Commons Chamber

Wednesday 5th November 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:35
11:35
11:35
None Portrait Q1. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle violence against women and girls. (906206)
-

to publish as soon as possible. This strategy is overseen by the Vawg Ministerial Board. Safer Streets Mission Board and regular
11:35
11:35
11:35
None Portrait Oral questions: Women and Equalities
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Come on. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a former chair of North Ayrshire
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:49
None Portrait Q3. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help increase the female workforce within STEM industries. (906208)
-

Mr.
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:51
None Portrait Q4. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of diversity, equality and inclusion schemes in the public sector. (906209)
-

Jack Rankin.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Welcome. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government is determined to break
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
None Portrait Topical questions: Women and Equalities
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

We now come to Stockton West Gill Furniss. Gill Furniss. Topical one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. Mr. Endometriosis Care. Is in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is in. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In October.
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:12
Jonathan Brash Portrait Mr Jonathan Brash MP (Hartlepool, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. I was correct.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was correct. Jonathan Brash. Mr. speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order! Jonathan Brash. Mr. speaker, my constituents.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, my constituents. Jorja Hart was just 15 years old when she was diagnosed with Friedreich's ataxia, a cruel and Friedreich's ataxia, a cruel and degenerative condition that slowly independence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Since then, her. Courageous parents have battled day in and day out to raise awareness and money to get her the treatment she needs. There is now a drug, Omaveloxolone, which has been drug, Omaveloxolone, which has been proven to slow the progression of the disease. Yet despite this, it's been stalled by nice, partly because the number of patients because the number of patients affected is judged to be above the limit for ultra rare conditions. George and those like are being George and those like are being failed.

Not because the science isn't there, not because the treatment isn't there, but because simply the numbers do not add up. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree? We cannot allow bureaucracy to stand in the way of life to stand in the way of life changing treatment? And will he commit to ensuring that I, along with ataxia UK, can meet the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relevant Minister at the earliest opportunity so that George and her time? Prime Minister.
12:13
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:40
None Portrait Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on HM Government's approach to the worsening conflict in Sudan
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

come to the urgent question. Dame Priti Patel. To ask. The Secretary. Of State for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of State for. Foreign Affairs if she'll make a statement on the government's approach to the worsening conflict in Sudan.
12:40
Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Mr. Mr. speaker, I'm sure the whole House will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House will. Join me in. Condemning the shocking violence. Against civilians in El Fasher.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Against civilians in El Fasher. The latest reports, including 460 civilians being killed in a single civilians being killed in a single attack, are harrowing. This is a this is part of a pattern of appalling violence perpetrated against civilians. And it is just one element of the suffering driven by the war in Sudan, a conflict that has now created the worst humanitarian crisis on record. Over 30 million people need aid and 12 million people have been displaced.

Famine is spreading and cholera is also now widespread, with life saving assistance continuing to be blocked by the parties. As the Foreign Secretary said at the Manama Dialogue over the last weekend, no amount of aid can resolve a crisis of this magnitude until the guns fall silent. The world must do more. The UK is using all tools at our disposal to protect civilians, to get humanitarian aid to those in most need, and to secure a lasting ceasefire in Sudan.

A year ago, the UK, along with Sierra Leone, brought a resolution to the UN Security Council. This would have brought forward concrete measures to protect civilians if it were not so cynically vetoed by Russia six months ago. We brought international partners to London to host the London Sudan Conference to build consensus around strengthening humanitarian access and ending the war. On the 30th of October, we called an emergency UN Security Council session condemning the assault on El Fasher by the RSS and its devastating impact on the civilian population.

We led a press statement to maintain the spotlight on the situation and pressure on the ISF to de-escalate. In line with UN Security Council Resolution 2736 on Saturday, the Foreign Secretary announced a further £5 million in aid in response to the situation in El Fasher fascia, which will provide life saving food and health assistance, as well as support to survivors of sexual violence. This is on top of the 23 million we have already mobilised from existing budgets through partners such as the ICRC and the Sudan Humanitarian Fund.

We are providing £120 million this year to the crisis in Sudan, and both the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have been clear that this funding is protected. We will keep

**** Possible New Speaker ****

working at every level to bring this horrific conflict to an end. Salford Foreign Secretary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Salford Foreign Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting this urgent question. The atrocities of recent days,
12:43
None Portrait
-

atrocities of recent days, including in El Fasher, are beyond horrifying the suffering inflicted on the Sudanese people by this war is an affront to humanity. Red lines have been crossed in the prosecution of this conflict that cannot be allowed to stand, especially by the UK, as a penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council. Britain needs to use its influence to coordinate a robust and stronger international action. To tighten the screws on the warring parties, press them into a ceasefire and end this barbaric conflict.

The government must go further and upgrade our support for those documenting evidence of these heinous crimes. So can the Minister confirm that that will happen? Will the Minister introduce more hard hitting sanctions on the key operators and take concerted action to deter entities, individuals and businesses who support continues to sustain this awful conflict? Our actions of this nature are being coordinated with international partners, and what progress has been made to build up organic civilian political groups so that Sudan can move back to a civilian government after the ceasefire.

It is essential that we have a credible day after plan as soon as possible on the dire humanitarian crisis. Are the change in territorial positions of the warring parties having an impact on the ability to deliver aid, and if so, what is the plan to counter this? We note the announcement earlier this month, I think last week in Bahrain, of the £5 million being provided for emergency aid, support for the survivors of sexual violence in El Fasher, the whole House will recognise the importance of getting aid to them.

So what can the Minister say about the delivery of this urgently needed aid, and how is that happening? What discussions has the UK government had with the Sudan Quad in recent days, and how does the Minister define the UK's relationship with the quad now and moving forward? Can the Minister also share his latest assessment of the region's wider ability to manage the fallout from this terrible conflict, and whether the government has carried out an assessment of what different outcomes from this conflict would mean for the security of the Red sea.

Mr. speaker, those carrying out the atrocities in Sudan need to know that the whole world is watching them. They can see what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they are doing and that there will be consequences. Minister. I thank the right hon. Lady for
12:46
12:47
12:47
12:48
12:49
12:51
12:51
12:52
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:54
12:56
12:56
12:56
12:57
12:57
12:58
12:59
12:59
13:00
13:00
13:01
13:01
13:02
13:02
13:03
13:03
13:04
Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker. It is absolutely vital that external weaponry does not flow into Sudan at this time, as I wouldn't wish to characterise my remarks to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson earlier as dismissing his concerns. It was an effort to be precise about what it is we're talking about. So we're talking about a seat belt. The article in question, a seat belt, a target practice item and components of an engine. Now, those components of an engine may have been licensed at a previous time.

Licences which since would not apply in order to get into Sudan. But it is. We need to be clear. These are neither bombs nor bullets, nor are they items which are likely to be irreplaceable. We are looking very carefully at these reports, but given the given the tone of some of the commentary in this House, I want to be absolutely clear what it is that we're talking about. Our arms export licensing regime is some of the strongest in the world, and I recognise the strength of concerns in the House.

But we have a duty and an obligation to be precise about what it is we are talking about. These are not arms, as the public would understand them. It is right that the hon. Member raises the questions of the engine components, and we are looking carefully at the reports about when they may have been transferred. But let us not be under any illusions that the components for that engine are unlikely to be a substantial contribution to the absolutely devastating violence that we see.
13:06
13:06
13:07
13:07
13:08
13:08
13:09
13:09
13:10
13:11
13:11
13:11
13:12
13:12
13:13
13:13
13:14
13:14
13:14
13:15
13:15
13:16
13:16
13:17
13:17
13:18
13:18
13:18
13:19
13:20
13:20
13:21
13:21
13:21
13:22
13:24
13:24
13:25
13:26
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
statement on The House on this government's plans to renew the national curriculum to secure for every child an education steeped in our rich history, ready to shape our country into the 2030s and beyond. And as I outline the future of our national curriculum, I do so in full knowledge of its past. Because, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was in the first wave to benefit from a process begun by Jim Callaghan with his great education debate, his ambition for a curriculum of universal high standards.

And when Lord Baker introduced a national curriculum for the very first time in 1988, my generation secured a common entitlement to share in the core wisdom that we as a nation value most. Since then, our national curriculum has evolved under successive governments, and now it must evolve again because the world is changing as never before. Artificial intelligence, machine learning Hyperconnectivity where once our young people had to compete, compete locally, the playing field is now global. They are stepping into a world of huge opportunity, but also a world of immense change and challenge, a muddy landscape of misinformation and social media.

And our current curriculum no longer arms them for this brave new world. It lacks the breadth of knowledge and skills our children need, not only for the jobs that they will go on to do, but for the lives they will go on to lead. We need more and they need more because our curriculum sits at the centre of an education system that has forgotten too many children, white working class children, children with send the children who are bright but bored, not engaged as they should be, not achieving as they should.

And that's why I ask Professor Becky Francis and an external panel of experts to review our curriculum and assessment and qualifications to equip every child, every young person, to achieve and thrive. And I want to thank Professor Francis and the whole panel for their hard work and expertise. The Review's final report and our government response have both been published today, and Madam Deputy Speaker will publish a revised curriculum in 2027 for first teaching in 2028. We'll update our GCSEs for first teaching from 2029, and we're planning to deliver new VE level qualifications from 2027.

This government is facing the future, boldly taking our education system from narrow to broad. And that means a curriculum rich in knowledge, strong on skills and in everything that we do, uncompromising on high standards, grounding every child's education in the most important knowledge and disciplinary skills to master every subject more specific on the most important content to sharpen understanding. More coherent in how different subjects slot together to spark connections. A truly world leading curriculum. Supportive, challenging. Urging all children on and be in no doubt I will put high standards to work in the service of every child's future.

And Madam Deputy Speaker, our work starts in the early years through our Best Start family hubs. We're supporting parents as their children take those first steps into learning. We're setting the foundations for their futures, developing language early, expanding the reach of maths champions, introducing children to number early on. And as children arrive at school, they'll begin to master those core subjects, the ones that unlock the rest of the curriculum reading, especially whether it's step by step instructions for a science experiment or a question in maths, reading is essential in every subject.

It adds texture, colour and context, like in history, reading letters from soldiers on the front line of the Second World War. We've got to build that right from the beginning. And that's why we're introducing new training for reception teachers to meet our ambition for 90% of children to reach the expected standard in the phonics screening check. And we'll double our reading ambition for all teacher training for children who need the most help. Reaching more than 1200 primary schools. And we'll train more teachers in 600 schools to help them teach reading fluency.

But Madam Deputy Speaker, together with reading, must come. Writing and speaking. Because in life we all need to express ourselves clearly and confidently, out loud or in writing. In July, we published the new writing framework evidence based Ways to Teach Writing to children. And now we're going further, improving the primary writing assessment to focus on fluency. And we'll design a new Oracy framework supporting children to become assured and fluent speakers and listeners by the time they leave primary school. But Madam Deputy Speaker, too many children are falling through the gaps in that jump to secondary school.

And that includes reading, learning not just to read, but to read well. Must be the entitlement of every child. It is the single most powerful driver of life chances that we have. Yet too often, problems that begin in primary are left adrift in those first years of secondary, the focus fades just when it should intensify. So to make sure every school is on top of this, we're introducing a new statutory reading test for all pupils in year eight. We'll expect all schools to assess progress in writing and maths in year eight as well.

Checking excellence in those vital skills and our new Rise Key Stage three Alliance will spread excellence from one school to the next. All children will benefit from a new combined oracy reading and writing framework embedded across the entire secondary curriculum, and the brand new digital version of the National Curriculum will also help teachers strengthen those connections across subjects and stages. And on these firm foundations, we'll build choice and breadth as children move into secondary school. And that means preparing them to tell fact from fiction, truth from lies, right from wrong.

Our young people need that rich core of knowledge and skills, the high standards that I am determined to drive. But we must take literacy further and wider. The Reformed English Programme of Study and English language GCSE will open students up to a wide range of texts to see how arguments are made across different types of media, to discover the power of persuasion and emotive language in different contexts, and to understand how they can be used not just to educate, but to manipulate.

