Jane Austen

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. What a wonderful debate to bring to this Chamber, on which I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy). Jane Austen: what a legend, what a genius! She is still inspiring us today, and what an opportunity we have to hear from her directly, as she wanders the streets of Bath in 2025 through a little bit of time travel:

“My dearest Cassandra, you will laugh at me, I am sure, for the rapture in which I write, but I cannot help myself, for Bath is a much changed city from when you and I did grace its fair streets. I shall do but imperfect justice with my pen, but will endeavour to paint in your mind a picture befitting this changed city, which, despite the marching of time, I still find to hold immeasurable beauty.

As I wound through the streets of Bath, I marvelled at the honey-coloured stone, which did glow as pleasantly as ever. But sister, what will truly astonish you is what I did see coming towards me: I would call it a carriage, yet it is a strange mechanical one whose body is silver, and how it moves is beyond my comprehension, as there are no horses to pull it. Goodness! The noise it produced was most dreadful: a mixture of cry and roar such that I was compelled to leap from its path.

There are, too, these strange signs affixed around the town, and for the life of me I cannot decipher their meaning. ‘Clean air zone’ is inscribed upon them—what a peculiar thing to write! Sister, when I uncover their origin and meaning, I will let you know with great haste.

No sooner had I proceeded a little further than my senses were again most violently assailed, for I encountered a most merry band and of women, full of uproarious amusement; one did speak of a ‘hen party’. I shall not attempt to describe their attire, for it would, I fear, defile my pen. You may imagine them as you will, sister, but I shall leave that to you.

They still hold celebrations and festivals in Bath; I watched one where ladies and gentlemen paraded about in coats and costumes of such cut and colour that I felt I had stepped into one of my own chapters. I observed them with all the greatest delight, so imagine my surprise when I found it was being undertaken in my honour. How gratifying to have unconsciously inspired so strong an affection!

You will laugh, but it continues. I inquired, and found this not a singular affair; events across the city are held entirely to commemorate me. Exhibitions in museums and balls of the sort we once danced at are held in grand halls during an annual festival. There is even a museum—they call it the Jane Austen Centre—which informs visitors of my life, work and the manner in which I lived. I ought to be embarrassed, and perhaps I am—but only just a little. Mostly, I am entertained beyond measure.

I am often detained by Bath’s excellent bookshops. One such establishment, Persephone Books, is a publisher devoted to selling neglected fiction and non-fiction text by women authors. It is admirable to see this shop promoting women writers. Imagine if when I struggled to publish my books, I had had such support. I find this accompanied with a certain vexation, though, as I see so very few women’s titles—or, indeed, their characters—within school curricula. The imbalance is unmistakable. The books of men and the stories of their heroes are bound in such numbers that it is most improper. I hear—and I do say it is frightful—that only 5% of GCSE pupils studied a text authored by a women for GCSE literature in 2024. Such figures speak plainly and require no ornament. That books written by women appear so seldom in the curriculum is most unjustifiable.

I then, most unexpectedly, found myself being carried along by a crowd, my legs no longer my own. Hurried to a great stadium and with my curiosity spurring me on I ventured within and behold, what a spectacle presented itself! A number of gentlemen most astonishingly hurled one another across the grass in pursuit of a misshapen ball. They ended up in a most undignified heap, yet the people appeared highly entertained. I, caught up in the fervour, did lend my own voice. That is how I, to my own surprise, became a supporter of Bath Rugby.

Cassandra, how a single city can change so much I cannot easily comprehend, but it is not an unhappy alternative lying before me. Far from it: Bath still leaves my heart fluttering. Until you can come again, you must accept this poor description in place of your own experience, and believe me, as ever, to be your affectionate sister Jane.”

I apologise to all Jane Austen scholars, everybody who loves her and the great author herself for this poor epistle—but my team and I had great fun.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)]

Well, if only the Conservatives were not full of pride and prejudice—sorry, I could not resist that. It is a great delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a Minister in possession of a good portfolio must be in want of a debate. When it turned out that the culture Minister was unavailable this afternoon, I wanted to embody another quote from “Northanger Abbey”:

“There is nothing I would not do for those who are really my friends. I have no notion of loving people by halves; it is not my nature.”

That is why I am here on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, although I am in the Department for Business and Trade.

I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this debate which, at one point, was in danger of becoming about tourism rather than Jane Austen. However, we had some good literary criticism later on, including going into the nature of the prose that Jane Austen wrote. It is always good to see an English degree put to use at some point in somebody’s career—I have one myself, so am delighted by it.

I am a bit disturbed, however, that we are talking about Jane Austen, and so far the character that people have referred to most and questioned the actions of is Mr Darcy. Surely we should be talking about the female actors who have appeared. The bigger question should be who is the better Lizzy Bennet: is it Jennifer Ehle or Keira Knightley? [Interruption.] Apparently there is no question about that either.

It was great to hear from the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), although he has now disappeared, so he must be taking to heart another of Jane Austen’s lines:

“There is nothing like staying at home for real comfort.”

It was good to hear from him briefly, even though he has now departed. It is always good to hear from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who took us on a tour of his constituency as well, talking proudly about many of the tourist attractions. I will come on to the point about how Jane Austen has probably contributed to the modern economy of the UK more than any other single individual, Dickens may be able to challenge that, but hers is certainly a very significant contribution to our modern economy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) spoke without claiming any particular identity with Austen for her constituency. I identified with her in this: I do not think that any of the characters from any of Jane Austen’s novels ever visited Rhondda, Ogmore, Blaengwarw, Blaenrhondda, Pontycymer or any of the other places that Hansard will not be able to spell.

