Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

I will make some progress.

Millions of other businesses are also struggling with their energy bills, which is why the Chancellor’s tax choices have been so devastating. Steel may be the first domino to topple, but glass, chemicals, cars and concrete are other industries at risk. Does the Prime Minister envisage a whole series of Saturday sittings, or will he change course today and cut energy costs now, and not in 10 years’ time when it is too late?

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

We are hearing about the previous Government’s efforts to save British Steel, and we have heard a somewhat confusing account of the deal that the now Leader of the Opposition negotiated. If such a deal existed, can we see a record of it?

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made it extremely clear that the deal was being negotiated, and the point about it being negotiated is that it would have been concluded after the election.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. We have had excellent speeches from across the House. I think the whole House agreed on the brilliance of the speech made by the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), and—perhaps I would say this—great speeches have come from Opposition Members in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) got to the heart and the nub of the critique of the Bill.

We have also heard many good speeches, including the last one, about issues of product safety and the need to have a system that can keep up. The speech that addressed both that issue and whether the Bill is appropriate—it was the outstanding speech by a Government Member—was made by the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner). He did not like my praise of his speech in so far as it disparaged in any way anybody else’s, but he faced up to the issues directly. He did not just say, “Well, there are these problems with products and product safety, and here’s a Bill that could do something about it.” He dealt with the fact that the Bill gives enormous power to Ministers. As colleagues across the House have pointed out, the purpose of this honourable House is to hold the Executive’s feet to the fire, hold them to account and hold them in check, and ensure that we champion the will of the people who sent us here. As has been said, not only the Minister but, back in 2018, the Secretary of State warned the House that

“the use of delegated powers carries a risk of abuse by the Executive”.––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.]

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) is not here, so I will try to be more polite than I would have been if she was, but if Brexit derangement syndrome is a condition, it is one that affects not only people who are maniacally in favour of Brexit, but those who seem unable to think rationally from the other side. The point that I tried to make to the hon. Lady in an intervention—I would make it again—is that giving such untrammelled power to Ministers is frightening, regardless of whether we prefer closer alignment with the EU. She said that we need common-sense alignment, but these powers would allow a super-ideological future Minister to come in and seek, entirely for ideological reasons, to stop any alignment with the most sensible of EU regulations purely to have some Brexit difference. That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

rose—

[Graham Stuart]

I will press on a little, but I may come back to the hon. Lady.

I understand that, following the loveless landslide that brought the Government to power, the Government, and Government Members, have done an about-face. They now delight in more powers for the Executive, so much so that the Bill’s very first subsection gives the same Secretary of State I just referenced the power to make regulations anywhere in the UK, without consulting Parliaments in Westminster, Holyrood, Cardiff Bay or Stormont, on more or less anything he likes.

I was so pleased that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim raised the devolution question. I was a Minister for eight years, and such is the complexity of the devolution settlement now that even with thousands of civil servants working on primary legislation, Ministers can come to the House and suddenly it gets pointed out to them that they are in breach of the Sewel convention and ignoring how Northern Ireland has a slightly different environmental or energy regulatory environment from Scotland or Wales. They find that the situation is more complex than they first thought. Now, we are giving powers to Ministers who will not have to go through any of that rigmarole. They will not get to find out how they are trampling on the devolution settlement, and that is a serious issue.

We on the Opposition Benches can make the arguments, but what we must really do is engage Government Members and get them to recognise that they are not here just to back the Government. They need to question these things, and not just ask whether the powers could be used for good. The hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield gave a brilliant speech with examples of the speeding up and pace of technological change—I think he spoke about the drones in Ukraine. Even though Opposition Members may maintain that the system that we had worked perfectly well, he made the case that perhaps we need something speedier going forward, and I can see that he made a strong argument. None the less, is the answer just to hand to Ministers, in this skeleton Bill, all the powers in the world? I suggest that it is not.

I know the Minister and the Secretary of State are decent people, and I hope that we will see, as the legislation proceeds through this House, ways to curb some of the powers while allowing us to have a regulatory system that can speedily respond to inappropriate products. None of us wants to see parliamentary pride getting in the way of an effective system; we have to find a way of making things work. This Bill, however, goes too far the other way. That is why the cross-party experts on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee have looked at it and said that they do not feel that the case has been made to justify such massive powers.

Some parallels were raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, and I think it is fair enough to say, “Look at the way that Henry VIII powers and delegated powers were taken by the Government in the last Parliament.” Quite rightly, people questioned it, but that was about implementing Brexit; it really was something enormous that had to be done at a reasonable speed. Those of us involved were cognisant of the fact that we did not want it to set a precedent; we did not want Government to take the unique conditions of implementing Brexit and take it as a new way of governing. To the comment from the hon. Member for Erewash about rebuilding the world that the ancient Egyptians had, they were very good at centralising authority and I do not think that that is an entirely good thing. That is exactly what the Bill does, so I agree with him on that.