Exploited by dark forces online to spread lies and sow division. That's why we're building media literacy, preparing young people not to consume passively, but to engage critically, to recognise and reject disinformation. But we're not just boosting media literacy, digital literacy as well, through a reformed computing curriculum to navigate the opportunities and challenges of AI and much more. And financial literacy. To empower young people to make informed choices about money saving and investing. All of our plans to take education from narrow to broad.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we need a fundamental shift in what we value in our secondary schools. And for that, we need a fundamental shift in how we measure attainment and progress to deliver the breadth that we want to see. And that is why today I can announce that we will consult on an improved version of progress eight and attainment eight, because the current structure holds us back on subjects that strengthen our economy and our society, and too often it restricts choice, turning children away from subjects like drama, art and design and music.

Madam Deputy Speaker, our creative industries are a source of such national pride. But as Ed Sheeran has said so powerfully, we can't continue to lead on the world stage without a broad base in our schools. At home, the arts should be for all, not just a lucky few. And we will revitalise arts education, putting it back at the heart of a rich and broad curriculum, and to encourage variety to flourish in our curriculum, we will measure what matters, balancing breadth with a strong academic core, a mastery of the fundamentals combined with student choice, academic excellence on a broad scale in every classroom, art studio, dance hall and science lab, and in those science labs, a new triple science entitlement will give all young people the best opportunity to get to get into exciting new careers in clean energy, digital technologies, and life sciences, building the strongest Stem foundations.

Combining with the new computing GCSE for students to excel in the new advanced digital and AI qualifications. Addressing critical skills gaps in the tech sector. Going further to a new enrichment entitlement for all. Civic engagement, culture, nature and adventure sport. Deepening children's investment in their time at school. But Madam Deputy Speaker, it can't begin and end in our schools. It must stretch from the best Start in Life programme through to the post 16 White Paper. And last month I updated this House on our plan for skills, and much of that is about supporting young people to build on this new curriculum, to make their post 16 choices from a clear landscape of A-levels, T levels and new A-levels.

Clearer pathways through learning and into work, the skills to find a good job and get on in life. Madam Deputy Speaker, Professor Francis and the expert panel have delivered a strong set of recommendations upon which we will now build. Our new curriculum will be an expression of who we are as a modern nation. The knowledge, skills and values and the ideas that will bring us together and take us forward, building on the past to shape the future. Madam Deputy Speaker, for families who have withdrawn from education, the national curriculum will be a chance to rediscover the power of learning once again and for every child across the country.

An invitation not just to share in our national story, but to write the next chapter. And I commend this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

statement to the House. I call the Shadow Secretary of State, Laura Trott.
13:36
Laura Trott Portrait Rt Hon Laura Trott MP (Sevenoaks, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

State, Laura Trott. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I also thank Professor Francis for her work and any criticism of today's announcement is directed not at her, but at the government's response to her review. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do welcome some of the measures announced today. I am pleased that the government has not moved away from our phonics reforms. In 2012, only 58% of six year olds met the expected reading standard.

Today, that figure stands over 80%. Primary school children in England and are the best readers in the Western world. I also note the introduction of a year eight reading test, which I support in principle. Properly implemented, this could help ensure pupils maintain strong reading skills into secondary school. However, the review recommends maths and English tests. So I ask why is the Secretary of State not making maths statutory? However, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have serious concerns that the proposed wider changes will water down standards, lower expectations and divert teaching time away from the core education, which gives every child the best chance to get on in life? The temptation to make the curriculum a repository for every social concern is ever present.

But when everything is a priority, nothing is. If we keep adding and adding, we risk diluting the very core that underpins academic success. There are many things that the government talk about adding in today, but there is little honesty about what will be squeezed out as a result. I hope in her response, the Secretary of State will be honest about what is being taken out, particularly of the primary curriculum. On the specific points. Firstly, the review states that it is vital that schools and colleges are able to innovate and that teachers have flexibility to extend the curriculum.

I agree, but Mr. Speaker. Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government's disastrous schools bill does precisely the opposite by making the national curriculum compulsory for all schools and stripping away teachers freedom to adapt to the needs of pupils. It is nonsensical to talk about innovation while stifling it. She should abandon her assault on academy freedoms. Second, the proposal to reduce the number of exams by 10% on the grounds that I quote only Singapore does more well. Madam Deputy Speaker Singapore also tops the international league tables in maths and literacy.

Surely we should be learning from Singapore's education system, not disparaging it. Thirdly, the abolition of the English Baccalaureate, which we put in place in order to give all children the chance to learn an academic core. Scrapping the EBacc is a backwards step. It will steer pupils away from history and languages, leaving fewer children with an understanding of our national story and fewer equipped to engage in a global economy. The irony is not lost on me that the education secretary herself studied history and languages.

Why is she pulling up the drawbridge behind her and denying more young people the very opportunities that she benefited from? Fourth, her new compulsory citizenship curriculum for primary schools, forcing primary schools to use precious time to teach deprived pupils about media literacy and climate change before ensuring that they can read, write and add up is not going to encourage social mobility, which I thought that they cared about, and it is not clear at all how they're going to make time for this.

What aspects of children's education are being sacrificed for the Secretary of State's political posturing? Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. As for new lessons on digital literacy and misinformation, I feel like a broken record, the education secretary said on the radio this morning. And I quote, I am worried about children spending hours in their bedroom looking at poisonous material that drips hate in their ears. I agree. The right hon. Lady is right and I have a very easy solution. Get smartphones out of schools and ban all under 16 seconds from social media.

That doesn't need a lesson. It's something they have the power to do right now to help children with the vile content they are seeing online. The behaviour issues that we are seeing in schools, social media driven knife crime affects on attainment. I think the Education Secretary needs a lesson on social media harms, not children. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, her changes to school accountability. Professor Francis was clear in her report do not change progress eight she wrote and I quote, we are strongly committed to the progress eight measure.

It supports both student progress and curriculum breadth. We are therefore recommending making no changes yet. This is the review. Yet the Education Secretary has overruled the review, her own independent review. Why? We've been here before. Under the last Labour government, standards fell, ambition shrank and the attainment gap widened. The number of pupils studying core academic subjects halved. Britain slid down international rankings. It took conservative reformers like Michael Gove and Nick cave to turn that around with evidence driven policy.
13:42
13:43
Laura Trott Portrait Rt Hon Laura Trott MP (Sevenoaks, Conservative)
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Lady said at the start that any criticism levelled was levelled my way. But then she went on to criticise many of the recommendations in the review. Has she even bothered to read it at all? And she comes here time and again, every single time, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. And yes, Shakespeare is here to stay on the national curriculum. She tries to paint the report and our response as undoing the achievements in schools.

And nothing could be further from the truth. We are not abandoning it. We are building on it with a curriculum that will allow all young people to achieve high standards. Core academic subjects alongside the breadth that they deserve, and our reforms have higher standards right at their heart. They will raise standards of pupils right across the curriculum, including in speaking and listening, reading, writing and in maths. And our improved progress eight and attainment eight measures will ensure that students retain a strong academic core, but with a breadth to expand into further study.

And she might oppose the changes that we are setting out. But today they have won support from the Sutton Trust, from employers like the CBI and from Sir Hamid Patel, the wonderful leader at Star Academies, who backs the changes that we are making that they signal both a welcome emphasis on creativity, reflecting amazing career opportunities, but with continued affirmation that success in English and maths is critical for everyone's life chances. And I couldn't agree more. Madam Deputy Speaker, we know that it is important that our new measures do
13:44
13:45
Darren Paffey Portrait Darren Paffey MP (Southampton Itchen, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

chances for all of our children. Darren Paffey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I welcome a curriculum review that will break down barriers? It opens up so much of barriers? It opens up so much of the digital and financial literacy that they seem to think is unimportant to all, but we know unimportant to all, but we know will raise aspirations by equipping young people from all backgrounds. I have two questions that I would I have two questions that I would like to ask the Secretary of State. One is on examinations. We know that this country has an examination overload, and I welcome the reduction, the proposed reduction by 10%.

The experts do. I would listen to them before I would listen to them before I listen to the frontbench any day. Their frontbench. But would the if Their frontbench. But would the if you listen you'll hear it. But would the Secretary of State please would the Secretary of State please look at the overall load throughout school, not just GCSE year, and make comments about the introduction of an additional year introduction of an additional year eight diagnostic and how she sees that panning out. And my second question, and I declare an interest as the vice chair of the Modern Languages APPG, we broadly welcome the government response, which is going further than the recommendations that are in there recommendations that are in there and the recognition of importance.

While it is right to scrap the EBacc, which is never really been EBacc, which is never really been taken seriously by professionals, could the Secretary of State please say how she would stop uptake from dropping immediately? What other incentives will there be and how will she? When will she deliver the feasibility review of the very welcome new qualification that is being based on the expertise of languages ladders, which I know the sector welcomes?
13:47
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Where it comes to languages, I share his determination to make sure that more young people have the chance to study modern languages. There is a particular challenge that we face around transition from primary to secondary. The review makes that clear and that is one area for further action. But where it came to the EBacc, I'm afraid it didn't have the outcome that was intended in terms of improving take up of languages. We're no further forward than we were in 2010.

In terms of percentage figures. We aren't any, we aren't any. We aren't any further forward. We are seeing increases in the numbers of teachers coming forward to train in modern languages, and that is welcome. I also believe that a new stepped qualification will provide a useful route for more young people to study languages in order to move on to GCSE, and when it comes to exams and the time, particularly at GCSE, Ofqual have been clear that 10% is more than achievable.

That amounts to two and a half to three hours achievable in reducing the time spent in exams, while at no point compromising the integrity of the high quality and standards of the system. And we will work with the regulator in order to make that happen. We are an international outlier when it comes to the amount of time that our children spend in exams at GCSE, and in terms of the reading test, we will introduce a statutory reading test to make sure that problems are identified and children are supported, and that will run alongside diagnostic maths and writing tests as well, to ensure that children are also making progress in those key areas.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

But if you can't read well, you can't do anything else. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson Munira Wilson.
13:49
Munira Wilson Portrait Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

spokesperson Munira Wilson. Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement, and I thank Professor Becky Francis for her important work on this review. I welcome much of what has been announced today. As with free school meals and maintenance grants, the Secretary of State seems to enjoy adopting many Liberal Democrat policies. I particularly welcome, Madam Deputy Speaker, more enrichment activities and citizenship education, including financial and media literacy. But today, many headteachers across the country will be asking about the how.

How will we fund this when budgets are already overstretched? With specialist subject recruitment targets missed year after year, including in physics, computer science and music, how will we find the subject specialist to deliver this new curriculum, not least the right to triple science at GCSE? Can the Secretary of State set out how she will protect time for other subjects, given the welcome new enrichment, entitlement entitlement? Has she considered using money from falling school rolls to perhaps fund a longer school day? Turning to the Secretary of State's claims about breadth, instead of scrapping the EBacc, did she consider broadening it? And having gone explicitly against Professor Francis s recommendation to leave progress eight unchanged, the government actually risks narrowing choice.

The new progress eight model pits languages against creative arts for the first time, and these two changes put together could mean the death of languages in our state schools. This review missed the opportunity to broaden A-levels. The UK is an outlier in this regard. Combined with the defunding of the International Baccalaureate in state schools. I worry, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this Secretary of State's legacy will be that true breadth actually becomes the preserve of the privately educated.
13:51
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the questions that the hon. Lady asks and the many constructive questions that she posed around triple science. I do think it is important that all young people have the chance to study triple science. We will work with the sector around how we implement that. We are seeing big increases in the numbers of teachers in initial teacher training, including in physics. But there is more to do, and that's why we'll do this carefully and with the sector.

But I don't think we can continue to defend a position where young people from disadvantaged backgrounds don't always have the chance to study triple science, because we know if they have that opportunity, they are more likely to be able to then go on to study A-level science subjects. And I think there is an important social justice consideration that we have to take into account here. And teacher numbers are up and continue to go up. And teacher retention numbers this year are also moving well in the right direction.