It was also great to hear from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). As part of the celebrations earlier this year, I went to the Jane Austen Centre in Bath, which I think received 200,000 visitors in 2024. I am sure the numbers were larger this year. It has some fascinating items from Jane Austen’s life and the life of her family. The whole city feels like it is “Jane Austenville”, not only because of the bookshops—although Bath has some of the finest independent bookshops in the land—but because of the museums and houses there that have been used in film adaptations or television series. I will come on to “Bridgerton” later.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the Minister acknowledge the unbalanced literature that is still taught in schools, the majority of which is written by men as opposed to women?

[Chris Bryant]

In fact, the one book that we were recommended to read about Jane Austen was by a man, which seemed a little bit ironic. I will address some of those points later.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) was querying what kind of clergyman I am; I think I am more Trollope really—it has been said before. Some of the clerical characters in Trollope are more my kind of style. The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) is right that Jane Austen is buried in Winchester Cathedral. The initial gravestone referred to her mind, but not to her works. That was rectified in later years, which is really important. I suppose there was some kind of prejudice about the idea that a woman would not just have a mind but actually do something with it, which I am glad to say we have managed to overcome.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) made an important point about how this debate is taking place two days after the anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth, but that it is also a day when the Government are bringing forward important legislation. One can interpret many of the scenes between men and women in Jane Austen’s books as being about coercive control—a point that my hon. Friend made well. I have already referred to the literary criticism offered the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). It is always good to hear from a Whip—unless one is in trouble and has forgotten a vote—and was great to have her in this debate.

The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), of whom I am enormously fond—well, anyway—tried to claim Jane Austen as a member of the modern Conservative party. I think he was trying to hand her a membership card. It is true that she was sceptical of revolution, but she also hated hypocrisy—make of that what you will. [Interruption.] I’m joking. She was sceptical of revolution, but in many ways she brought about a revolution in that she was able to publish books and get them printed, and she has continued to be a presence in a world that has been dominated by men, by male publishers and male writers for generation after generation. Sometimes there is a radicalism in quiet conservatism, and sometimes conservatism in quiet radicalism.

Obviously, Austen was famous as an author. It was mentioned earlier that some 92,000 copies of her books have been sold in the UK this year. It might be more by now because it was 78,500 by the end of June. Her writing is sometimes referred to as subtle, nuanced, clever; there is a comedy of manners involved in it. We have already heard the reference to the sharp prose that she engaged in. One of my favourite moments is when Darcy says to Lizzy:

“But it has been the study of my life to avoid those weaknesses, which often expose a strong understanding to ridicule.”

And Lizzy says:

“Such as vanity and pride.”

That is a burn—a real burn on a very arrogant man who is not able to see his own ridiculousness.

Austen has been vital to today’s creative industries. We have referred to several different versions of “Pride and Prejudice”. If we include “Clueless” and productions like that, probably $1.2 billion-worth of revenues have been generated from film and television adaptations. There was a great new production of “Emma” at the Theatre Royal in Bath earlier this year. Incidentally, the Theatre Royal in Bath is a wonderful institution that does not take a single penny from the Arts Council, because it has decided that it can do things on its own.

And then we have “Bridgerton”, which everybody recognises as sort of being by Jane Austen, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with her. One of its triumphs is not only that successive series have given us phenomenal storylines that feel Jane Austen-like—we kind of know where it is going to end up; it is not the twist that matters, but the getting there—but it has also given us Adjoa Andoh and a very brave moment of television where a black woman is cast as a queen in a period that clearly would not have had a black queen in the UK, and yet it is entirely characteristically Jane Austen. And of course it has given us the most beautiful man in the world, Jonathan Bailey—not according to me, but according to lots of other people—who plays one of the main leads. I see several Members smiling, so I think they agree.

Austen has done a phenomenal amount for tourism in the UK. I have already referred to the Jane Austen Centre in Bath. Many TV and film locations have managed to do extraordinarily well in recent years, including several aristocratic homes such as Lyme Park, which featured in “Pride and Prejudice”. It had 300,000 visitors last year, many of whom will have come because of the connection with the film. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked what the Government are doing. Well, VisitBritain has been trying to build on this sense of “starring Great Britain”. A lot of international visitors to the UK—we set a target of getting to 50 million visitors by 2030—have done so specifically to visit places they recognise because films were made there, including many of the Jane Austen adaptations. It is a really important part of what we do.

Likewise, Arts Council England has supported many literary-based projects, including quite a lot of Jane Austen ones this year. Alongside providing funding for the Jane Austen Fan Club and the “Sensibilities on the Bonnet” project, it has supported Southampton Forward, and God’s House Tower, which presented her writing desk as part of the Jane Austen 250 celebrations earlier this year, as has been mentioned. The Forest arts centre in Hampshire received support to research collections of early music, including that owned by Jane Austen and her sister, and the Dorset Museum & Art Gallery held a “Jane Austen: Down to the Sea” exhibition using funding from ACE, with support from the Government indemnity scheme, which ACE administers.

Several Members referred to one element of Jane Austen that I think is really important. We have heard half the quote I am about to give, but I will say the next line, which is just as important. On women, one of her characters said:

“I hate to hear you talking…as if women were all fine ladies, instead of rational creatures.”

The next line is:

“We none of us expect to be in smooth water all our days.”

The sense that a woman is far more than just the stereotype so much literature had created up to that time is a really important part of the radicalism inherent in Austen.