I am sure the Secretary of State is an excellent judge of things such as the safe operation of a laptop, say, for a trainee solicitor, but he will now have the power to regulate any product for sale in the UK on the basis of safety or functionality. The immense power given to him will allow him to decide what is and is not sold in the UK, without consulting this place and by merely providing a written statement. The Bill goes further, with Ministers acquiring the power to give inspectors the right to enter somebody’s home to seize any product that the Minister has decided, on the basis of non-compliance. That can be imposed on manufacturers, marketers, installers, importers or people who run an online marketplace, the definition of which, by the way, can be altered on a ministerial whim and at any point.

We have heard about dangerous and often unpopular electric bikes and scooters, but the powers in the Bill allow a future Secretary of State—we have had some eccentric ones in the past—to decide to ban bicycles because he considers them to be dangerous. He might look at the figures on that. After publishing a statement, he could instruct anyone he likes to enter the house of every bike owner and every bike shop to seize every bike in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State could effectively end cycling in the UK without coming to Parliament. He could create legions of cycle inspectors who could enter people’s homes or businesses and seize their property before disposing of it. And the Government want to hide this act under the innocuous name of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. It is a massive power to give to the Secretary of State.

I say this to the many new Labour Members: I am not very keen on any Government, even the one of which I was a member. It was Lord Acton who said:

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Well, there is an element of absolute power in this Bill, but we have an opportunity both to recognise the powerful case made by the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield for an appropriate system and by his colleagues talking about different challenges, and to make sure that we limit and reduce those powers as the Bill goes through the House. I know that my cycle example is a little extreme, but it is also true. It would not require the Government to return to this House; they would be able to do it.

The Prime Minister has told us that the No. 1 mission of this Government is growth, yet his Ministers, not satisfied with taking the fastest growing economy in the entire G7 and bringing it to a shuddering halt, have introduced what may be the most tediously named but potentially dangerous Bill in the history of Parliament. We can look at what the Government have done for business so far. They have ended the rate relief for hospitality, made part-time workers too expensive to hire, hiked the cost of employing people through next week’s jobs tax, strengthened the trade unions and made it impossible to fire new workers. I would not want to exaggerate this Bill’s role, but in a crowded field, it takes the biscuit in many ways. Businesses are struggling to cope with all these things already, and now we will have greater business uncertainty caused by the fact that Ministers can, on a whim, choose which products can and cannot be sold. This will provide the exact opposite of the certainty that Labour Members suggested the Bill could bring, in a way that has no logic behind it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

As my hon. Friend is right to recognise, this issue has been around for some time, and the Government have announced their intention to publish a draft audit reform and corporate governance Bill for scrutiny in this Session. Investors and the public need access to truthful reporting from our most important businesses on their finances and related issues. My Department continues to progress that important work, and a timetable for the publication of the Bill will be confirmed in the usual way for draft legislation in due course.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Since leaving the European Union, we have been diverging progressively and passively —not making an active decision to diverge because it is good for us, but because we cannot keep up with the number of regulations coming through the European Union. That has been particularly disadvantageous for energy trading. What conversations has the Minister had with Government colleagues around aligning with the EU on emissions trading?

Employment Rights Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Russell]

I could talk about NDAs at some length, but I do not have time to today. They are definitely problematic, and they are definitely concealing the extent of the problems that women suffer when they announce their pregnancies.

The second element I like in the legislation is the improvements to the right to request flexible working. Those on the Conservative Benches have questioned why we would do this. The answer is that the term “part-timer” is still a term of abuse in this country. While that is still something that people say fairly regularly within workplaces and popular parlance, we still have a problem, so this legislation should help to improve that.

Conservative Members have talked a lot about clause 17 and the third-party harassment elements, and it is worth getting into some of the detail. The defence for an employer for failing to protect their staff from third-party harassment is taking all reasonable steps to prevent that harassment from occurring. Employment tribunals have been interpreting the meaning of “reasonable” for a long time, and in a discrimination claim there is essentially a three-part judiciary: a judge with legal experience, someone with employer experience, and someone with employee experience—sometimes from a trade union, but sometimes from elsewhere. When they talk about “all reasonable steps”, it is only reasonable steps; it is not every single step in the entire history of the universe that anyone could ever dream up or imagine.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The hon. Member is speaking powerfully. Does she agree that this amendment is being used by the Conservative party to condone something offensive and despicable, and that they are trying to defend the indefensible?

[Mrs Russell]

I completely and utterly agree with the hon. Member. Actually, a lot of what is coming from Conservative Members is scaremongering. A lot of those discussing this behave as if employees with unfair dismissal rights were unexploded bombs. All the people I represented did not want to bring tribunal claims; they just wanted to have been treated fairly and reasonably in the first place. They were typically extremely destressed by their experiences, and for quite a lot of them, their mental health had deteriorated substantially in the course of what they had gone through. I do not think that when people have unfair dismissal rights a little bit sooner, they will all be rushing to employment tribunals the moment that something goes slightly wrong in their workplace. What most people want to do every morning is get up, go to work, do a decent job, get paid for it and go home. That is what we will continue to see after this legislation passes: that most employers want to look after their employees perfectly reasonably, and most employees want to do a perfectly decent job.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I think that across the House it took a long while to recover from the anger at the behaviour that was displayed in front of the Select Committee. The chief executive was acting with impunity because he had been able to price in those sorts of fines, and it was a cross-party view that we were angry about that behaviour. That is why the charter is so important to us, and why injunctive relief that is open to trade unions would provide an adequate starting point for getting some form of justice.