On enrichment. I do think that all young children and young people should have equal opportunities to development, opportunities to help them to succeed. That is why we are setting out a core enrichment offer that every school and college should aim to provide. This will be part of our enrichment framework that we will develop with a group of experts across education, youth, sports and arts sectors to set out benchmarks around how schools and colleges can build that. I know that many schools already do this very well, and we want to build on the best success that's out there, but we'll also support that wider provision through, for example, dormant assets, our music hubs, PPE and school sports partnerships and much more besides.

But I do think this is a real opportunity to deliver a step change in how we ensure that all children get a firm foundation in the basics and a wide and broad education. And I would encourage the hon. Lady to look at the document that we set out, explaining the progressive changes that we are recommending, and that we will go on to consult on Sureena Brackenridge. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. Be in no doubt. The difference that this will make, because when our young people make, because when our young people succeed, society as a whole succeeds. So I wish to put on
13:53
13:54
13:54
13:55
13:56
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
No, Madam Deputy Speaker, triple science I as I set out earlier, I think it is important that young people have that opportunity. I do recognise that implementation and the way in which that is delivered will be important and will work with the sector to do that. But the numbers of those entering initial teacher training in subjects like physics have increased massively this year. There's more to do, including through the subject knowledge enhancement that we also want to provide to more to more teachers in other science subjects.

I recognise what he says about computing. It is important to get this right. All of every area where there will be change will be subject to full consultation and with expert input. And computing is one area where I believe we also need to ensure that there is an opportunity to refresh some of the content on a more regular basis, given the pace of change. But yes, of course, making sure that the qualification is rigorous. He talks about the review and welcomes much of their work, and I'm grateful for that.

The review did find, however, that the EBacc measure did not translate into increased study of those subjects at 16 to 19 and unnecessarily constrained student choice, affecting students engagement and achievement. Our revised progress eight measure will balance a strong academic core with breadth and student choice, and I do believe that is the right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

approach. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will consult on the options. Peter Swallow Deputy Speaker and
13:57
13:58
13:58
13:59
13:59
14:00
14:00
14:01
14:01
14:02
14:02
14:02
14:02
14:03
14:03
14:04
14:04
14:05
14:05
14:06
14:06
14:06
14:07
14:07
14:08
14:08
14:08
14:09
14:10
14:10
14:11
14:11
14:11
14:12
14:12
14:13
14:14
14:14
14:15
14:15
14:16
14:16
14:17
14:17
14:18
14:18
14:18
14:19
14:19
14:20
14:20
14:21
14:21
14:21
14:22
14:23
14:23
14:24
14:24
14:24
14:25
14:26
14:26
14:26
14:27
14:27
14:28
14:28
14:28
14:29
14:29
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:31
14:32
14:32
14:32
14:33
14:33
14:33
14:34
14:35
14:35
14:36
14:36
None Portrait Ten Minute Rule Motion: Ferry Services (Integration and Regulation)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

services, Integration and regulation Joe Robertson. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. I beg.
14:36
Joe Robertson Portrait Joe Robertson MP (Isle of Wight East, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. I beg. To move. That leave be given to. Bring in a bill to make provision for the integration of provision for the integration of ferry services with other transport services, for provision about regulating ferry services and for other connected purposes. Our great nation, the United Kingdom is a nation of islands. This country also invented the railways, rail, road and ferries together. Ensure that in every corner of our country there is a place that somebody calls home.

Here there is also a political consensus in this country, stretching back decades, that those who provide public transport do so with certain conditions imposed upon them, and that political consensus has existed regardless of who is in government, which party holds power. So it means that train operators, whether they be soon to be the state or whether they are private companies, must provide services for a fair price that the government has a say over. They must provide timetabling that allows people to move about, regardless of whether that individual train journey is profitable on its own.

And there is law that ensures that those operators must publish performance data. There are similar rules that apply to bus service providers too, but there is no national provision that applies to those who operate ferry services. Ferry services that communities all over the country, be they island communities, be they communities that live along Riverways, rely on for accessing essential services and for employment, employment, and for seeing friends and family and all the things we do in our daily lives.

And that has meant for constituents like mine on the Isle of Wight. And they are just an example, are faced with huge costs to take a car back and forth to the mainland. It means those that want to visit the Isle of Wight have to pay, sometimes up to £400, just to take a car back and forth across a five mile journey. Because private equity groups have taken control of Wightlink and Red funnel, who operate across the Solent and in an in an entirely unregulated market, so they can do what they like, there is no fair competition because the barrier to entering that market for a new provider is simply too high.

And it means that what will, once half hourly services, are now hourly services. So when I arrived in Southampton last week, a minute late for the red jet, Red funnel service to Cowes, I had to wait an hour and ten minutes for the next ferry. Had my predecessor, one of my predecessors, Andrew Turner, who is sitting in the gallery today, done that ten years ago, he would have only had to wait half an hour. Madam Deputy Speaker, in too many places in this country, ferry services are getting worse and there is no mandatory reporting requirement on these companies either.

So we have no objective way of telling whether they are providing a good service other than the anecdotal evidence that people like me are able to present. I am not looking in this bill to put an undue burden on ferry operators. Quite the opposite. I'm looking to end the carve outs that they have enjoyed for too long. A carve out that no other public transport provider benefits from. Madam Deputy Speaker, if I had the owners of Wightlink and Red funnel in front of me now, this is what I would say to them.

We are tired of your methods. We are tired of your rip off prices and we are tired of funding your huge ballooning bank debt interest. You have not done us a favour and you are not doing us a favour. You should be providing a lifeline transport service which the taxpayer gave you money for to stay profitable during Covid. Madam Deputy Speaker, if those ferry companies not just on the Isle of Wight but across the UK, truly believed in a quality service for their passengers, they would embrace regulation just like other transport providers do in other modes of public transport.

Too often when my neighbour, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West, or I make the argument about expensive ferry prices, wightlink in particular come back and say, well, you can cross the Solent with us with a car for £31. But what they fail to admit is only if you pay that company nearly £2,000 in advance and purchase 60 individual tickets. Well, I say, there aren't many people living in my constituency who can afford to give them nearly £2,000 in advance and need to travel necessarily 60 times in a year.

Ferry companies must be straight and not seek to mislead or hoodwink decision makers in this place. When other members and I are talking about how expensive ferry services are and it's not just my constituents, I have had exchanges with the leader of the Council of the Scilly Isles, and we both share the view that our constituents are entirely reliant on ferry services for some educational opportunities, some essential medical services for accessing employment opportunities, things that people on the mainland United Kingdom would take for granted.

There is no reason why we should be beholden to private profit over and above everyone else. I present this bill at a time the government is already moving in this direction in terms of how it deals with rail and how it deals with buses. While I don't necessarily agree, and I don't agree with nationalisation of railways, I do agree with the sentiment and I do agree with the reasons why they are presenting those bills. The Secretary of State has said she wants to ensure better value for money for passengers.

She wants to better integrate different modes of transport, and she wants to stop profit being a priority over passenger experience and connectivity. I invite her to transfer all that sentiment, that good sentiment that she feels about trains and buses onto ferries to and ensure that communities that I serve and others in this place are not left behind. I thank the Maritime Minister for meeting with me, and I know he's met with my neighbour, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West, and I urge them to continue to work with us to look at solutions for my constituents.

And I would like the government to bring in their own regulation for us and devolve those powers if they think it appropriate to a forthcoming mayor. But this bill is more about more than just my constituents or my constituency. It's about ensuring a fair and level playing field across the whole of the United Kingdom.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear. The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the Member have leave to bring in the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I of the country. No, opinion, say I of the country. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the bill? Mr. Richard Quigley, Dame Caroline Dinenage John Cooper at Caroline Dinenage John Cooper at Rebecca Smith Darren Paffey Neil Duncan-Jordan Jess Brown-Fuller Duncan-Jordan Jess Brown-Fuller Andrew George Sian Berry Jim Shannon and myself. Shannon and myself. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Very. Services, Integration and regulation bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regulation bill. Second Reading. What day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

28th of November 2025, please.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

28th of November 2025, please. 28th of November 2025. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the day. Employment Rights Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consideration of Lords message. No. I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege. We will begin with government We will begin with government amendment. Motion to disagree with the Lords in their amendment one b with which it will be convenient to with which it will be convenient to consider all the other Lords amendments and government motions as on the grouping and selection as on the grouping and selection paper. I call the Minister to move government amendment.

Motion to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disagree with Lords Amendment one B Minister Kate Dearden. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker,
14:47
Kate Dearden Portrait Kate Dearden MP (Halifax, Labour )
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker, I'm pleased to return at the. Employment Rights Bill for the consideration of Lords amendments. For the second time, and refer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the second time, and refer members to my register of interests. I'd also like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne for her outstanding work on employment rights and her unwavering advocacy for working people. I know how close this bill is to her heart, and I'm grateful to have her here in support today. I'd also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough for his work and dedication for this significant piece of legislation.

This government's top priority is to grow the economy and improve living standards. Essential to that is the recognition that greater productivity, security and dignity in work help grow the economy. The stronger economic performance our country needs cannot be built on the backs of people in insecure work. For too long, employment law has failed to keep pace with the fundamental changes to how, when and where we work. It is time to build a modern industrial relations framework fashioned on the principle of social partnership.

That's consent and consensus must replace disputes and conflict in modern employment relations. That's good for workers and good for business. Both suffer when one employer is undercut by another, using reduced terms and conditions of service for their employees. Sustainable economic growth cannot be built on unfair competition and insecure employment. The Employment Rights Bill extends the employment protections currently enjoyed by some employees in the best British companies to workers across the country. By doing so, work will become more secure and predictable while strengthening the foundations that underpin a modern economy today.

This bill will back businesses who already do the right thing and give hard working people the job security and opportunities that they deserve. It's in tune with the times and in keeping with how the world of work is changing. Industrial relations law in this country must move from the 20th century to the 21st. It has to recognise that certainty and security are essential for people at work. That the best relationship between employer and employee is best exemplified by fairness and trust.

Within a framework for recruitment and retention that values both, and that dignity at work is as vital to the effective functioning of modern society as the dignity of work. There will be some that seek to use this issue to entrench the idea that employers and employees have opposing interests that must always, inevitably result in dispute and strife, and I reject that view. The very best trade unionists know, as do the best employers, that that only represents failure for this Labour government. Success is to be measured not in division, but in the shared economic growth that we achieve, the opportunity and security we build and the prosperity we create.

And that is at the heart of this bill. Today, I'm asking the House to reaffirm its support for this important legislation as we move through the latest round of parliamentary ping pong. We have listened carefully to the concerns raised and in response to, where possible, we are offering amendments in lieu that we believe strike a fair and workable compromise to the amendments made to the bill. At the same time, while we appreciate the range of perspectives offered, we will be unable to support certain amendments that conflict with the fundamental principles of this bill and may compromise its intended impact.

First amendment one be related to zero hours contracts. We acknowledge that this amendment, in lieu put forward by the Other place is intended as a compromise. It proposes a shift from a full right to request model to one where employers must notify workers of their right to a guaranteed hours offer and make a guaranteed hours offer unless the worker declines or opts out. I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, however, as a drafted, it would undermine the bill's core aim of extending exploitative contracts, of ending exploitative contracts and providing security for workers who need it most.

Therefore, we cannot accept the amendment in lieu. The government is committed to ending one sided flexibility so that workers are not left guessing about their hours or pay. These reforms reward fair employers, modernise the system and will come with clear guidance to help everyone prepare for employers. Clearer expectations mean better staffing and lower recruitment costs through improved retention. We also appreciate that some groups, including younger workers, value the flexibility of zero hours contracts. That is why workers will be able to decline a guaranteed hours offer and remain on their existing arrangement, if that works best for them.

The government is also committed to supporting young people into work. The youth Guarantee will include a targeted backstop where every eligible unemployed young person on Universal Credit for 18 months without earning or learning will be provided guaranteed paid work. The scheme forms part of the government's aim to provide targeted support for young people at risk of long term unemployment, and further details were confirmed at the Autumn budget. Following further engagement, including with employers turning to amendment 48, be in lieu in regard to seasonal work, the government recognises that work in certain sectors fluctuates seasonally, seasonally and there are ways in which employers may account for this and remain compliant with this legislation.