Jane Austen has not been the only woman writer in our history. Before her, the great playwright Aphra Behn wrote some phenomenal plays. Daphne du Maurier’s book “Rebecca” is one of the most read novels in our history. There are George Eliot, who often confuses people by being called that rather than Mary Ann Evans, and the Brontës. Agatha Christie, who made one of our biggest contributions to world literature, is renowned across the world—not only in the UK and the United States of America, but in large parts of Africa, China and south-east Asia. In recent years, we have had Hilary Mantel. Only a few days ago, I saw yet another version of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”, which I think is probably the closest to the original, and Iris Murdoch is one of my favourite novelists. Austen’s role as a woman novelist who survived and managed to make a living, and who had female characters with three dimensions to them rather than just one or two, is such an important part of what she gave us.

The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup read this quotation from “Sense and Sensibility”:

“It is not what we say or think that defines us, but what we do.”

That is true. It is not just having a debate here today that defines what we think about Jane Austen; it is what we do, and I think we need to celebrate reading far more.

One of the problems for many young people—the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, who used to be Education Secretary, will know how important this is—is getting them to read anything longer than a post or a tweet, or to watch something longer than two minutes, but being able to concentrate on the whole plot across 200 or 300 pages, or whatever it may be, is really important. We must have parents reading to their children and reading in schools, and we must have libraries in schools and in communities, because enabling people to read is a really important part of what we do. As Members of Parliament, we need to do far more to celebrate reading itself.

We should also celebrate publishing, because it is one of the things that the UK does phenomenally well. We export more books than any other country in the world, which is partly because we are a really good crossroads of the nations. Some of the best writing in the English language is written by people in India or Pakistan, or in Africa. We celebrate that as part of the publishing that we give to the rest of the world. Some of it is technical publishing, of course, but we should celebrate that part of our creative industries, and we should of course celebrate the knock-on effect of having so many of our great films and television series spring from books that have been written in the UK and by British writers.

Above all, I want us just to celebrate novels. Fiction is so important because it is so easy for us to be trapped in our own little world—the world that we know, are comfortable with and have chosen because we follow certain people and not others. I want people to go into a bookshop and browse. They should browse, and find something they would not otherwise find, or a novel telling a story that they would not otherwise know anything about. I remember reading a book a few years ago about a migrant coming to the UK on a small boat, and it completely changed my understanding of what somebody else’s life might be like. I am sure everybody who is listening to this debate will recognise the experience of seeing life from a completely different angle, because they read a fictional account. It is so important to be able to walk in somebody else’s shoes, empathise and sympathise, and embrace a wider set of possibilities in life. Of course, Jane Austen herself wrote:

“The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid.”

She really did have a point.

I am thinking of instituting something for next year. Next Christmas, when we have a debate like this, nobody should be allowed to take part unless they have read six good novels that were written that year—not just things from 500 years ago, 300 years ago or 100 years ago. No Member will be allowed to take part in the debate unless they have read—bought or from a library—six new novels.

I am going to make four recommendations of my own, all by women authors, from the last 18 months or so. The first is Samantha Harvey’s “Orbital”, which is a magnificent short novel; it is almost like poetry, the way that it is written. The second is Yael van der Wouden’s “The Safekeep”, which I have just finished reading. It is absolutely beautiful; it is set in the Netherlands, and the story is completely and utterly surprising. The third is Maggie O’Farrell’s “Hamnet”, the film of which has just been released. It is so moving and a beautiful rendition of another part of our literary history. The fourth is the book that I finished just before “The Safekeep”: Elizabeth Day’s “One of Us”. If anybody else wants to take part in next year’s debate, including you, Mr Efford, they have to have read six new novels by British authors.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I agree with my hon. Friend that gnats— I would not want to cast aspersions on any other kind, obviously—can be a terrible problem in Scotland.

The aviation industry in the UK is an important sector and is part of one of the key sectors that we have identified in the industrial strategy. We want to ensure that all our advanced manufacturing prospers. It was good to see significant extra investment in GE Aerospace in Nantgarw, made only the other day, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to see how we can drive forward our ambitions in the sector.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The Minister mentioned earlier the disaster of Brexit, and I will add the loss to the UK economy of £250 million a day in tax revenue, according to research from the House of Commons Library. We Liberal Democrats want the Government to focus on a golden opportunity to grow the economy by considering a new customs union with the EU. Is it not time that the Government look at a new customs union with the EU? We will be told that there are deals with India and New Zealand that would be in peril. [Hon. Members: “There are!”] Those are nothing compared with the lost trade with the European Union.

[Chris Bryant]

Far be it from me to agree with a Lib Dem but, broadly speaking, I do. The truth is, as the Leader of the Opposition has now admitted, Brexit was a self-inflicted shock—and not just a small shock. It is as if the Conservatives decided to throw the three-bar electric fire into the bath while it was plugged in and they were sitting in it. The hon. Lady is right: it is a 4% drop in productivity, a 15% drop in trade and a £100 billion hit to our GDP, and there are 16,000 fewer businesses now exporting into Europe. I am sorry but they are not Cinderella—instead, we are having to clear up the mess left by the ugly sisters.

Fairtrade Certification

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Rhodes]

Trading relations become more important in the context of cuts to aid budgets, not just here but elsewhere in the world. Trade and business become more important as means of supporting and helping countries, and of narrowing gaps of inequality globally. There is a separate debate, which we might have at another time, about the levels of aid from the UK and elsewhere, but in the current context, trade becomes more important, not less.