A range of other issues need to be addressed, including schedule 4, where the Government are introducing the ability to monitor the behaviour of companies. Harbourmasters monitor some of that behaviour as well, with declarations that companies are abiding by basic health and safety practices—some practices in the past have been frankly terrifying. We want health and safety to be about more than just basic legislation; it is also about rosters and how long people are working. We still have ferry contracts where people are working for 17 weeks without a break. We want to ensure that the regulations cover rosters, as well as holiday pay, sick pay, pensions and ratings training, so that we can start to get some form of accountability within the sector. That is not much to ask for, yet we have given shipping owners £3 billion of tonnage tax exemptions in return for the employment of British seafarers, and I do not think we got a single job as a result of that £3 billion. There is a need for proper regulation of the sector.

I tabled an amendment to ask the Government to stand back once a year and bring a report to the House on how implementation of the Bill is going, and to update us on the implications for maritime law and International Labour Organisation conventions, and the impact on the sector. A lot of debate on this issue has been about ferries, but we want to ensure that the provisions apply to all vessels, not just ferries. One point made by those on the Labour Front Bench when considering the Seafarers’ Wages Bill was that if a ship came into a harbour 52 times a year, the legislation would apply. Now—I do not know why—that has been extended to 120 times year, which means that thousands of workers will lose out because the measure will not apply to them. Will the Government have another conversation about that and see whether we can revert to the original position of the Labour party all those years ago when these scandals happened?

There is not much time but, briefly, I am interested in the extension of sectoral collective bargaining right across the economy. We are doing it with social care, but what I have seen from proposals in the Bill does not look like sectoral collective bargaining to me; it looks simply like an extension of pay review bodies. Indeed, the Bill states that any agreements within those organisations cannot legally be accepted as collective bargaining.

The Bill is not clear about how members of the negotiating body are appointed or by who. We were expecting that it would be 50% employers and 50% trade unions, and I tabled an amendment to try to secure that. We think that the negotiating body should elect its own chair, not that the chair should be appointed by the Secretary of State. We want such bodies to be independent and successful, because I see that as the first step in rolling out sectoral collective bargaining in many other sectors of our economy. That is desperately needed because of the lack of trade union rights and the low pay that exists.

The Bill is a good first step, but there is a long agenda to go through. I look forward not just to the Bill proceeding, but to the Minister bringing forward an Employment Rights (No. 2) Bill in the next 18 months.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 74, which appears in the name of the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh). I pay tribute to her and to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) who have campaigned on these issues for a long time. New clause 74 seeks to ban non-disclosure agreements that prevent workers from making a disclosure about harassment, including sexual harassment—we have talked about sexual harassment in the workplace for the last four or five hours.

NDAs were initially designed to protect trade secrets by restricting the sharing of certain information, but in recent times they have taken on an entirely different and quite sinister role. They have essentially become the default solution for organisations and individuals to settle cases of misconduct, discrimination and harassment, keeping the extent of such incidents unaccounted for. Incorporating clear provisions to ensure transparency in cases of harassment would strengthen protections for all workers.

Data from Can’t Buy My Silence has revealed some deeply worrying statistics about the misuse of NDAs. In a survey of more than 1,000 people who experienced harassment and discrimination in the workplace, 25% reported being forced to sign an NDA, while an additional 11% stated that they could not say due to legal reasons, implying that they had also signed an NDA. Four times as many women as men sign NDAs, and they are used disproportionately against women of colour.

In Committee, the Minister said that the Government had “reservations” about changing the law in this way, as there may be “unintended consequences”. I struggle to understand why the Government have committed to banning universities from using NDAs in cases of sexual misconduct, harassment and bullying but have not committed to extending those protections to other sectors. NDAs are clearly being used in a totally different way to what they were designed to achieve, and we must stop this before more victims are silenced. I heard the Minister say earlier that he is at least looking at what new clause 74 is trying to achieve.

Despite my concerns about the misuse of NDAs, the Bill as a whole has many very positive provisions. Importantly, it finally legislates to protect workers from third-party harassment. I brought that forward in my original Bill that became the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023, which recently became law. However, it was blocked by amendments made to the Bill in Committee in the House of Lords by the Conservative party, so that such liability and protection from sexual harassment by third parties in the workplace was not created. We have already discussed that several times this afternoon.

