs, which are at the heart of our economic growth, and to get people off benefits and back into work?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Shorter answers please, Minister.