In recent correspondence I had with the University of the Arts London, it highlighted structural challenges that are particularly clear in the fashion and textile sector. The debate so far has concentrated on food, but the university’s analysis shows that, despite strong consumer demand for ethical clothing, uptake of standards such as Fairtrade remains limited because of the lack of regulatory pressure, opaque multi-tiered supply chains and the competitive disadvantage faced by responsible brands. Its research underlines exactly why certification alone cannot fix a market that rewards the cheapest, rather than the fairest, production. We need human rights and environmental due diligence legislation to create that system change.

Some may worry that such legislation is a recipe for more red tape that will hamper growth, but that need not be the case. Many UK businesses already have to follow EU directives because that is where a large part of their market is. We risk becoming a dumping ground for unethically sourced products while our own British companies, following best practice in order to trade with our closest and largest neighbours, are undercut. Some 50 global businesses have already signed statements calling for human rights due diligence legislation, including UK brands such as Tesco, Twinings and John Lewis. Organisations such as the Corporate Justice Coalition are working hard to advocate on the issue by proposing a business, human rights and environment Act.

Current legislation on supply chain transparency lacks effectiveness. Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires companies only to report on their operations, but not necessarily to take responsible actions to address and prevent the problems. Having met the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, I am aware that they are pushing for mandatory human rights due diligence legislation in the UK. I would appreciate the Minister making reference to the commissioner’s work in his response.



Fairtrade shows that ethical trade can deliver; human rights and environmental due diligence would take it from optional to systemic. That said, the lessons of this debate for the Government are not just about the Fairtrade mark, a more ethical tea industry, or even important changes in due diligence laws. As we face a world of pressures and reductions in aid budgets, including our own, it places on us a greater and more urgent responsibility to use progressive approaches to trade and business and to promote progress on human rights, the environment and economic growth concurrently.

I shall conclude on that wider context. With the reductions in UK official development assistance, we should be viewing ethical trade and responsible business as cost-effective ways to put our principles into practice. Principles such as poverty reduction, gender equality and environmental sustainability can all be advanced through strong due diligence laws, and by growing our trade with allies that share the same high standards. But we are also required to take proactive action against regressive trade policies—most notably the use of investor-state dispute settlement provisions, which are mechanisms to allow overseas investors to sue Governments for taking legitimate regulatory decisions in the public interest.

The Government’s recent trade strategy contains very welcome and strong commitments to embedding human rights and environmental practices into our trade policy. I similarly welcome the Government’s responsible business conduct review, which shows their commitment to tackle the issues we are addressing in this debate. Such Government engagement, led by the Minister, is welcome.

The Labour Government was elected on an ambitious programme for workers’ rights and environmental sustainability. This is now an important opportunity for us to put those priorities into practice, not just here in the UK but in our global supply chains. I look forward to the Minister’s response and the rest of the debate.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak. I am going to call the Front Benchers at 2.25 pm at the latest. I do not think I need to impose an official limit on speeches, but it would be brilliant if Members keep their remarks within eight minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) on securing today’s informative and thoughtful debate. All the contributions have been insightful, but I particularly enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) who spoke about the man from Del Monte, taking me back down memory lane. I had not thought about him for a long time, probably not since the ’80s.

This is a timely debate. It rightly draws attention to a topic that has relevance to how the UK positions itself as a responsible trading nation and global partner. Fairtrade certification schemes have become a visible and recognised feature of British consumer life. They are well understood by the public, well supported by major retailers and increasingly used by UK businesses to demonstrate transparency and ethical practices across global supply chains. This debate invites us to reflect on how Fairtrade sits within the wider landscape of British trade and business policy, and how it might continue to support responsible sourcing, environmental sustainability and long-term development goals.

At its core, Fairtrade is a voluntary certification scheme applied to consumer goods such as bananas, cocoa, coffee, tea and sugar. It sets minimum prices for producers, offers a Fairtrade premium to be invested in community projects, and lays out standards on labour rights and environmental protection. The scheme is built on a partnership model between producers in the global south and businesses and consumers in the global north. Over time, Fairtrade has come to play a role in supporting responsible UK sourcing practices. The UK has long been a leading market for Fairtrade goods, and British supermarkets were among the first in the world to adopt the Fairtrade label at scale. The distinctive mark is now found on thousands of product lines sold in every part of the country, from major supermarket chains to small independent stores.

Beyond consumer familiarity, the benefits of Fairtrade certification also flow into business practices here at home. For British companies, certification helps to meet environmental, social and governance expectations from investors and consumers alike. It offers reassurance on the ethical provenance of goods and helps to reduce reputational risk in complex and sometimes opaque global supply chains. More broadly, Fairtrade fits into a wider framework of responsible sourcing in which UK firms are increasingly engaged. For example, the cocoa industry has seen significant improvements in transparency and long-term planning due to Fairtrade and similar voluntary schemes. British food and beverage companies, in particular, have drawn on Fairtrade principles to strengthen resilience and quality across key import lines.

There is also a trade policy angle. Fairtrade is not only about individual transactions; it reflects a broader outlook on how the UK interacts with developing markets. As the Government have observed in the recent trade strategy, trade and development are not mutually exclusive goals. We can support UK business while also encouraging more ethical, sustainable and secure supply chains. The developing countries trading scheme, launched in 2023 under the last Conservative Government, is one such example. It reduces tariffs on goods from low and middle-income countries and allows for easier trade in value-added products, helping to support economic diversification.