I am most pleased that the Government have committed to making workplaces safer through this protection, because that is what this is all about. Creating safer workplaces is good for everyone, including businesses, despite what the Conservative party says. A study by Culture Shift found that 66% of businesses believe that preventing sexual harassment is very important. I do not know what Conservative Members are talking about when they say that their inboxes are full; I have not seen a single email from a business writing to me to say that it is worried about protecting its own employees from third-party harassment. According to WorkNest, three quarters of employers are still concerned about protecting employees from harassment by third parties. Businesses are concerned that they cannot protect their workers from third-party harassment; they clearly want these protections to be included in the Bill.

Too many people still suffer from third-party harassment at work. Amendment 288, which tries to remove those important provisions, is plain wrong. Employers have a duty to ensure the safety of their employees from not just other employees, but third parties who may interact with them in the workplace. That responsibility should be part of their broader commitment to workplace safety. If the Conservative party is truly committed to a world without harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace, why is it still condoning offensive language and behaviour as “banter” and “free speech”, rather than taking a step to support businesses and protect workers from sexual harassment in the workplace, as proposed in the Bill?

I am grateful that the Government have ensured the completion of my Act as it was intended a year or two ago. Although I remain concerned about the misuse of NDAs, I welcome many of the provisions in the Bill. I will be proud to walk through the No Lobby when we come to vote on amendment 288, and I hope that all right-minded people will join me there.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud member of the trade unions USDAW, Unison and GMB, and I am also proud to have worked at a domestic abuse charity for six years. That is why I rise today to speak in support of new clause 22, which I have tabled with the support of colleagues from across the House. I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, the secretariat of which is ably provided by Women’s Aid. I have tabled this new clause following evidence presented to the APPG, with the drafting support of the law firm Hogan Lovells.

“Chapter 4A

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith]

I will make some progress, as I think I have demonstrated that I am not shy of giving way, and I will come back to the hon. Lady. The problem is that badly considered law, developed with no evidence base, is likely to cause problems, rather than to solve them. That is the law of unintended consequences. We are deeply concerned about not just the unclear liabilities that the clause places on employers, but the implications it has for freedom of expression.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that the third-party harassment protections

“raise complex questions about the appropriate balance between third parties’ rights to freedom of expression (as protected under Article 10 ECHR) and employees’ protection from harassment and their right to private and family life.”

We are already struggling to ensure freedom of speech at our universities—places that should be guardians of free, open and challenging debate.

[Wera Hobhouse]

It was of course my private Member’s Bill that the previous Government supported, but only partly, because third-party harassment was scrubbed out of the Bill; I am very pleased that the new Government are reintroducing that bit. The question is: why does the hon. Gentleman support the idea that employers should prevent sexual harassment in the workplace and demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps, but think that for third parties that impacts on freedom of speech? It does not make sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman has had a go; he may come back later.

Kate Nicholls, the chief executive of UKHospitality, said that staff in restaurants, bars, pubs and hotels work in a “social environment” where

“there are jokes and people are boisterous”.

She said that while everyone wants to ensure that their staff are protected,

“we don’t want to be policing our customers”,

and she is concerned that this clause could add “undue restrictions”. If someone works in a pub or a comedy club, for example, there is a high risk that they might hear comments that they do not like, but it is wrong to restrict free speech just because somebody does not like something. The unintended consequence of this provision is likely to be a chilling effect on free speech and unclear responsibilities for employers about where they need to draw the line.

[Wera Hobhouse]

rose—

[Laurence Turner]

rose—

[Greg Smith]

I will make some progress. I have been on my feet for a long time, and I know that a lot of people wish to speak in this debate.

In other words, this clause could well function as a banter ban at best, and as a restriction on academic debate and inquiry. Due to our concern about how this clause will operate, especially in the higher education and hospitality sectors, we have tabled amendment 289, which would carve out the hospitality sector and sports venues from clause 18. We believe those are the sectors where the potential for unintended consequences from this clause will be the greatest.

It is because we believe that clause 18 will create problems, rather than solve them, that we have tabled new clause 85, which would require the Secretary of State to report on the clause. The report must include the extent to which the prevalence of third-party harassment makes the case for the measures in clause 18, including an assessment of the impact of the clause on free speech, an assessment of the likely costs of the clause to employers, an assessment of which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment through no fault of the employer, and proposals for mitigations that can be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations. We will require the Secretary of State to lay a report setting those out before each House of Parliament, and amendment 285 would prevent clause 18 from coming into force until that report is approved by Parliament.

The Government need to go away and think again, and that is what our amendments are designed to achieve. If the Government are not willing to do so, we have also tabled amendment 288, which would leave the clause out of the Bill entirely, so great is our concern about the unintended consequences it could have.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Greg Smith]

Once more.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Since we were discussing this issue for the best part of the previous Parliament, can I ask the shadow Minister whether there is a misunderstanding about what this part of the Bill does? It is about a preventive duty, not predicting everything that could happen in the hospitality sector, for example. The guidance is to make sure that everybody knows that their workplace will protect people from harassment—that is what an employer needs to do. What is the problem with that?

