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.

“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.