The previous Government were also clear that they recognised the role that voluntary schemes like Fairtrade play in complementing formal legal frameworks, such as the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which continues to apply to large UK businesses. In this context, Fairtrade certification can be seen as one of several tools that enable the UK to act as a responsible trading nation, championing higher standards while maintaining competitive access to key goods.

One of the great strengths of Fairtrade is the strong grassroots support that it enjoys. I saw that at first hand earlier this year when I was contacted by my local Reigate Fairtrade steering group to draw my attention to the “Brew it Fair” campaign. The campaign highlighted that, while the Government have committed to protecting human rights and environmental standards by endorsing the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, and by passing the Modern Slavery Act, wages, incomes and working conditions remain inadequate for the majority of the people involved in tea farming. As such, the Fairtrade Foundation called on the Government to introduce a law on human rights and environmental due diligence.

Again, good work was done in that space under the previous Conservative Government. The UK was the first country to create a national action plan to implement the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, which are widely regarded as the authoritative international framework to steer practical action by Governments and businesses worldwide on this important and pressing agenda. More recently, the UK has taken a number of steps through the Modern Slavery Act to ensure that no British organisation—public or private, and unwittingly or otherwise—is complicit through their supply chains in human rights violations. I am sure that the Minister will have more to say on that in a moment.

I conclude by noting that this has been an excellent debate, and I repeat my thanks to the hon. Member for Glasgow North for securing it.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

There is plenty of time, but I remind the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for the hon. Member for Glasgow North to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I suppose, on the whole, I was trying to say that I want to try to take down tariff barriers where I possibly can, so that we can engage in free trade, but that only works when we have fair opportunities underlying it. The hon. Member for Strangford will correct me if I have this wrong, but I think there is a phrase in the Bible about justice and peace kissing one another. Sometimes we strive for justice, but it is not real justice if we do not get peace with it; and sometimes we strive for peace, but it is not real peace if it is not based on justice. That is the combination of Shalom and Tzedek, to use the Old Testament terms, that we are striving for with free and fair trade.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North said, the Fairtrade Foundation has been around for more than 30 years. It has done an amazing job in certification. Indeed, I think there are now more than 5,000 Fairtrade-certified products in the UK, and many of our constituents search them out every day of the week.

I, too, was approached by the Brew it Fair campaign, which has raised specific challenges around tea, including the living conditions of workers, gender inequality and a series of other issues. I praise it for raising those issues and bringing them to everybody’s attention.

I am delighted that Rhondda Cynon Taff county borough council in my constituency was made a Fairtrade county in 2007. It has therefore had a considerable period of time to roll out these policies. I am sorry to keep referring to the hon. Member for Strangford, but he asked about procurement. Of course, procurement is a key issue. We often have discussions in Parliament about what consumers do, but it is also about what the Government do.

The hon. Member is quite right that we produced a new national procurement policy statement in February this year, which lays out new ways in which people can drive this agenda into procurement, on the back of taxpayers’ money. Similarly, the Procurement Act 2023, which came into force on 24 February this year, has a new central debarment list, which Ministers can put people on if they have been involved in modern slavery. In that way, we can make sure the supply chain is cleaner.

Fair trade is not just about the issues I have mentioned. The International Labour Organisation says that, around the world, 28 million people are in situations of forced labour. I am sure that any of us could cite some of the places where that might be true. Similarly, every minute we are losing forest area equivalent to 11 football pitches, which is a challenge to all our climate change ambitions.

Of course, the impact of climate change will be felt most intensely among the poorest peoples on Earth. To see that, we only have to look at places such as the Carteret Islands, off Bougainville in Papua New Guinea, or the outlying poorer lands of Thailand, where some of the very poorest people are in danger of losing their homes, their livelihoods and their access to clean drinking water. Similarly, a million animal and plant species are threatened with extinction, which is a threat to biodiversity, and whether biodiversity loss happens in our country or in any other country, it is a threat to us all.

There are two other issues that have not been referred to much so far today. The first is corruption. The danger of corruption in some political systems around the world, particularly where there is an authoritarian regime, is intense. That is why it is so important that, under the Bribery Act 2010, we have particular responsibilities to ensure that British businesses trading elsewhere in the world are not able to engage in corrupt practices.

The second issue is displaced people, which is slightly different from the issue of forced labour. I remember visiting Colombia in 2018 with ABColombia, where I was struck by two things. First, as we flew over vast territories, I was struck by how much of the land had been taken for palm oil. That massive agribusiness had effectively displaced many millions of people who had lost their property thanks to the activities of militias and the FARC, and the battle between the two.

Similarly, when I went to El Porvenir and La Primavera, which are not far from Colombia’s border with Venezuela, it was striking how people found it very difficult to make a living when they had been deprived of large amounts of their land—they had effectively been living in a warzone for the best part of 20 years. That is why it was so important that, when Colombia was able to bring about peace with the FARC, it was very keen to bring forward the idea of land reform—that work has never really been completed—so people have access to land again and can make a living.

I have a few principles that influence how I look at all of this as we go through the process of our responsible business conduct review. First, I believe in a seamless garment. Again, I am sorry, but that is another biblical phrase. When Jesus was on the cross, lots were cast for his garment because it was seamless. I think it is important that we look at all these issues together, in the round. As I said, it is not just one issue.

This may seem a slightly flippant way of looking at it, but I was watching “Do they know it’s Christmas?” the other day on a Christmas compilation TV show. Of course, it is great because it is dealing with human rights around the world, the lack of clean drinking water and people starving from famine, but I was struck that only three women were asked to take part in the filming of the 1984 version. That could be a test for anybody, but it was the three members of Bananarama: Sara Dallin, Siobhan Fahey and Keren Woodward. That made the point to me that we need to look at all these issues in the round. Gender inequality, human rights issues, corruption and environmental concerns all need to be addressed in the round when we are looking at the whole of our supply chain.