For example, employers may use annualised hours contracts, which offer variable numbers of hours at work at different times of the year. Additionally, the bill has already drafted allows guaranteed hours offers to take the form of limited term contracts where reasonable. For example, a fruit picker could be engaged on a contract tied to the end of the picking season. In such cases, after the initial reference period, the employer would only be required to guaranteed hours for the duration of that limited term contract rather than on a permanent basis.

The bill also already provides powers to address seasonal work through regulations, ensuring flexibility as workforce needs evolve. Consultation with employers, trade unions and stakeholders will take place before such regulations are made. We therefore do not support this amendment. Madam speaker, turning to the issue of unfair dismissal laws, amendments 23 and 106 to 120 proposes returning a qualifying period for unfair dismissal of six months. These have now been returned to this House, as the Other place has insisted on its amendment.

We remain committed to delivering unfair dismissal protections from day one. Not two years, not six months, but day one. A clear pledge in our manifesto, which will ensure around 9 million employees who have worked for their employer for less than two years are protected from being arbitrarily fired. Crucially, day one protection from unfair dismissal will not remove the right of businesses to dismiss people who cannot do their job or pass a probation. But it will tackle cases of unfair dismissal where hard working employees are sacked without a good reason.

A six month qualifying period threshold still leaves employers exposed to dismissal without good reason in the early months of a new job, and that is why the government cannot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accept the Lords amendments to maintain a qualifying period. For giving way. Does she.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does she. Not listen. To the voices of business and business organisations who say that doing what the government proposes will make it less likely that younger people, people who are riskier to take on for a job, will be likely to get a job in the first place. Why does she think she knows better than employers and people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

better than employers and people who actually create jobs for people in this country? Minister. I thank the hon. Gentleman for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Yesterday I was with the retail, hospitality, the Hospitality Sector Council and listened to all the brilliant work listened to all the brilliant work that they do provide an opportunity to employment for young people all across this country. Indeed, it was across this country. Indeed, it was my first job in a cafe and providing that opportunity, employment and ladder to work the absolutely significant opportunities for young people opportunities for young people across the country. And that's why this bill is working in alignment with all the other really crucial work that the government is doing work that the government is doing when it is the youth, where it is the youth guarantee and unfair dismissal, as I've outlined.

It simply isn't fair that hard working simply isn't fair that hard working employees working for 18 months could be unfairly dismissed and have that instability and unpredictability in their jobs. unpredictability in their jobs. It's simply not fair. Dismissal from a day one rights gives financial security people who don't have it. And we are striking that balanced approach by introducing statutory probation period and that government we've mentioned the government's preference for that is to be nine months and engaging in consultation and in next steps on the light touch standards.

It ensures in the early months of employment that employers can dismiss employees who might not be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

performing or might not be suitable, and take the and tackle the causes of unfair dismissal. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ian Lavery thank you very much for giving way with regards to support for this. 73% of employers support for this. 73% of employers support giving employees protection from unfair dismissal. This is the day one rights. That's according to the I paper in the TUC research. the I paper in the TUC research. Also, 83% of managers agree that improving workers rights can and improving workers rights can and does positively impact workplace productivity. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is extremely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agree that this is extremely important research and something which we should listen to? Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and he raises an excellent point about research and providing employees with security providing employees with security at work results in a happier workforce, and that helps with our productivity. And that helps productivity. And that helps businesses across the country and our economy. And reflections that he has made, and the importance he has made, and the importance that this bill will have in workplaces across the country, is providing that flexibility and security for people across the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

security for people across the country is absolutely vital for our productivity. And that is the economy. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I will. Refer to the nine month probationary period, as opposed to the six month unfair dismissal period. Does she recognise the report from the Resolution Foundation, which has certain favour on the Treasury front bench? In normal times says that this is a messy compromise. Risk. Confusion for employers makes the risk of them not taking on the people. That was the point I was making the hospitality sector. 20% of jobs in my constituency are in the hospitality sector.

They are not taking people on because of the increase in the jobs tax. They're not going to take on even more people because of these increased costs. Does she not realise the confusion that is going to come from having this messy period, which is not on the face of the bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. As we have said from the start, the implementation of the start, the implementation of day one, unfair dismissal rights will be done with a light touch, and I'm really keen to work with employers across the country, including the hospitality sector. I've said, who have a really key role of employing our young people and providing opportunities and and providing opportunities and working with all stakeholders in terms of next steps and implementation. As he knows, as is the case with lots of employment the case with lots of employment rights legislation, and we are setting the foundation here in this crucial bill, and there are lots of details to work through in details to work through in consultation, which I'm absolutely committed to do.

The framework will be founded on the principle of be founded on the principle of social partnership that consent and consensus must replace dispute and conflict in modern employment conflict in modern employment relations, and that will ensure maximum flexibility. So the new framework works effectively for employers and employees in each employers and employees in each sector of the economy. And we also implement the minimise the cost of its implementation and operation. its implementation and operation. The government is committed to ensuring that employers can hire with confidence and, as I've said, introducing that statutory introducing that statutory probation period enables employers to fairly assess new hires performance and suitability for the role they've been hired for.

Most role they've been hired for. Most employers already use contractual probation periods of six months or less, and the government has been clear that our preference again, to clear that our preference again, to reinstate is the probation period to be nine months long. That allows for a standard six month term, with the option to extend supporting employee development without compromising operational needs. We have heard the calls to ensure that this framework reflects practical considerations that have brought forward an amendment in lieu to address this.

I place a statutory duty on the government to consult on key aspects of the framework, and this guarantees meaningful input from both employers and employees, giving all stakeholders a direct role in shaping the legislation to make sure it's practical and fair approach. Additionally, we are tabling a further amendment in lieu, which makes technical changes to the words restored to the bill by a rejection of the Lords amendments. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will go.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Back, my friend, for giving way. Does she agree with me that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does she agree with me that this bill provides vital protections to those in our workforce, but also gives that certainty that our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

businesses need in order to grow and grow our economy? Yeah. I completely agree with my hon. Friend and thank her for her intervention. We are creating security for people across this country, but crucially, ensuring country, but crucially, ensuring that employers who do the right thing for their employees, who go above and beyond many of the items in this bill and policies in this in this bill and policies in this bill to ensure we do have that level playing field that's good for our economy, it's good for competition for lots of businesses competition for lots of businesses who might be undercut by those who aren't playing by the rules.

So I completely agree and thank her for intervention. Madam speaker, we've also heard concerns around the pressures on the employment tribunal system, and I want to briefly speak to those. We'll be setting up a task force to support us in fixing the employment dispute system, so that it's better for system, so that it's better for both workers and businesses. The task force will have balanced representation from both unions, businesses and other experts, businesses and other experts, including community organisations. Moving on to the amendment in lieu on heritage railway, a heritage on heritage railway, a heritage rail tabled in the other place, the government agrees with the principle of this amendment and has principle of this amendment and has tabled an amendment in lieu which captures the intent whilst refining the drafting, to provide more clarity and ensure that the legislation works as intended.

The government's amendment, which has been tabled with the support of sponsoring peers Lord Parkinson, Lord Faulkner, places a statutory duty on the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to produce guidance supporting 14 to 16 year olds volunteering on heritage railways, and I'll give. For Giving.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For Giving. Word I rise as the co-chair. Of the All-Party parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail alongside Richard on Heritage Rail alongside Richard Faulkner, and I would like to express my thanks to the government for bringing forward this amendment and recognising that volunteering with Heritage Rail for young people the ages of 14 to 16 is immensely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the ages of 14 to 16 is immensely useful experience and I'm glad that we're now doing this. 12 months assessments with guidance. Yeah. Well done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well done. I thank the hon. Member for her contribution and for working with us and for her support throughout us and for her support throughout throughout the Bill. And I understand her passion and work in this area. The guidance, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, will offer a clear benchmark for reasonable activities and assist inspectors in activities and assist inspectors in enforcement decisions. The government is committed to this work, as you will know, with work, as you will know, with publication targeted by the 31st of March 2026, and we believe that this collaborative effort would provide practical guidance that provide practical guidance that empowers children to engage safely and meaningfully in heritage railway volunteering.

Madam Deputy Speaker, turning to the issue of political funds, Lords Amendments political funds, Lords Amendments 61 and 72 seek to remove clause 59 from the bill. That clause reverses the Trade Union Act 2016, which we committed to repeal. Requirement for members to opt in to political funds. This therefore reinstates the long standing arrangement, where members are automatically included unless they choose to opt out. Removing clause 59 would break that commitment to restore balance and fairness in union operations. The opt in system introduced in 2016 added bureaucracy without improving transparency or strengthening members choice.

And to be clear, we're not removing that choice at the point of joining. Every new member will be clearly informed on their application form that they have the right to opt out of contributing to a political fund, and this form will make it plain that opting out has no bearing whatsoever on any other aspect of union membership. And that's why the government cannot support these amendments. We have heard reflections around how opt out notices would take effect, and have tabled an amendment in lieu to refine this process.

Under the 2016 legislation, an opt out notice was effective on the 1st of January, following the year in which it was given. Under the government's amendment, opt out notices will now have effect on either the 1st of January or the following year, after it has been provided, or on a date specified or determined in the rules of the Union. Whichever of these dates come first. This provides unions with flexibility in the legislation to act more quickly and process the member's request to opt out, without having to wait until the subsequent 1st of January to do so.

And in practice, unions already do this. We will also commit today to engage with unions directly, to continue to make clear our expectation that opt out notices can be honoured as swiftly and practically as possible, and our amendment is simply about ensuring that legislation matches what has been the established practice. And finally, turning to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the issue of industrial, I will go. And I hope that that the Minister has referred to this Minister has referred to this already. But if she has, it's one of the questions I get from my my of the questions I get from my my businesses all the time. Does the Minister acknowledge that small businesses who don't have HR departments can find these waters departments can find these waters very hard to navigate legislatively? And while we do need strong And while we do need strong employment rates, and I support the the the objective, we need to ensure that there is support for employers who firstly know how to do something right and also to defend themselves, because sometimes they have to do that without paying solicitor's bills, which are costly and detrimental to the business.

I would very much

**** Possible New Speaker ****

like to the Minister perhaps would give me some reassurance on that. Please. Thank you. I thank the hon. Member for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. I come from a small business family. It's close to my heart in the hospitality sector, heart in the hospitality sector, and I've had the pleasure in the first eight weeks of this role to meet with many small and large meet with many small and large businesses, and I made it really clear our determination to work closely with them on the implementation of this legislation, implementation of this legislation, and to work as closely with them to make sure that they're prepared for the changes when they come.

We've the changes when they come. We've we've already published our roadmap earlier this year and have committed and stick to that which has been welcomed by lots of businesses, small and large, to finally. Madam Deputy Speaker, turning to the issue of industrial action, ballot thresholds, Lords Amendment 62 seeks to remove clause 65 two from the bill, which would retain the existing 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. The government does not support this amendment. Clause 65 removes an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle and aligns union democracy with other democratic processes, such as parliamentary votes and local elections, which do not typically require turnout thresholds but are still accepted as legitimate as a period of disruption under their watch between 2022 and 2024 has shown bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes.

This government's approach will foster a new partnership of cooperation between

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trade unions and employers. Minister. Thank you for giving way. Does she think if this provision is introduced, there will be more or less strikes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

less strikes. Strikes? I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Strikes were a failure of Tory Strikes were a failure of Tory government that stopped listening and to be quite frank, the government that stopped working. So I won't be taking any further I won't be taking any further interventions for them. We want to create a modern and positive framework for trade union legislation that delivers productive and constructive productive and constructive engagement, respects the democratic mandate of unions, and works to reset our industrial relations.

We reset our industrial relations. We nonetheless recognise that this issue has generated debate, which is why the government has tabled an amendment in lieu which will amendment in lieu which will require the Secretary of State to have regard to any effects of the introduction of electronic balloting on the proportion of balloting on the proportion of those entitled to vote in industrial action ballots who actually do so. We have previously committed to aligning the removal committed to aligning the removal of the threshold with the establishment of balloting as an option for trade unions, and this amendment gives statutory effect to amendment gives statutory effect to that commitment and makes it explicit in the underlying legislation.