[Greg Smith]

I am not sure that the hon. Lady has firmly grasped what the Bill says in this respect. Of course we want to protect everybody in our society—that is the first duty of Government—but I do not think she has fully considered the unintended consequences in the real world, particularly in the hospitality sector.

I will speak briefly to new clause 86 and amendments 286 and 287. Clause 21 and schedule 2 are another example of the Government rushing to legislate in an attempt to meet an arbitrary deadline set by the Deputy Prime Minister, with chaotic results. Clause 21 will remove the qualifying period for unfair dismissal. Again, the Regulatory Policy Committee slapped a red rating on the Government’s impact assessment for these provisions, meaning that the Government have not adequately justified the need for them. They have admitted that they do not have robust data on the incidence of dismissal for those under two years of employment. In other words, yet again, we do not know whether there is even an actual problem with unfair dismissal for this Bill to try to solve.

The British Chambers of Commerce has said that

“Members say that there would be a reduced hiring appetite were this legislation to come in, and that they would be less likely to recruit new employees due to the risk and difficulty, particularly under the day one rights, unless there were at least a nine-month probation period”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 8.]

As such, our new clause 86 requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of clause 21 and schedule 2, and amendment 286 requires Parliament specifically to approve that impact before these sections of the Bill can come into force.

Stellantis Luton

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thoroughly agree with the content and sentiment of my hon. Friend’s question. The support this Government are committed to is about that transition, but we should be excited by what British manufacturers such as Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan and Toyota are doing, and at the luxury end of the market, about McLaren and Rolls-Royce supercars. I could mention all of our iconic brands, and there are a lot of exciting things going on. If hon. Members are not aware of that, all those manufacturers are more than happy to host Members of Parliament coming to visit, so I encourage people to do so. However, they will explain the pressures they are under in the short term, and they will endorse the change of policy this Government are putting forward.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The Electric Vehicle Association says that 14 non-governmental organisations, think-tanks and campaign groups are advocating for upholding the ZEV mandate. We have just seen the most devastating storms, which have been dangerously accelerated by climate change. I know that the Government know that net zero is not negotiable. The previous Government persistently undermined the motor manufacturing industry. Will this Government listen to the Electric Vehicle Association, which, after all, is supporting this Government in their ambition to get to net zero?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I genuinely appreciate the question coming from that perspective, but this is not just about NGOs. We have been in close contact with big business about charging infrastructure, and I understand the importance of that. I want to make it clear that that is why we are not undermining transition, but are ambitious with the industry about where we will get to. Nothing we propose as a Government will itself reduce or limit the deployment of electric vehicles. What I am talking about, and what we are talking about as a Government, is looking at how, for instance, the flexibilities in the system operate. We are doing everything we can, alongside industry, to get to that destination.

I want nothing to do with the approach of the previous Government, which had a really detrimental effect on the industry, as it will tell any hon. Member very clearly. I am listening to what it means to have this change in economic circumstances in relation to private demand for electric vehicles, and I want to work with industry to get to the place or the destination that I think we both strongly support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is never difficult to distinguish the hon. Gentleman from a ray of sunshine, is it? Our wine industry is thriving, with over 900 vineyards across Great Britain. The UK wine industry produced 12.2 million bottles of wine in 2022, and our new post-Brexit powers provide us with new options. Those include new legislation that aligns existing sizes across still and sparking pre-packed wine so that both can be sold in 200 ml and 500 ml quantities, for which we know there is good demand.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

16. Whether she has made an assessment of the potential impact of New Zealand’s proposed Fast-track Approvals Bill on its obligations under the UK-New Zealand free trade agreement environment chapter.

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

In March, the UK and New Zealand highlighted the importance of our environmental commitments at the first ever environment committee under our new free trade agreement. We continue to engage with New Zealand on implementing the environmental chapter, and will monitor the proposed Bill that the hon. Lady mentioned during its passage through New Zealand’s Parliament.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The New Zealand FTA entered into force on 31 May 2023. It contains a commitment in article 22 that each party will not

“waive or otherwise derogate from, or offer to waive or otherwise derogate from, its environmental laws in a manner that weakens or reduces the protection afforded in that law”.

Is there not a danger that the fast-track approvals will erode those protections? What steps will the Government take to ensure that New Zealand absolutely upholds its commitments under the FTA?

[Greg Hands]

As I said, we will continue to monitor the passage of that proposed legislation, but the hon. Lady must recognise that the UK and New Zealand are incredibly like-minded in these areas—on climate, the environment and clean growth. The environment chapter in our free trade agreement is one of the most ambitious in any FTA anywhere in the world. It breaks new ground for both the UK and New Zealand in supporting our shared climate and environmental goals, clean growth, and the transition to a net zero economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I am delighted to be able to do so, and delighted to have such an enthusiastic supporter of CPTPP, which is an enormous benefit to this country. The UK joining will take its share of global GDP from around 11% to just over 15%. The UK will be the first country ever to accede to CPTPP, which includes most of the fastest growing markets in the Asia-Pacific region: the UK joining shows that it goes beyond the region. On accession, we are delighted that Royal Assent has been given to our Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Act 2024, and we are looking forward to UK ratification in the coming weeks. Three of the 11 parties have ratified so far—Japan, Chile and Singapore—and we look forward to further parties ratifying it in the coming weeks, to make progress on this extraordinary opportunity for this country.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

T6. Last year, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee heard that the lack of a coherent agritrade policy, together with a complex set of import and export certification rules, is preventing rural businesses, particularly food producers, from trading outside the UK. How will the Department support UK producers to deal with complex trade red tape?