Secondly, I commend the voluntary efforts. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), referred to how the previous Government recognised them, which is true. I think we have all done that, and we have done it for many years. I doubt that there are many MPs who have not been to some kind of Fairtrade event and shown willing.

I pay tribute to Howies, a Welsh clothing company, because sometimes it is not easy to prosper in this world. It is great that the company is owned by its staff—I, too, am a member of the Co-op—and it says that its

“award-winning men’s and women’s clothing is ethically produced using organic, recycled or natural fabrics wherever possible… we want to be a company that does things differently to others—one that does things honestly, responsibly and quietly.”

I think an awful lot of UK consumers would love to be able to think that, whenever they go into a supermarket or any of the major chains, that would be what influences the company they are buying from, going all the way back to the beginning of the supply chain. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that companies are more successful when they adopt that kind of attitude. Consumers like it, so the companies can prosper. For that matter, it also gives a sense of purpose to everybody who works in the company.

Thirdly, as several Members have mentioned, we do not want a race to the bottom. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North said that if we have worse standards or weaker requirements than elsewhere, the danger is that all the least-ethically sourced stuff comes to the UK. It would be a form of ethical dumping—similar to subsidy dumping or carbon dumping—into the UK. We are very keen that it should not happen, so of course we want to work alongside international comparators.

Fourthly, I am very keen for the UK to have requirements that are both effective and proportionate to the harm being dealt with. I have a question in my mind that was raised with me a couple of weeks ago, at a roundtable involving quite a few of the sorts of organisations we have talked about, including the anti-slavery body. I am not sure that having another annual report that is never read by anyone—including the person who wrote it, possibly—would be either effective or proportionate. Reports are costly for an organisation to produce, and they might not make the blindest bit of difference to whether a consumer or the company takes action on this.

Fifthly, notwithstanding that, section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires large organisations over a certain threshold to publish transparency in supply chain statements, and we provided new guidance on that in 2025. As has already been referred to by the Liberal Democrats, some of that is good, but there is a danger that it is just ticking a box, not driving forward change; and I am far more interested in driving forward change than I am in simply ticking boxes.

My sixth point is—there are not too many more, honestly—[Interruption.] I do not know why you are all laughing. We are engaged in a responsible business conduct review, and this debate is a very helpful part of that; it feeds into what we are hearing from businesses, because we want to make sure that what we eventually come forward with will be proportionate and effective. I was asked specifically whether we will also look at mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence reports. Yes, we are looking at how those would work, what would be most effective, and how they relate to requirements for multinational companies in other countries as well.

Seventhly, since we came to power, we have opened the Office for Responsible Business Conduct, which is a one-stop shop for industry. Again, I am interested in driving change, and sometimes businesses do not know where to turn. Smaller businesses might have no idea how to meet the law or best effect the kind of change we are all looking for. The Office for Responsible Business Conduct has a strong mandate there.

I have already referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North and the hon. Member for Strangford—who of course is a friend to us all, as we meet him in so many debates. It was great, too, to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and from the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), and from the man from Del Monte—or rather, from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq); indeed, the one point she did not make was that it would be quite nice if there were a woman in charge. Maybe one day there will be a woman from Del Monte—although I note that Del Monte went into chapter 11 proceedings in July, so it is not clear what state it is in now. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray).

Many of us have effectively given the same speech, because we all feel quite passionately that we want to get these issues right. I know that many people work in retail in the UK in a whole series of sectors; quite a few of our discussions have been about food and beverages or fashion, but the same is true for furniture and other sectors, too. We simply want to get this right, because our aim here in Government is to ensure that British businesses have an opportunity to export and import, and that this is always based on free and fair trade.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I am enormously grateful to the Minister for leaving plenty of time for Martin Rhodes to wind up.

[Martin Rhodes]

First, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. We have covered a lot of common ground but brought a lot of different perspectives to it.

A number of hon. Members, including the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), mentioned community campaigns, which are an important part of Fairtrade. Others, such as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), have spoken about campaigns more generally,.

Other hon. Members have also raised business— my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) talked about what can go wrong when good practice is not in place, while others reflected on where business practice goes right. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) talked about what can happen when things are not done ethically and about the difference that the Fairtrade premium can make when they are.

Others emphasised the input of producers, including my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and Acton and for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch. Those different perspectives show one of the great strengths of Fairtrade: it brings together consumers, producers, campaigners and businesses to look at what can be achieved through certification.

I very much welcome what the Minister said about global connectedness. That is what underpins all this: the recognition that we are much more connected through trade, culture, travel and everything else than we were previously. In some ways, that broadens people’s horizons, and makes them see and understand things that they never previously had the chance to think about or knew existed, and it can help uncover injustices and make action more possible. However, in other ways, we see trading activity that is based on entering into places to deliberately and repeatedly exploit them.

We had some discussion earlier about the aid budget. I, too, look forward to returning to 0.7% of GDP, but as I said, when the UK aid budget and aid budgets across the world have been cut, we must look much more at trade and other means to achieve the principles that we all want to achieve.

The Minister spoke about “free and fair” trade and discussed what that means with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), but it is important to reflect on what was said. We want free trade, but if we free up trade and tear down barriers, and yet the underlying system does not allow for fairness, we will get an unfair outcome. We therefore need to make sure that fairness is embedded, and Fairtrade has shown itself for a number of years to be a proven way of doing trade that is mutually beneficial to all in the supply chain.