In having regard to the effects of balloting, the the effects of balloting, the government will monitor and assess the practical impact of balloting on participant research and the 50% on participant research and the 50% threshold. Madam speaker, to conclude, I urge hon. Members to support the government's motion before the House today, including our amendments in lieu, which are part of a package that strengthens rights and reflects the value we place on fair work. We have listened throughout the Bill's passage and made meaningful changes where needed, and we will continue to listen to all relevant stakeholders as we move into implementation.

We are committed to full and comprehensive consultation with employers, workers, trade unions and civil society. And as set out in our Implementing Employment Rights Bill roadmap, we are taking a phased approach to engagement and consultation on these reforms. This will ensure that stakeholders have the time and space to work through the detail of each measure, and to help us implement each in the interests of all. This is a win win for employers, employees and a more competitive British economy. I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move here. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disagrees with the Lords in their amendment. 1BI call Shadow Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Act in haste. Repent in leisure has never been wiser advice than in respect of this bill. It is a rushed bill that was half baked when it was introduced, and has got when it was introduced, and has got worse since. It's failed. Every test of scrutiny from the Lords test of scrutiny from the Lords Regulatory Reform Committee to the Constitution Committee, to its low balled impact assessment. And on the day that the Mayfield report outlines the scale of the challenge outlines the scale of the challenge we face on Worklessness, it will create generation jobless.

Every create generation jobless. Every family in the country will know a son, daughter, niece or nephew who son, daughter, niece or nephew who can't get work as a result. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire reminds us, every Labour government leaves unemployment higher than when they started, but only this one has actually legislated for it. The Minister asks us to disagree with Minister asks us to disagree with all the main compromise amendments from the other place. If she wished to listen to stakeholders, now would be a fantastic moment to start her motions to disagree.

Seek to reject sensible compromises on qualifying periods, seasonal working, guaranteed hours, strike thresholds and opting in to political funds. Who will be the victims if the motions are carried today? Well, young people, the neurodiverse, those with a disability, female returners to work the over 50s and former prisoners. Some of the most vulnerable groups in society who deserve their chance in life, their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shot at employment, a job. I'm grateful for him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for him. For giving way. Yesterday he said that the Conservatives and I quote, will repeal those. Most.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Most. Damaging elements of the Employment Rights Bill. Could he inform us which elements of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inform us which elements of the bill they therefore would retain. Very fat? Well, we'll have our work cut

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, we'll have our work cut out. With its 330 pages, 122,000 words and the benches, the benches opposite, madam Deputy Speaker, seek, seek to hide behind measures seek, seek to hide behind measures that we support, such as enhanced maternity rights. But does the hon. maternity rights. But does the hon. Member care to care to tell me how many times the word maternity many times the word maternity appears in this bill, and how many times his paymasters? The word

**** Possible New Speaker ****

times his paymasters? The word union appears in this bill? No, no. All right. Sorry, I didn't realise that that was that was a realise that that was that was a genuine offer. I don't have the control function in front of me at control function in front of me at this moment on the word count. But again, I would be interested in hearing an actual answer to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hearing an actual answer to the question that I posed. To him. All I will say is that as his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire said Committee, trade union associated MPs have been assiduous at declaring those donations. I think only one member of his side has declared an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

interest throughout all these incredible. Hear, hear!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, I trust that you'll want all members this afternoon to declare any relevant afternoon to declare any relevant interests, and I have none when it to. To answer the question, he to. To answer the question, he didn't manage to answer the word maternity. The word maternity appears in this bill three times. The word union appears in this bill The word union appears in this bill 478 times. Follow the money. Madam Deputy Speaker, with with unemployment, with unemployment higher every month, listen and learn with unemployment higher every month, this will be your every month, this will be your legacy with unemployment higher every month of this government.

every month of this government. It's a bleak time for those trying to find work. The independent ONS to find work. The independent ONS estimates that vacancies are down by 115,000. Since this government by 115,000. Since this government came to office, 41% of graduates graduating in 2023 were not in full graduating in 2023 were not in full time work. 15 months later, and it's estimated that almost half of the top 100 UK employers have reduced their graduate intake. In fact, graduates are competing for so few jobs that one getting a job is as improbable as spotting a member opposite who has not received a union donation.

But it's not just we've we've lost the we've lost the speaker. No, we haven't lost the speaker. It's not just graduates. Madam Deputy Speaker, for many, seasonal work is the first opportunity to get a foot on the career ladder. Yet this bill, in its current form, forces hospitality businesses or anyone who relies on seasonal workers into an impossible position. It's why we are supportive of the Lords compromise amendment that would allow employees to who need flexibility across the calendar year, to continue to do so.

What could be so objectionable about that? Incentives, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I declare, refer the house to my register of interests. And to my register of interests. And and he's talking about seasonal work. Has he thought about the work. Has he thought about the impact on young people of so-called zero contract hours, the pressure that brings on them in living a decent life, in being able to plan decent life, in being able to plan for the future? I was at a conference last week talking about mental health in the workplace, mental health in the workplace, something that they're concerned about and actually zero hours about and actually zero hours contracts.

Flexible working is really difficult for young people,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and we need to address their concerns as well. Look, mental health is a huge

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Look, mental health is a huge issue and I think across the House we would agree on that. And the Mayfield report this morning is just one of many contributions to that debate. But for so many and this goes to reform of our welfare this goes to reform of our welfare system as well. For so many, the right answer will be to be an right answer will be to be an employment. And the Mayfield report talks about creating barriers to employers giving young people a employers giving young people a chance.

And of course, there will be some challenges with any form of contracted employment, whether it's zero hours, which many people find a very flexible way of combining work with study with parental responsibilities or other. But the way to try and solve that challenge across this House is not to have a clunking fist of regulation, dictating and providing perverse incentives, maybe unintended consequences that mean employers simply won't take a chance on those young people at all. They won't even get that first step on the ladder of employment.

But I understand the hon. Lady's concerns
15:14
Andrew Griffith Portrait Andrew Griffith MP (Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)
-
-
and contributions are well meant, and that is why it would be so much better if we were to collectively better if we were to collectively approach the bill this afternoon, after so many hours of debate in committee in this place and the committee in this place and the other, if the government were to show some compromise to help mitigate, not shelve the bill as I might prefer, but to mitigate some of the very worst damage that will manifest itself in fewer jobs, fewer opportunities, and some of the most vulnerable, finding it the most vulnerable, finding it very hard to get into work.

Faced with the the prospect of a higher with the the prospect of a higher going wrong when an employer takes a chance takes a risk. Faced with a chance takes a risk. Faced with the consequences on day one of an employee being able to turn up in employee being able to turn up in the morning and before lunch, file a claim with an employment tribunal that will put that business at the that will put that business at the back of a two year queue behind.

Behind 491,000 open claims at the employment tribunal. It's staggering. It's staggering. Madam Deputy Speaker, we're in talking Deputy Speaker, we're in talking about the bill. When the queue for that tribunal in many parts of the that tribunal in many parts of the country stretches out for two years long, incredibly expensive. Justice deferred is justice for nobody. And why not focus much more of our endeavours on trying to fix that issue? It's one reason why every single major business group, and I'd be very happy to be intervened upon if there's any real business groups, not the Ipbr and the TUC, but if there are any real business groups that the Minister or anyone else would like to cite in defence of this bill that supports it in its current form, I am all ears because it is not the federation of small business.

It is not the British Chambers of Commerce, it's not the Confederation of British Industry. It's not make UK, the Institute of Directors, UK hospitality, the British Retail Consortium and so many more. I ought to give way here. First.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The answer to your question is the Chartered Management Institute. Yeah. Well I'm glad, I'm glad. I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well I'm glad, I'm glad. I'm glad we found one. That's I've not had any representations. I've not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

had any representations. I've not Yeah. For given we are part of the shadow Minister showing how much he shadow Minister showing how much he absolutely despises the trade union movement in ordinary working people. I must by the way, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I must by the way, Madam Deputy Speaker, declare must. Oh! Oh, hey! Oh, Ian Lavery.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh, Ian Lavery. Must declare an interest. The financial interest, with regards to my connection with the trade union my connection with the trade union movement, I'm a very proud member of the trade union. I'll tell you in response to what the shadow Minister said about support for the Employment Rights Bill, it was a Employment Rights Bill, it was a manifesto pledge in the British public, voted in the millions to support the Labour Party, to put

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support the Labour Party, to put this manifesto pledge through in its entirety. And guess what? That's what we're doing. Hey, hey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hey, hey. Mr. Speaker, I ask the member to withdraw that I don't despise trade unions. Not a single word I have ever said at the despatch box indicates anything of the sort, and indicates anything of the sort, and I'd ask you to get the member to withdraw that comment. It's not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

worthy. It's not worthy of him. Right?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right? Right. Well, I hope we would conduct this debate in a better form. I support people's rights to form. I support people's rights to trade unions, well-regulated trade unions. For 30 years, the party opposite accepted a broad consensus of the balance between the rights of workers and the rights of employers. Tony Blair never sought at any point to reopen the balance. That consensus that has served this That consensus that has served this country well, and it does no one, any any service to render people any any service to render people unemployed.

I'll give. I should give way to the the member did do so much service on this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

so much service on this bill. Grateful to the shadow Secretary for giving way. I'm pleased that he's learned to count now. He must

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he's learned to count now. He must have improved. His skills. Since his time. Under Liz Truss. In.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Treasury. But he talked about the consensus. Over 30 years, but wasn't his his government that but wasn't his his government that introduced the Trade Union Act 2016 did so much to damage the trade union relations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Exactly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Exactly. That's. No, no, I'm trying I'm I'm I'm trying to be generous to the hon. Gentleman for whom this bill is part of his his legacy. Before he was so rudely fired by a bad boss without any notice. Yeah, it's not unreasonable. It's not unreasonable. We consider on this side of the House to say that a strike must be supported by a mere quarter of workers in order to be valid, and I don't think the Labour Party would claim a would claim the mandate that the hon.

Gentleman was talking about on the votes of merely a quarter. Yeah, I'll give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member isn't. Being very clear. Does he like the pre 2016 trade

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he like the pre 2016 trade union regime, which is the one that this bill takes us back to. Or does he like the post 2016 trade union he like the post 2016 trade union regime, which is the one that he seems to be advocating, except for when he talks about the 30 years of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

settled consensus? Which is it because it can't be both. We on this side of the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We on this side of the House seek to respect the role of trade unions, but in a flexible workplace where we see growth in the economy where we see growth in the economy and unlike what we see today, we see more people in jobs rather than see more people in jobs rather than fewer people in jobs. That doesn't help anybody at all, least of all a government that claims its number government that claims its number one obsession is about growth. And that is not an unreasonable position.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, position. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, not for the first time, I think Ministers have got themselves in a Ministers have got themselves in a bind. The Secretary of State for business is going around telling business groups he's listening, but business groups he's listening, but every one of them is against this bill for what the health secretary has been saying privately, it's clear he's no fan of giving more power to militant unions to call power to militant unions to call low turnout strikes.

The welfare secretary has commissioned reports on getting people from welfare into work. And those reports talk about not disincentivizing employers from hiring. And there are Treasury Ministers. Are they really looking forward to the OBR next week scoring the impact of this bill, when some independent estimates are that it could shave up to 2.8% off GDP? The Chancellor likes to blame everyone from the dinosaurs onwards for her failure, but this one will definitely be on her. The looming disaster of this bill is the truth that dare not speak its name.

It may be a triumph for the right hon. Member for Ashton under Lyme, but it is a disaster for Britain. It's bad for business, bad for growth, and bad for jobs. Far from furthering workers rights, it punishes those who want a job. You do not protect workers by bankrupting their employers. Even the government's own allies are warning them against this bill. Those on the benches opposite have a choice today. They can stand by and watch as their government brings into law decades worth of economic stagnation.