[Greg Hands]

I gave evidence in front of the EFRA Committee just last week on this very issue with our Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Sir Mark Spencer). We put in a huge amount of resources. We have a number of commissioners and trade support people around European Union countries and around the world promoting agrifood exports. I add that we also have a record level of services and exports to the EU, some of which will be in the agriculture sector. We have, contrary to the constant doom and gloom that the hon. Lady brings to this question time every five weeks, a very good story to tell about the successes of the United Kingdom when it comes to trade.

Volunteers

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) on bringing this important issue to the Floor of the Chamber.

Volunteering is the beating heart of my Bath constituency. Without our volunteers, our charities would simply not survive and sustain the essential activities and services offered to communities. To understand that, we need only look back to the monumental volunteering effort during covid, with people helping with the vaccine roll-out, providing essential goods and medicines to those who were shielding, and ensuring that vulnerable individuals received essential support.

Our communities are so much stronger for volunteering, and I am so grateful to the culture of good will and being kind to one another that exists across my Bath community. It makes for a much better and stronger society, and today is a wonderful opportunity to say thanks to all our volunteers who make that enormous effort. Whenever I meet a volunteer, I see that they do not do it for glory or public recognition; they do it because they are passionately committed to the causes that they support, but today is an opportunity to publicly recognise what they do for us.

I do not want to be risk missing out any of the many voluntary organisations in my constituency, so I will just pay tribute to BANES 3SG, which is a membership network of over 200 charities, social enterprises and community groups in Bath and north-east Somerset. It really came together during covid-19. I hear that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central is organising a volunteers fair, which the network has also organised.

Looking at the model of what BANES 3SG has done in the last four years, it has really transformed the whole of the third sector in my Bath community. It does fantastic work to support charities, social enterprises, and faith and voluntary organisations operating in Bath and north-east Somerset. It aims to strengthen the volunteering offer, and last year it held a volunteers fair that brought together local charities, residents and businesses. Having organisations such as 3SG, which facilitates co-operation between community organisations and statutory bodies in Bath and north-east Somerset, has a huge impact on the lives of so many people. As I said, it has really transformed how volunteering is delivered across the area.

Today’s debate is about not just saying thanks, but pointing out the challenges faced by volunteering and the third sector. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central has already touched on many of them, but I will say a bit more about some. Volunteers come from all walks of life and it is important that we make volunteering accessible for all and identify the barriers in any given area. It is also important to recognise that volunteers are on their own personal journey and may come to giving their time for various reasons. Yet, as I said, most of the time it is because they passionately believe in making a difference. Volunteering also provides connections and support networks that people may not otherwise access.

The sector as a whole faces lots of challenges, not least huge cuts and financial pressures at a time when we are seeing a rise in need and when organisations often support people who are falling through the gaps. There is huge potential for better link-ups to support preventive work through initiatives such as social prescribing, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central has already talked about extensively, and volunteering can play a part in that. Many charities report that one of the biggest issues they face is coping with increasing demand on services while having to find long-term sustainable funding. Charities are almost four times more likely to identify funding issues as the most pressing issue facing their organisation, year on year since 2015. Volunteering is essential to help address that additional demand.

Unfortunately, volunteering has been severely affected by covid-19 and has not recovered since. Data from the Charities Aid Foundation’s “UK Giving” report found that only 13% of people said they volunteered in 2023, compared with 17% pre-pandemic. That represents about 1.6 million fewer people volunteering over the past five years, and that is a very big number. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations survey on the volunteer experience found a trend of decline in certain volunteering activities, including raising money or taking part in sponsored events.

Another barrier to people volunteering more often is reported worries about being out of pocket. We have heard that already this afternoon. That is exacerbated by the recent rise in the cost of living. For example, if someone previously commuted to a volunteering position by train, the increased fares may push that activity over the edge of affordability. Work commitments and caring responsibilities are also often cited as significant reasons for not volunteering. In many ways, it is not a surprise that as life gets harder, people’s attention focuses elsewhere and volunteering will decrease.

As we have also heard, volunteering has lots of benefits. Research has shown that people who take part in volunteering report improved wellbeing and life satisfaction and lower rates of depression. As mentioned earlier, it is also so important for our local communities to thrive. One issue, particularly among younger volunteers, is lower reported satisfaction rates. A long-term focus on helping people to find opportunities that suit them would improve fulfilment and increase the retention of volunteers. Trying to maintain volunteer numbers, as well as recruiting new volunteers, is a constant challenge for charities.