I welcome the Minister setting out the principles behind the responsible business review, and I very much welcome the fact that human rights and environmental due diligence are part of that. The Minister made mention of the Bribery Act 2010, which provides a framework for legislation—

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. May I encourage the hon. Member to wind up?

[Martin Rhodes]

I am making my final point, Mrs Hobhouse.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

The normal order is two minutes to wind up.

[Martin Rhodes]

I have only 30 seconds left, and I am on my final point. I welcome the opportunity from including human rights and environmental due diligence, and the Bribery Act offers a framework for looking at how that might be done.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the role of Fairtrade certification in UK business and trade.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that every sector of our economy is at the forefront of the Chancellor’s mind as she stabilises and recovers our economy from the 14 years of chaos and confusion wrought by the Conservative party. I also assure him that there will be no repeat of the mini-Budget that the Conservatives inflicted on our economy, the consequences of which we are still suffering today, which the right hon. Gentleman voted for and supported. We inherited a growth emergency because of the decisions taken by the Conservative party in government. We will recover from it; we will build back better; and we will make sure that every sector, including hospitality, benefits from the great economy we are moving towards.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

One change that would encourage significant investment is UK participation in the EU’s internal electricity market. Energy trading with our closest neighbour is currently hugely inefficient, which only adds to the burden of energy costs that our businesses face. Will the Government put real pressure behind the negotiations that are ongoing with the EU to reinstate our internal energy trading with the EU?

[Peter Kyle]

As the hon. Lady knows, we have put a lot of effort into the reset with the EU. We have built new opportunities for British people and British business, and we will continue to do so.

Hydrogen Supply Chains

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Betts; it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing the debate—I supported the application—and the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) on introducing it so competently.

The UK has established strong foundations for a domestic hydrogen industry, which already contributes £8.4 billion to our economy. Improving hydrogen supply chains could benefit the economy by £18 billion in gross value added and 60,000 new highly skilled jobs by 2050, according to research from Hydrogen UK. Sixty thousand new jobs and £18 billion in gross value added for our economy are not something to ignore.

Sustainable, or green, hydrogen has the potential to drive job creation, economic growth and decarbonisation across sectors currently reliant on high-carbon fuels, and particularly the aviation sector. There is enormous potential for hydrogen in aviation. According to the International Energy Agency, 65 million tonnes per year of low-emission hydrogen must be produced globally by 2030 to meet our net zero targets. Domestically, Hydrogen UK has made it clear that we need 10 GW of hydrogen production capacity by 2030, alongside urgent investment in storage, to more than treble our capacity between 2030 and 2035. We need this infrastructure to reach a final investment decision.

A significant portion of the UK’s hydrogen storage will be for aviation. On a recent visit just north of my constituency, I saw the extraordinary work of ZeroAvia. Its business model is currently built on retrofitting relatively small aircraft, but it has the ambition to expand to medium-sized aircraft. It is absolutely fascinating to see what ZeroAvia has achieved. Backed by the likes of Airbus, British Airways and the UK Infrastructure Bank, ZeroAvia has already achieved world-first flight demonstrations of hydrogen electric engines. It has raised more than $250 million and employs more than 200 people.

ZeroAvia’s hydrogen electric engines are not a distant dream. Airlines are already pre-ordering more than 3,000 units, with commitments from American Airlines, United Airlines and UK operators. These engines can cut aviation’s climate impact by more than 90%, with only water as a by-product. Again, the real beauty of this is that ZeroAvia is retrofitting planes, so we do not have to build new ones. That in itself is an emission reduction. Of all modes of transport, aviation is perhaps the best suited to hydrogen. It is energy-intensive and weight-sensitive, making hydrogen’s high-energy density and efficiency critical. Unlike road or rail, aviation has more limited alternatives.

Hydrogen is not just desirable, it is essential. But we can achieve these things only with better storage solutions, as the hon. Member for Worcester mentioned, lower operational costs and a secure, consistent supply. Producing green hydrogen is extremely energy-intensive and requires a large amount of renewable energy. On average, producing 1 kg of hydrogen consumes around 50 kWh of electricity. This high energy demand means that to produce more green hydrogen, we must drastically accelerate our renewable energy capacity.

That is why I am a little concerned that some renewable energy projects are being pushed out of the grid connections queue, because they are not seen as immediately necessary. That seems a short-sighted approach, and it could hinder our ability to scale green hydrogen production. What we should be doing is oversupplying renewables so that we have a surplus that allows us to not only produce enough green hydrogen but potentially become a net exporter of renewable energy across Europe.

The hon. Member for Worcester also mentioned the need for stronger regulation for the wider applications of hydrogen. The Government must set clear standards for sectors such as domestic heating, where hydrogen boilers still lack the necessary regulation for home use. I know that the Government are a little slow on hydrogen in home heating.

[Tom Collins]

Before coming to this place, that was my exact area of work, and I can assure the House that the current regulatory framework has enabled the certification of these products. They have been shown to be safe; in fact, they are soon to be trialled up in Scotland, in Fife. So some of these barriers have recently been mitigated and reduced very quickly by UK innovation. The opportunity is there now to push forward into delivery.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am glad the hon. Member clarified that. He also made a point about mixing hydrogen. Hydrogen is possibly not the end destination for heating in this country, but it will be extremely important to continue looking into it as a transition and to ensure that the Government do not miss an opportunity. In a recent meeting with Wales & West Utilities, which manages the gas grid in my constituency and beyond, it was explained that hydrogen remains a highly viable option for household heating, particularly if we look into blending.