Or they can be on the side of the young, the vulnerable and the enterprising. History will remember this moment because when unemployment skyrockets, when businesses shut their door, when young people stop believing, stop hoping no one on the benches opposite will be able to say they weren't warned.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Angela Rayner. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And firstly, first, let me refer hon. Members to my entry of members hon. Members to my entry of members interests. I am proud to declare an interest as a lifelong trade unionist and in the labour movement unionist and in the labour movement as well, which has helped me to get to where I am today. And I want to start by placing on record my start by placing on record my thanks to the hon.

Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough and Ellesmere Port and Bromborough and all those colleagues in the other place who spent so many late nights
15:23
Angela Rayner Portrait Rt Hon Angela Rayner MP (Ashton-under-Lyne, Labour)
-
-
place who spent so many late nights working on this bill. And I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax to the frontbench. She was amongst the many trade union leaders who helped develop this bill before it came to this place. Unlike the shadow Minister, who thinks it was cooked up on the back of a packet, it was years of millions of union members and ordinary people of this country

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that have faced the decimation, decimation since their bill in 2016. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. And I offer my support to my to my support to the hon. Friend for finishing her job because this finishing her job because this House will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this bill is unfinished business. I started my unfinished business. I started my working life as a carer on casual terms, not knowing if there was going to be a paycheque month to going to be a paycheque month to month. It was because of a good unionised job with decent conditions that my life and the life of workers that I represented had changed.

And as I toured the had changed. And as I toured the country in the election campaign, in every community, I heard from so in every community, I heard from so many who were in the same position, they wanted change, they wanted they wanted change, they wanted fairness, and they wanted respect at work. That's why when we at work. That's why when we promised to deliver the biggest upgrade in workers rights in a generation, we meant it. And the shadow Minister is very clear from his opening remarks and what he his opening remarks and what he said, as this bill has been passing through this House, that the Conservatives don't want to improve Conservatives don't want to improve working people's lives.

And in fact, I think it's very clear that in his submission today, let's just face it, wants to water it down. And when the Minister shadow Minister mentioned the state of tribunals, Madam Deputy Speaker, I nearly fell off my chair. I cannot believe the Shadow Minister can even say that with a straight face after the state in which the Conservatives have left our justice system. And I won't even talk about the economic mess they left us in. And now, despite the fierce criticism, Madam Deputy Speaker from the parties opposite and the relentless lobbying from vested interests, I'm proud to speak in this debate as we deliver nothing less than a new deal for working people.

Madam Deputy Speaker, every time that we have made progress on employment rights over the last 45 years, they have been resisted. It's always easier to do nothing to take the path of least resistance, but in each generation it is this party that have had the courage and the conviction to change lives. Maternity allowance. Equal pay for women. Health and safety rights. The minimum wage labour changed lives and this generation is no different because this bill shows that labour is on the side of working people.

They will know that ordinary people are better off and it will be an effect on their families, their children, their brothers, their sisters, their family members. They will have basic rights from day one, protection from unfair dismissal. I cannot believe the party opposite thinks in this day and age we should dismiss people unfairly. I do not understand it. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are going to strengthen sick pay, family rights, bereavement leave, protections from sexual harassment at work, a ban on zero hour contracts, a historic fair pay agreement in social care and an end to fire and rehire, and a genuine living wage.

And the single biggest boost to rights at work in a generation. Creating an economy that works for working people. This was the promise. Madam Deputy Speaker, we made to the British public and I urge the Secretary of State to fight every step of the way to deliver it in full. The public have no patience for the Tory and Lib Dem Lords, who cheered on by reform, standing in the way of better rights for workers and frustrating what was a clear manifesto promise.

And tonight this House will once again send the message that we will not back down here. I will not go through every Lords amendment, but I will pick out a couple of the most damaging first Lords Amendment 23 and 106 to 120, which would break the pledge that we made to the British people to give them day one rights. The last conservative government shamefully doubled the qualification period against unfair dismissal to two years. They stripped workers of protections at the stroke of a pen.

Now they're at it again. But on this side of the House, we believe workers deserve fairness, dignity and respect at work, and they deserve it. From day one on the job, the benches opposite say that this would be these rights of unfair dismissal will slow down hiring. So let me be clear. Employers can absolutely still have probation periods for the new staff. They just won't be able to fire them unfairly at will for no good reason. Second, turning to Lords Amendment one be Madam Deputy Speaker, which would tear up protections for workers on zero hour contracts.

This government made a commitment to provide workers with an offer of guaranteed hours. The amendment would water that right down. We promise to ban zero hour contracts, no ifs and no buts. And that is exactly what we should do. This bill was the promise we made to the British public. It is our duty to deliver it. And I say to my colleagues on the front bench that I will be with you every step of the way, as we do just that, make no mistakes.

The bill is good for workers and it is good for business. This isn't just the right thing to do, it's the foundation for the high growth, high skill economy that the UK needs. Key measures are backed by many of the best businesses like the co-op, Centrica and Richer Sounds. They proved that if you treat people well Madam Deputy Speaker, you get the best out of them in return. They know that being pro-worker is not a barrier to success, but it's a launchpad to it.

That is why this bill takes the very best standards from the very best businesses, and extends them to millions of workers. It is also why we proudly say that this is a pro-business and pro-worker bill. Respected business voices like the Chartered Management Institute have indicated their support for the key measures in the bill and in consultation with businesses. Madam Deputy Speaker, we will continue to have that hear their voices and make sure that we get the detail right.

But, Madam Deputy Speaker, we talk a lot about growth in this place and as a result, in New York, overnight show growth means nothing if ordinary people can't see it. If communities have nothing to show for it. The reforms that we are making today will give people security and dignity that they can feel. They will mean something to the thousands of pregnant women and mothers who will benefit from new maternity protections and the tens of thousands of fathers and partners who will be brought into the scope of paternity leave.

The 1.7 million who will benefit from new policies on flexible working, the 2 million who will receive right to bereavement leave, and up to 9 million employees who will benefit from protection against unfair dismissal from day one, and the 15 million people who will benefit from Labour's plan in every corner of this country, across this country, people will benefit from a decent wage and a secure work that they can raise a family on. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a once in a generation chance to reshape the world of work, to drive a race to the top on standards, to achieve

**** Possible New Speaker ****

real growth, and to build an economy that works for everyone. The here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Sarah Olney. Thank you. Very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I say it's a real pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I say it's a real pleasure to follow the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and to hear her passionate advocacy for this bill, which we on the Liberal Democrat benches. We support many of the principles we've long advocated for strengthening employment rights in strengthening employment rights in several ways, including increased support for carers, boosting statutory sick pay and giving people on zero hours contracts more certainty over their working patterns. So there's a lot in this bill that we support in principle bill that we support in principle and which moves us in the right direction, but we do remain concerned about the specific way in which the government plans to which the government plans to implement many of these measures.

So much of the detail that should have been on the face of the bill has been left to secondary legislation or future consultations, and that makes it impossible for businesses to plan ahead with businesses to plan ahead with certainty. And that's why we're supportive of amendments that bring clarity for businesses, such as setting qualifying period for setting qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims at six months, training, hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are retaining a skilled workforce are issues affecting businesses across the country, and we must ensure that this legislation strikes the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right balance for both employees and for businesses. I'm happy to give way. I will be interested to hear from the hon. Member whether she believes that for the first six months of employment, it is appropriate for people to be dismissed for unfair reasons and without a fair process. Is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

appropriate? Yes. I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I think the point intervention. I think the point that has been made on a number of occasions is that it's it's always possible for, for employers to have possible for, for employers to have made a mistake in their hiring for people not to be the right fit for the job and for there to be a the job and for there to be a straightforward way of of being able to dismiss, without being challenged that the dismissal was unfair.

And that's the key point. It's not that they should be allowed to make unfair dismissals. allowed to make unfair dismissals. It's if it's been a fair dismissal that that they don't have the they don't have to defend that point. I'm happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm happy to give way. Grateful for the Liberal Democrat spokesperson giving way. She just said it's not right that employers should pay for. A.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A. Mistake that they've made in hiring someone. Why should an employee pay for that mistake if it's not. Theirs.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the first place? I think the point is it's a balance, isn't it, between the employer and the employee. And if employer and the employee. And if it's not the right fit, then it's better for both sides that the employment is brought to an end and
15:34
Sarah Olney Portrait Sarah Olney MP (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
that the employee is free to seek more appropriate employment. There are very significant concerns, a lack of clarity that the Minister raised there about probation periods, and exactly what that means compared to the the amendment that's been put forward on unfair dismissal risks piling undue worry onto business managers who are struggling to find the right skills in the first place. So I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, both here and in the other place, have been clear in our support for an amendment which would change the obligation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request guaranteed hours.

Amendment one be to this effect, would allow an employee to notify their employer if they no longer wish to receive guaranteed hours offers, while retaining the option to opt back in at any time. This reasonable and balanced approach would relieve employers from having to issue guaranteed hours offers each reference period to workers who may simply not be interested in them, whilst ensuring that those who do wish to receive offers can continue to do so. Liberal Democrats strongly believe in giving zero hours workers security over their working patterns, and we're deeply concerned that too many workers struggle with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future.

However, we also recognise that many people value the flexibility that such arrangements provide. Adaptability in shift patterns is often hugely valuable, for example, to those balancing caring responsibilities or their studies alongside work. It's therefore important to strike a balance that ensures workers can have both security and flexibility. Specifically, small and medium sized businesses have highlighted that having to offer employees fixed hours contracts on a rolling basis could impose significant costs and administrative burdens on their limited resources, compounding other challenges such as the recent increase in employers National Insurance contributions and the fallout from the previous government's damaging Brexit deal.

The Liberal Democrat amendment was debated in the Lords, is in line with our long standing policy for zero hours and agency workers to be given the right to request fixed hours contracts, which employers would not be able to unreasonably refuse. And we believe this measure would maintain valuable flexibility, benefiting both parties when the obligation to keep offering guaranteed hours, even to workers who clearly aren't interested in them, imposes a significant burden which doesn't benefit either side. As with all workplace rights, employees should be supported to exercise a right to request guaranteed hours without fear of any negative consequences in their workplace, and the Unified Fair Work Agency being set up by the government, which we welcome, could help ensure that employees receive that protection and support.

This approach would give workers the vital security that they deserve, while avoiding unnecessary burdens for employers. Employers. Last time the bill was debated in the Commons, I spoke in favour of measures that would improve the clarity of the legislation with regard to seasonal work, so I wish to once again speak in favour of amendment 48, b the sustainability of so many companies, for example farming businesses, depends upon getting the right people into the right place at the right time. Any obstacles to actioning? This can have a huge impact on company operations, potentially throwing the entire business into jeopardy.

Hospitality firms such as pubs, cafes and restaurants also rely on seasonal workers and are particularly vulnerable, happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Giving way. Could she. Define with an amendment 48 B what rights somebody working behind the desk in this place should have that somebody working behind a bar in this place should not have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in this place should not have. I thank the Member for intervention. I would say they're very different kinds of work and have very different kinds of work patterns and require different skills and experience. I'm not entirely certain what point he was entirely certain what point he was wanting me to respond to, if different, if a different regulatory framework is to apply to regulatory framework is to apply to seasonal work, a clear definition of seasonal work must be created to prevent employers from avoiding prevent employers from avoiding their legitimate responsibilities by claiming employees as seasonal workers in inappropriate circumstances.

We continue to call for businesses which are especially reliant on seasonal workers, to be properly considered when secondary properly considered when secondary legislation is created, and as such, I urge members to support this change. Regarding trade unions, I change. Regarding trade unions, I again wish to speak in favour of amendment 62 B to maintain the status quo, requiring a 50% ballot status quo, requiring a 50% ballot threshold for industrial action. The government's proposal to remove the threshold entirely means that a trade union could take strike action, with only a small minority of eligible members taking part in of eligible members taking part in the vote.