The good news is that willingness to volunteer remains very high. If we can address some of the barriers that prevent people from feeling that they can volunteer, there is untapped potential in the people who are willing to do so. According to the national survey on the volunteer experience, the top two most cited reasons for people being encouraged to volunteer is that they could be flexible with the time they committed and flexible with how they get involved, such as volunteering from home. It is therefore encouraging to see that those reasons can be addressed, with the data showing that flexibility in how people volunteer is increasing, and I know many charities in Bath are eager to be a part of that.

Volunteers carry out incredible work to help support non-statutory services. It is therefore wonderful to have a debate that shines a light on the subject and, once again, to say thank you to the thousands and millions of volunteers across the country who are helping to make our society better and richer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Ms Nokes, there could not possibly be a better way of spending this afternoon than taking part in a debate under your Chair. As you pointed out to me earlier, it is not just a privilege, but a massive privilege to be sitting here taking part in this debate with you in the Chair. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) for bringing us to this debate.

However, I am scandalised by every single one of the contributions so far, because the largest number of volunteers who are out today are probably volunteering for political parties, and they have not even got a mention yet. They are the people who go out in sun and rain, in foul weather and fine. They sometimes get spat at—I have been shot at on one occasion. They get abuse, and sometimes they get people giving them a thumbs up, but they do it because they believe in the political system and in democracy. We all know that not one of us would ever be here if it were not for the contributions of volunteers in our political parties up and down the country. They will be far too busy today, but I put on record on behalf of us all, I am sure, our tribute to the volunteers in our political parties who do it for no other reward than the things that they believe in and trying to make a better world and a better country, in their individual ways.

I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) and for Gordon (Richard Thomson). I think we have all had the same briefing note from the Scouts, so I will not repeat anything; that would seem rather otiose, and you might rule me out of order, Ms Nokes. I disagree, however, with the Members who said that they are not going to list all the volunteers in their constituency, because I will refer to some from mine. I represent one of the poorest constituencies in the land and, one could argue, in Europe, according to some socioeconomic indicators.

The truth is that there are politicians who believe that private is always good and everything should be left to the market, and that public is bad and we should try to shrink the state. There are also those who believe that private is always bad because it is based on profit, and they want everything to be done by the state. I have never subscribed to either of those views—it is horses for courses—but I believe that the third sector is absolutely essential in making either of the other two sectors work. In fact, most of what we would consider as the welfare state—schools, hospitals and so on—sprang out of the churches and the voluntary sector originally. The NHS simply would not be able to function in most parts of the country without the support of volunteers. I do not necessarily mean people fundraising for scanners, running events locally or whatever, but all the additional bits that make the recuperative process possible for so many patients. Once they have had what they get from the NHS, they need that extra bit from the voluntary sector. If I look at my patch, organisations such as Valleys Kids have probably made more of a difference than any other organisation to the life opportunities of some of the kids in the most difficult families and parts of the country.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Yes, Bath calls!

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Member agree that the charitable sector is so good at making the most out of every penny and doubling and tripling the amount invested by capturing the volunteering effort? However, they need a bit of seed funding and not to always be under threat of that funding being cut.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Absolutely. One of the difficulties comes when they end up with a memorandum of understanding, or some kind of contract with the local authority, or the local health board as we have in Wales—it is a different structure from England. They are then effectively part of the state sector, which makes them less flexible and less able to adapt to situations around them. That has been a worrying trend over the past 20 to 25 years. Maintaining that sustainability for them is the real challenge. That is one of the problems facing Valleys Kids at the moment: trying to make sure that they have a strong financial future.

There is also Sporting Marvels. Sometimes we refer to “charities”, which is quite a strict definition. But actually, lots of people volunteer for things that are not charities, but that, none the less, have a charitable end result, such as all the sporting bodies in my patch. That includes people who turn up as coaches on a Saturday and a Sunday morning for the football teams or for Ferndale rugby club. I will not go through all the rugby clubs in the Rhondda, but I am a patron of Ferndale rugby club, which has its presentation dinner in a few weeks.

So many of these organisations do not get any financial support from the state. Many do not even get charitable status and, for them, it is an even more complicated process. As has already been alluded to, the rules about what people can do—quite understandably, if they are working with children and so on—are onerous, complicated and difficult. Having done work on acquired brain injury, I am conscious that we want any coach working in football, rugby or cycling to have a full understanding of how the new rules and protocols work and when they should take a child off if they have had a concussion. All these things make people think twice about whether they should be engaged in volunteering. That is why the state sometimes has a role in trying to make sure that the process is as simple as possible and that the charities and all the different organisations have access to good, easy and readily understandable advice.

I will mention one other organisation, the Rhondda Polar Bears, of which I am also a patron. The charity teaches kids with a variety of different disabilities how to swim. I will probably see them later this evening at Ystrad sports centre, if I get back to the Rhondda in time.