We should take inspiration from the University of Bath, a national leader in research and innovation. Bath is a key partner in pioneering hydrogen aviation projects such as the hydrogen fuel cell-powered double-decker bus and liquid hydrogen pump technology.

Hydrogen is not a silver bullet, but in aviation it is the fuel of the future. If we back it with the urgency it deserves, Britain can lead the world in hydrogen supply chains, deliver cleaner, cheaper energy, and ensure that our journey to net zero is also a journey towards prosperity and fairness.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) on opening it so well.

The Teesside region already produces much of the UK’s hydrogen, in an economy built on the legacy of ICI, and it continues today with BOC’s Teesside hydrogen carbon capture, usage and storage project. We have the pipelines, the port and the skills, and now the prospect of a new £4 billion net zero Teesside CCUS project linked to the Endurance saline aquifer beneath the North sea. With projects across our industrial cluster, we are well equipped to deliver perhaps a quarter of the Government’s 2030 target.

The potential is huge, representing thousands of construction jobs in the short term, with long-term roles in energy, transport and manufacturing, and the chance to give our young people skilled work close to home. This is about livelihoods and whether young people in Middlesbrough, Redcar, Cleveland, Stockton—my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) is in his place—Hartlepool and Darlington can find skilled, unionised work in the industries of the future, rather than having to leave home to find opportunity elsewhere.

That shift will not happen by accident and needs Government to back British supply chains, to ensure that we build the infrastructure and elements we need here, not overseas. It means putting in specific sector support for industries such as steel manufacturing and construction to adopt hydrogen where it is needed—for example, hydrogen for direct reduced iron. It means ensuring that contracts come with conditions on fair pay, skills and apprenticeships. And it means putting local communities in the driving seat, devolving power and investment so that the people of regions such as Teesside can shape this transition, not just watch it happen from the sidelines.

Given the outsized role the north of England is already playing through the three major clusters, the Government should perhaps establish a regional body—an acceleration forum—to draw together existing work and drive hydrogen development in the north. In any case, pioneering businesses, research partners and regional governments are driving the work forward, and co-ordinating that investment and innovation is important.

I am slightly more cautious about domestic heating, which has been touched on in the debate. That is purely because our region saw the unsuccessful trial in Redcar in 2023, when the public opposed the project in the end. It is important that people are brought along in the process. That is not to say these things are not safe or possible—there are areas of the country where blending works well—but it is about doing this with communities.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I already made the point that we need to take the public with us, but that would be the same for any hydrogen application. Where would we be if people were so concerned about hydrogen that they did not want to be on a hydrogen bus or a hydrogen-powered aeroplane? Is there not a case for educating the public better, rather than abandoning projects altogether?

[Luke Myer]

I can only speak to the public shift we saw in our region. The public are fully behind projects such as hydrogen fuels for public transport, which we are seeing trials of in Teesside. But, for whatever reason, there was much more reluctance over the Redcar trial, and it was not without significant investment in educating people on the benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing the debate, and his able substitute, the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins), for opening it.

With good access to offshore wind resources, the UK is ideally placed to scale up green hydrogen production, and I can see the benefits of that locally. At IAAPs—the Institute for Advanced Automotive Propulsion Systems—which is just outside my constituency, work is being done on green hydrogen production and its uses in the aviation, marine and heavy transport sectors, and in June 2023 I attended the Western Gateway hydrogen conference.

The wider south-west and Wales could offer abundant renewable energy—the Celtic sea has huge offshore wind potential—which can anchor green hydrogen production alongside connected industries that can use the hydrogen. For example, in aviation, progress is being made by companies such as Airbus and GKN Aerospace, which employ hundreds of my constituents, and ZeroAvia, as highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage).

I recognise the importance of the green hydrogen industry for growth and the high-value jobs that it brings for local people, as expanded on so well by, among others, the hon. Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It brings huge decarbonisation benefits for things such as buses, as highlighted by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), and adjacent benefits such as the production of fertiliser, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone).

However, we are not realising the potential for the UK to be a world leader for a number of reasons, as set out in the September 2024 report by Hydrogen UK on the hydrogen supply chain. The level of capital funding that the UK currently provides the hydrogen supply chain does not match the level in competitor regions. It has been slow to respond to a rapidly developing market and has not made the investment in infrastructure or skills needed to take advantage. As the Hydrogen Innovation Initiative has highlighted, the UK must act now.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Since there is a bit of a south-west mafia here, it might be worth mentioning those at the south-west hydrogen hub and to urge the Government to engage with them, because they are doing great work on the provision of hydrogen across the region and the sectors.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

1. What steps he is taking to support small and medium cycle manufacturers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

Small and medium-sized bicycle manufacturers are important for our green growth ambitions. Through the Government’s industrial and trade strategies, we are backing innovation, sustainability and skills development to help businesses, including cycle manufacturers, to scale up so that they can compete globally and continue driving forward the UK’s cycling economy.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I, too, wish Robert a happy next new adventure, Mr Speaker, and I wish Her Majesty the Queen a happy birthday.

The removal of anti-dumping duties on e-bikes from China has raised serious concerns for UK cycle manufacturers, which are mainly small and medium-sized businesses. With similar duties on standard bikes and parts now under review, many UK manufacturers are worried about navigating the complex trade investigation process. Will the Minister meet industry representatives to ensure that the voices of our small and medium-sized British cycling manufacturers are heard?

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.