This is bound to raise questions among the public as to whether the will of workers has been accurately represented, and it risks unnecessarily creating tensions between workers, employees and the general public. And that would not be a good outcome for any of the parties involved. Maintaining a robust process when it comes to launching industrial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

action. Happy to give way. I wonder if the hon. Lady would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder if the hon. Lady would inform the House about the statistics when she was elected at the general election, and if it's good enough for the hon. Lady who's doing a great job, by the way, to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

doing a great job, by the way, to be elected by the minority, why is it not good enough for ordinary working people? I thank the hon. Gentleman very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his intervention. He'll be happy to hear that 53.3% of Richmond Park voters voted for me Richmond Park voters voted for me to be their representative, so I was in fact, elected by the was in fact, elected by the majority of the constituents in Richmond Park. And I'm delighted to hear that he thinks I'm doing a hear that he thinks I'm doing a good job for them. But on that point, on that point, on that point, because as he has as I think as he was attempting to highlight, many of the people in the in the chamber were elected on less than 50%.

Firstly, the first thing I would say to that is that on on most, on say to that is that on on most, on most ballot papers, there will be a choice of more than two candidates. So obviously no. May I finish the So obviously no. May I finish the point? So if you're choosing from a list of five people, then it's quite likely that the under the quite likely that the under the first past the post system, the the winning candidate will receive less than 50% of the vote.

But on a strike ballot, it's a it's a choice between two options. And that's why there should be amongst all of the members, more than 50% voting for the option to strike. And that's the important point here. But secondly, he gives me an excellent opportunity to highlight the fact that the Liberal Democrats have long been advocates of voting reform to this place. And I bought a ten minute rule bill to this place last December advocating for proportional representation, which was passed.

It remains the express will of the House as expressed on that occasion, that we do, in fact, change the way that we elect hon. Members to this place. And I'm very glad he's given me the opportunity to highlight that. So maintaining a robust process when it comes to launching industrial action is particularly important when one considers the scale of disruption that the public face when strikes do happen. Liberal Democrats also continuing to support measures which would retain the opt in system for contribution to political funds for trade unions, which currently exist.

Amendment 72 B maximises choice and transparency for individuals in relation to the political funds that they are contributing to. Madam Deputy Speaker, most employers are responsible businesses which want to do the right thing by their staff, many of whom are supportive of the aims of the Bill. However, they have significant concerns about the extent of this legislation, where a lot of which is still undecided and which risks compounding other challenges that they currently face. Changes to employers. National insurance slow progress on reforming the apprenticeship levy, the absence of any meaningful action to bring down commercial energy prices.

These all continue to be extremely damaging for businesses and for our economy as a whole. We must find a way to support our small and medium businesses in particular, and provide clarity so that they can plan ahead. If the government was prepared to make some meaningful improvements to this bill, that would make things easier for small businesses, like the amendments being suggested by the Liberal Democrats, perhaps they might find it easier to make progress with this legislation. We support many of the aims of this bill and the spirit of measures which strengthen employment rights.

However, I urge members to support these amendments, which will help ensure that this legislation strikes the right balance for both workers and for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. I call Justin Madders, after which backbenchers will be on a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which backbenchers will be on a five minute speaking limit but not Justin Madders. Well, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. First of all, draw Speaker. First of all, draw attention to my register of Financial interests containing an election donation from Usdaw, as well as my membership of the unite GMB trade unions. It's now been almost nine months since the bill almost nine months since the bill completed its common stages, and over a year since the bill was first introduced, so it's disappointing to see yet another disappointing to see yet another delay to this legislation, as I know that many of my constituents would want to see these vital manifesto commitments enacted into law as soon as possible.

However, recent proceedings in the Other
15:43
Justin Madders Portrait Justin Madders MP (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)
-
-
place have demonstrated the intention of the opposition parties to elongate the process and attempt to water down important protections that this bill offers to workers. But Madam Deputy Speaker, it is as simple as this. Members on these benches were elected on a manifesto that committed to making work pay. The Employment Rights Bill is absolutely central to delivering that. It will be the biggest upgrade in workers rights in a generation. It is long overdue and we will all be unashamed of our commitment to improving the working lives of people in this country, because this bill will have a transformative impact on the world of work, particularly those lacking job security and dignity at work.

Make no mistake, at every single stage, the Conservatives and Reform parties have voted to water down this bill or weaken its protections. And now it seems that the Liberal Democrats have joined in, too. Our constituents will no doubt conclude that those on the benches opposite are siding with the bad bosses, and I urge them to reconsider and choose the side of working people, because that is not an exaggeration. The amendments under consideration today will gut the bill of important protections for millions of people currently in insecure work, so I know we've not got that much time Madam Deputy Speaker.

So I'll focus on just a couple of the amendments, one being 62 and Lords reason 120 B, which I consider to be the most damaging amendments to the Bill. One B represents a continued attempt to undermine the commitment we made to ban exploitative zero hours contracts all throughout the government, and members on this side of the House have been clear that the only way to tackle the most pernicious elements of zero hours contracts is to make the right to guaranteed hours a right that people can genuinely exercise.

Workers on zero hours contracts are some of the least empowered in our economy, and the least able to actively assert their rights. Their working hours are inherently precarious, often depending on the vagaries of their boss. They're more likely to be younger and working. The lowest paid sectors of the economy. Shifting this commitment to a right to request model as the Liberal Democrat amendment does, would totally fail to recognise the power imbalance in the working relationship and the very real risk that assertion of rights will lead to negative consequences.

For those just wanting some basic security and dignity at work. So I'm pleased that we are rejecting those amendments. But of course, that's not the only form of insecurity that those on the opposition benches want to keep on the table as they support Lords. Reason 120 B, which seeks to allow workers to be unfairly dismissed for the first six months of their employment, maybe those in the Other place who have jobs for life don't understand what it feels like to be tossed aside without any explanation.

Maybe they don't appreciate how debilitating it can be to go into work every day with the sword of Damocles hanging over your head, knowing that if the chop comes, there's absolutely nothing that you can do about it. But those bills still need paying. Your dependants still depend on you. So we need to drive out the insecurity that eats away at so many hardworking people in this country. And I don't agree with members opposite who protest that this would put a stop to hiring overnight.

The government have been clear that employers would be able to pursue a lighter touch dismissal process within a probationary period, and have rightly committed to consulting closely with employers on the implementation of this. And we're often told that we heard again today about the employers organisations, how it isn't right that employers should pay the price for making a mistake when hiring someone. But why should the employee? Why should someone who may have given up a perfectly good job to take on another bear all the risk and the consequences if an employer doesn't get their hiring practices right? The Liberal Democrats, in their response, talked about this being needed to strike a balance.

But I think the proposals for a statutory period actually do strike the right balance and deliver fairness both to the employee and to the employer. And members opposite, have also gleefully referenced a recent report by the Resolution Foundation on this issue. And the shadow Secretary of State has been very generous to me, but I will have to pull him up on something he said yesterday. He said that they actually opposed this bill, something he said in an opposition day debate yesterday. Well, I'm afraid it shows that he simply hasn't read their report because it says in black and white at the top of the first page that, and I quote, the government's Employment Rights Bill is important and welcome.

Now I accept that there then go on to argue against day one rights. But let me continue the only statistical evidence they put up in respect of that is a chart comparing us to other countries that says currently we have some of the weakest protections against dismissal, and this bill will give us some of the strongest. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is the actual point of this bill. And I don't think it's a compelling

**** Possible New Speaker ****

argument to say that this is something that we don't want to will. Be grateful. For him for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For him for. Giving way. Is it not also the case that within that graph, a number of the nations which the Resolution Foundation says have weaker protections, actually have higher unemployment rates than our own? At the moment, there's clearly own? At the moment, there's clearly not the relationship between the two, which some on the other side have tried to suggest.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have tried to suggest. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention is absolutely right, and indeed, that is something that the Resolution Foundation said to the Resolution Foundation said to the Bill Committee when they gave evidence. I'll quote them directly. Internationally, we can draw Internationally, we can draw scatter plots of the employment level in a country and the extent of employment regulation. And basically those lines come out flat. basically those lines come out flat. So you have some countries with very high unemployment and very high levels of regulation, and some high levels of regulation, and some countries with low employment and high regulation.

So there is no clear relationship with employment levels across countries. That is confirmed by the OECD, which has done lots of detailed work. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

done lots of detailed work. And that's what they that's what they said in evidence to the bill committee last year. I have to give way. Thank you. I'm grateful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. To the hon. Member for giving way. Would he like to put his money where his mouth is and tell us where his mouth is and tell us whether his faith in the Employment Rights Bill is such that he is prepared to make a commitment to his constituents in Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, that if unemployment, having passed this bill goes up, that he will resign his seat.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. I absolutely cannot believe the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely cannot believe the Conservative Party, who absolutely saw massive increases in unemployment in my constituency in unemployment in my constituency in the 1980s and 1990s when they were in power, have the cheek to start talking about effects of unemployment on my constituents now. So look, the Resolution Foundation So look, the Resolution Foundation have said some things in recent weeks which I don't agree with. They've said some things in the They've said some things in the past which are much more, I think, in line with what we believe the international evidence brings.

So I think I'll just say the kindest think I'll just say the kindest thing I can say about the Resolution Foundation is that I prefer their earlier work. Turning to government amendment in lieu of to government amendment in lieu of Lords Amendment 62 on the repeal of the last remnants of the Trade the last remnants of the Trade Union Act 2016 and the removal of thresholds for industrial action ballots, I have always held the view that the introduction of E view that the introduction of E balloting, if done properly, will lead to a much greater participation in ballots and render participation in ballots and render arguments about turnout obsolete.

The implementation timetable, which the government published indicates the government published indicates e balloting will begin next April. So I hope when the Minister responses can provide some responses can provide some reassurance that that is still on track, and that we can therefore expect the end of thresholds to come at the same time as that or very shortly after, because I would be disappointed if that amendment was an attempt to kick that into the long grass, because I'm not particularly keen on the conditionality in the amendment, which talks about whether to repeal the thresholds.

There shouldn't be any question of whether it is when, after all, that is what we promise to do in our manifesto. And I would urge the Minister Minister to resist any temptations to bring any conditionality into this and deliver the make work, pay agenda in full, as we said we would. So I will conclude, my Deputy Speaker, because I'm conscious of the number of members wish to speak. I'm proud the government is continuing to commit to implementing this bill in full.

Policies in the Employment Rights Bill are overwhelmingly popular with the public. They formed a key part of our manifesto, and it remains central to the government's plans for change. So we proudly stand on these benches against those who seek to water down this bill and hamper its implementation. We are proud to back workers and to deliver meaningful change to their working lives. We stand against maintaining the status quo of low pay, low security, and little dignity at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

work. And we stand for job security and for delivering on our promises. Yeah. Thank you very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very. Much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I wish to draw attention to my register of members interests, my
15:52
Antonia Bance Portrait Antonia Bance MP (Tipton and Wednesbury, Labour)
-
-
register of members interests, my proud 23 years in unite, and the generous support from the millions of ordinary members of the GMB and Aslef, paying into their political funds to put representatives of the working class here in Parliament. Now I am here to deliver a simple but firm message. There will be no concessions on the Employment Rights Bill. Not one. Opposition parties in the House of Lords are trying to water down the rights that working people voted for, but we will stand firm.

The New Deal for working people was a Labour manifesto commitment and it will be delivered in full. I want to speak particularly about two sets of amendments. Firstly, Lords Amendment 61 and 72 on political funds. The Lords want to keep the opt in system, but it's abundantly clear that this is a deliberate attack on the voice and the political voice of working people. All this Bill does is restore the long standing opt out system that has lasted since 1946. Union members will still have robust rights, and they can opt out easily.

Unions are tightly regulated. No other membership organisations face these rules. Union political spending is transparent and accountable, with annual returns to the Certification Officer and the Electoral Commission regulating donations and campaigning. And of course, these political funds support wider campaigning, not just party donations, although I am proud to say that they support party donations too. I also want to oppose Lords Amendment 62 on keeping the unnecessary, unneeded ballot thresholds designed to stop workers having a voice.

The Tory and Lib Dem Lords want to reinstate the 50% turnout threshold introduced in the draconian 2016 Trade Union Act, and I will remind members from the Liberal Democrat Party that in 2016 they knew to oppose that act, including the ballot thresholds, and I wonder why they have reversed their position now. These ballot thresholds weaken unions and stall negotiations. Before 2016, ballots triggered talks and resolved disputes early. Now these thresholds delay dialogue and make resolution harder.