UK Trade Performance

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is clear that Labour does not like good news. As soon as there is any, Labour Members exit the Chamber unless they absolutely have to be here. It is disgraceful that there is not a single Back-Bench Labour Member, other than the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), is blushing because she knows that it is true. That is one reason why it is important for us not to assume that people see these statistics. If we do not talk about them, nobody else will. Enough people out there—certainly on the Labour Benches—will tell us how terrible everything is, but we need to remind people about the good that is happening.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

In complete contrast to the rosy picture that the Government are trying to paint, there are some inconvenient truths that have been left out. From this week, new checks on food imports from the EU will see costs for importers rise by 60%, which will have a severe impact on small businesses and consumers alike. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to lay out how consumers and small businesses will be protected from those severe new costs?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I seem to remember a time when some Liberal Democrats were complaining that we did not have any checks at the border, and that that showed that standards in this country were low. If we do something, they immediately make the opposite argument—there is no consistency whatsoever. I explained in response to an earlier question why we are doing this and how it is of benefit. It is about maintaining standards. The other thing that the hon. Lady should realise is that we have been able to reduce tariffs on loads of products—thousands of products—from across the world, which also helps to reduce prices and tackle inflation.

Covid-19: Response and Excess Deaths

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that there is not a single medical intervention that does not also have risks—the medical profession will always acknowledge that—but is it not about a balance of the benefits against the risks? Ultimately, the judgment was made by those who supported the covid vaccine that the benefits far outweighed the risks imposed by the vaccine.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I agree that the benefits outweigh the risks, but I do not think we have ever had a system in this country where we license drugs on the basis that they will do more harm than good to those who take them. If the drugs are potentially significantly harmful to a large number of patients, those drugs do not get their licence—and why should they?

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Hon. Members are suggesting that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks. They suggest in these debates that there is always a balance to be made, and I agree. But do they acknowledge that there is a risk attached to the vaccine, and that the excess deaths that we are describing can be attributed to the vaccine? They might suggest that the risk is outweighed by the enormous benefit of the vaccine by saving lives, but if they are suggesting that there is a risk that could help explain the excess deaths, that is not the Government’s position. Their position is that there is no link between the vaccines and the excess deaths. If they are suggesting that there is a link but it is outweighed by the benefits, that is a different argument.

[Wera Hobhouse]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. You cannot intervene on an intervention. I call Sir Christopher Chope.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Madam Deputy Speaker, the enthusiasm is unbounded. I will happily give way to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) if she wishes to make the point to me in an intervention that she would have liked to have made to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger).

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. This is the point, is it not? There has to be absolute certain evidence that there is that link to the covid vaccine. That still has to be proven, in my belief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

I am not familiar with that particular paper, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that nothing is ever 100% safe and vaccines have an overall benefit. I am vaccinated against covid, as I have been vaccinated against many things over my lifetime. Vaccines have made the health of this country, and countries around the world that can afford vaccines, much better over many years.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Further to that, may I suggest that this should not be binary? We do not acknowledge that some people have clearly had severely negative side effects from the covid vaccine. That should be acknowledged and there should be compensation and support, without completely throwing out the whole vaccine programme.

[Graham Stringer]

Of course.

I want to move on to excess deaths over the last couple of years, since covid, and the figures during covid. One of the ways of measuring the impact of covid was looking at excess deaths during covid. They were measured against a five-year average—that was the gold standard; it is the way it has been done—and that gave quite large figures. That is interesting given what has happened when the excess 100,000 deaths per year over the past two years have been looked at. The Office for National Statistics has moved away from that basis and on to a different one, and the figures are coming down.

We need an anonymised account of those excess deaths—this was part of a recent Westminster Hall debate—because that will help us to understand what is going on. The pharmaceutical companies have been given that information, but Ministers just give reassuring statements that there is no evidence that excess deaths are caused by the covid vaccinations—by the mRNA vaccinations. How do they know? They do not tell us that. We need to know, first, how they have come to that conclusion and, secondly, if that is a fair, reasoned and balanced conclusion. We also need a detailed look at the anonymised statistics, so that we can ask further questions about the problems that are worrying us—that certainly worry me—and so that we can make better decisions in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neale Hanvey]

Well, the hon. Gentleman can shake his head, but that is my experience. I worked at University College London Hospitals and the Royal Marsden, and those are the principles that we applied in such a context. I can only speak to my experience. I am not a member of the ABPI, so I cannot give him those types of data. I am talking about GCP as a general principle. If he does not believe in GCP as a general principle, that is a different discussion.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am no apologist for big pharma companies, but does the hon. Member not acknowledge that there was time pressure in producing a vaccine to mitigate all the things we have heard about—lockdowns, our economy being stalled and all the rest of it? Does he not acknowledge that there was time pressure?

[Neale Hanvey]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I think we all understand the situation that we were in. I am not using a retrospectoscope to say that things should not have been done in the way they were done. However, they should have been conducted absolutely in accordance with GCP guidelines, and that is the fundamental crux of the matter. I am not suggesting for a moment that that was not the spirit in which the various companies entered into this, but we are talking about—