No other organisations face turnout thresholds. This just singles out unions and, of course, anyone who is familiar with how the trade union movement works knows that no union would call members out on strike if members aren't up for it. So with all due thanks and respect to the other place, we will still repeal the 2016 Trade Union Act in full. No concessions. The Employment Rights Bill is the first step in delivering the New Deal for working people. Our promise to the working people of this country, this is the change that working people voted for.

The government will not give in to elected Tory and Lib Dem Lords, siding with bad bosses to weaken workers rights. Not now, not today, not ever.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Andy McDonald Deputy speaker. And I draw members attention. To.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To. My entry in the Register of. Members financial. Interests in relation to support from trade unions, of which I'm most proud.
15:55
Andy McDonald Portrait Andy McDonald MP (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

most proud. The past four decades have structural decline in the share of the national. Income going to employees.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Income going to employees. Decades, marked by the. Erosion of trade union rights has. Been exacerbated by.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

exacerbated by. 14 years of conservative government forcing down real wages across the United Kingdom, leaving working families still struggling to recover. Against that backdrop, the most urgent task. Of this Labour government is to raise living standards. Trade unions are critical to that mission, and the Employment Rights Bill will help deliver that. This bill. Represents a cornerstone of the government's New Deal for working people. A vote winning manifesto pledge, and I very much welcome evidence of the popularity of these.

Policies in the platform of Zoran Mark Tami, New York's newly elected Democrat mayor.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Amongst other things, he pledged protection for delivery workers, protection for delivery workers, including guaranteed hours. Yet on our bill, the amendments passed in the other place would water down the other place would water down that commitment and deny working people the rights they were promised. I therefore, must speak promised. I therefore, must speak in strong opposition to the Lords amendments to this, to this Bill, amendments that, taken together, amendments that, taken together, would weaken the protections this House has committed to deliver for working people across the United Kingdom.

Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120. Concerning day one rights would remove the right not to be unfairly dismissed from the to be unfairly dismissed from the very start of employment. Instead, they would impose a six month qualifying period and empower Ministers to introduce a further initial period in which only initial period in which only limited protections apply. That is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the government's spirit of the government's manifesto. It would leave new employees vulnerable to arbitrary employees vulnerable to arbitrary dismissal and recreate the very insecurity this bill was designed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

insecurity this bill was designed to end. And there is no. Giving way. When he has spoken to employers, which I'm sure he has in his constituency about this specific provision, what did they say to him?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Andy McDonald the concept is pretty simple because I'll just pretty simple because I'll just tell the hon. Member that they're completely conflating different completely conflating different issues around unfair dismissal and probationary contracts. And this they're scaremongering because they're scaremongering because there's nothing in this bill that prevents the continuation of probation periods. The only thing probation periods. The only thing that we're saying is it'll be unfair to dismiss somebody for an unlawful reason. I really wonder unlawful reason.

I really wonder why it's so difficult to grasp that concept. And I know I've carry on concept. And I know I've carry on because I'm conscious of of time and there is no impact upon and there is no impact upon retaining probationary periods. They remain intact, having day one rights against unfair dismissal does not prevent an employer does not prevent an employer vetting and doing recruitment properly and using probationary periods legitimately. Turning to periods legitimately. Turning to Lords Amendment one b the so-called guaranteed hours opt out, this guaranteed hours opt out, this provision transforms a clear right into a conditional option.

Instead of guaranteeing a contract that reflects the hours of person actually works, it allows employers to invite workers to opt out of that right altogether. Experience with the working time opt out shows exactly where this leads. It becomes a standard clause routinely signed away. That is not the end of exploitative zero hours contracts. It is there. Rebadging. Finally, Lords Amendment 62, which reintroduces ballot thresholds for industrial action, seeks to restore one of the most restrictive elements of the 2016 Trade Union Act.

This House has already agreed that those provisions were excessive and undemocratic. No other organisation is bound by such turnout requirements before it may act. Reinstating them would frustrate meaningful negotiation and delay resolution of disputes, not promote it. Let us drop these thresholds and quickly move to balloting as we promised. For those reasons, madam Deputy Speaker, I urge hon. Members to resist these Lords amendments and to insist upon the Bill as originally passed by this House. It must be delivered in full, for it represents the baseline of a fair work settlement.

However, while defending the Bill, we must also recognise that it is only a starting point. The consultations now underway must ensure that secondary legislation goes further and fulfils the government's wider promise to make work pay. So I hope that we see a robust and enforceable right of access for trade unions to workplaces, both physical and digital, so that unions can reach and represent workers effectively with penalties that deter obstruction. And I hope we will create a process to expand Fair Pay Agreements beyond adult social care in schools, embedding sectoral collective bargaining across the economy to raise pay and standards in every workplace.

And we must make progress towards a single status of worker. The Employment Rights Bill is a landmark measure, but its promise will only be realised if this House defends it against dilution and strengthens its implementation. I therefore call on all members to reject the Lords amendments and stand by our commitment to working people to deliver the New Deal for working people in full and to build it from a fairer, more secure world of work.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Turner. Thank you very much. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. And given that time is short, I will endeavour to keep my remarks brief, and I intend to speak to brief, and I intend to speak to specific amendments. But I feel compelled to start with general compelled to start with general comments in respect of financial interests, because it has been suggested throughout these bill stages from the other side and stages from the other side and again today, that a number of members on this side speak not from members on this side speak not from genuine and sincere belief, but because of arrangements involving donations to their constituency donations to their constituency Labour parties.

And I just say to the members opposite that that
16:02
Laurence Turner Portrait Laurence Turner MP (Birmingham Northfield, Labour)
-
-
the members opposite that that argument, that line of thought betrays a laziness towards this issue that is reflected in the lack of effective scrutiny on this bill from their side only instead, we've seen a resorting to hackneyed and ancestral stereotypes and again, lazy assumptions which reflect nothing about the world of unions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and the world of work. I will. The honourable. Member for giving way and the point. Members of the public who point. Members of the public who are watching this debate won't necessarily have any access to see what the thousands of pounds that have been taken by each member who refers to simply their financial interests. So in the interest of transparency, will he say how many transparency, will he say how many thousands of pounds he took from trade unions if he took any? Indeed,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in order to support this bill? I'm grateful. To the hon. Member for exactly proving my point, and I will proving my point, and I will happily say to him that since becoming a member of this House, becoming a member of this House, that I have not received a penny in political donations from trade unions, my Constituency Labour unions, my Constituency Labour Party received a donation before the election. That is an entirely different matter. I have only one different matter.

I have only one matter to draw attention to in my register of interests, which is chairship of the GMB parliamentary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chairship of the GMB parliamentary group, which is an unpaid role. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Turning to Lord amendments, we are asked, as already been said, to consider a number of amendments today that directly contradict manifesto commitments and Lords Amendment 61 and 72 on political Amendment 61 and 72 on political funds are a case in point. Now, in the other place, the noble Lord Burns gently questioned whether this was a manifesto issue. But the make work pay document, which the manifesto said would be implemented in full, clearly said that the 2016 Trade Union Act would be repealed, which must include this provision.

The amendments before US seek to preserve the punitive restrictions that were originally imposed as retribution in 1927, and were repealed in 1946. Since then we had 70 years where arrangements worked effectively, and the actual impact of these amendments were they carried, would be the same as any type of arrangement that moves from opt out to opt in, which is a reduction in the ability of working people to speak with a collective voice. And let us not forget that trade union political funds do not exclusively fund donations to parties.

We look at the campaigns which have been run and won cross-party support through use of those campaigns GMB and unison, protect the protectors GMB campaigns on domestic defence manufacturing, two campaigns that the party opposite came to support us those freedom from fear and the Gangmasters Act, the result of Unite's campaign in the aftermath of the Morecambe Bay disaster, in which so many coffee pickers tragically lost and disgracefully lost their lives even today in this place about funding helps to address abuse which has occurred in the confines of this estate.

And indeed there is always a risk that it will continue in the future. Trade unions are democratic bodies. Any member of a trade union can demand to see the receipts of political expenditure, and decisions on party donations are taken on a collective basis. And when that provision was originally repealed, the Attlee government attorney general of the day said the following. And I think it bears repeating today that if the parties opposite relied on the old delusion that the Labour Party was being built upon the hard earned pennies of honest conservatives who were too timid to declare their true political colours and were being bullied by horrid, nasty trade unionists into supporting the political funds of a party to which they were so opposed.

Anyone who has actually worked with trade union members will recognise that to be a delusion indeed, and that we have heard much of that delusion from the opposite benches through the carriage of this bill. And I was going to make similar comments to my hon. Friend, and she is both honourable and a friend in respect of the laws amendment 62, that she has covered it expertly. So I would than 20 years, are out of date in respect of school support staff. What the actual effect of this amendment would be would be to create a two tier arrangement between school support staff in local authority maintained schools and in academies.

And in terms of its wording, it says that employers could introduce terms and conditions. I am concerned about the potential contradiction with the provisions in the 1992 legislation that requires such changes to be made on a collective, and not a unilateral basis. Furthermore, it states that terms and conditions that could be changed should be, in aggregate, an improvement that clearly leaves room for employers to introduce a weakening in some areas, to the detriment of the 1700 school support staff in my constituency.

I am proud to have had an association with this bill, and I look forward to rejecting those specific amendments tonight.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amanda Martin. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I proudly refer the House to my register of interest and my involvement in the trade union movement throughout my professional career. The Employment Rights Bill Madam Deputy Speaker is long Madam Deputy Speaker is long overdue and whilst others continuously seek to wreck it with their unfriendly worker amendments, their unfriendly worker amendments, we will not allow it because we on these benches know that this bill is about economic growth and is about economic growth and security for all workers.

It's about banning unfair dismissals,
16:08
16:09
16:09
Amanda Martin Portrait Amanda Martin MP (Portsmouth North, Labour)
-
-
Absolutely. And I think the word in that is exploitative. People in Portsmouth North and across the country deserve fairness, dignity and the ability to plan their daily lives and future in sectors such as retail, hospitality, construction, social care and logistics. Many workers are on unpredictable variable hours, with shifts cancelled at short notice or offered only a minimal work week to control their labour costs. This makes budgeting second jobs, childcare, healthcare, planning and indeed everything in life almost impossible.

Madam Deputy Speaker, let me give you a local example. One of my constituents, Sara, has worked in a Portsmouth cafe on zero hours contracts for four years. She has told at the beginning of each week which hour she might get. One week she might have 25 hours, the next eight and the next. Indeed, nothing because she can't predict her hours. She ends up in debt, skipping medical visits and having to rely on emergency credit to pay her bills. Under the bills in intended protection, Sara could request fixed hours and have far greater stability for herself and her family.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I think. She's making an incredibly powerful point. Does she.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does she. Agree with me that for constituents like Zara of hers and constituents of mine, also on short constituents of mine, also on short or zero hours contracts, the meat of this amendment of introducing the bureaucratic farce of an offer the bureaucratic farce of an offer of an offer instead of a right, ruins what is in this bill. This ruins what is in this bill. This bill and is meaningful change and the introduction of an ability for workers to opt out, opens up a loophole with detrimental effects in real world, where people could be rewarded with overtime if they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be rewarded with overtime if they agree to opt out. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. And it leaves workers with unable to reject that overtime, even if they are knackered and have done 60 70 hours already that week. Absolutely. Madam Deputy Speaker, Absolutely. Madam Deputy Speaker, that brings me to Dave. He's a plasterer working on one of my local building sites. He's local building sites. He's technically self-employed, but in reality he's also on a rolling hours zero contract. Some weeks he hours zero contract.

Some weeks he earns enough to keep his mortgage, some weeks he earns enough to put aside a little bit of money for Christmas. Other weeks, absolutely Christmas. Other weeks, absolutely nothing at all. He's told to stand down when winter hits and work slows with no pay, no notice and no slows with no pay, no notice and no safety net. This kind of insecurity is corrosive. It affects not just finances, but families, health and morale on jobs. And let us be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, the public are firmly with us on this.

According to the Tuc's 2025 mega poll supported support for guaranteed hour contracts sits at over 70% across the region and the nation of this UK. This isn't, Madam Deputy Speaker, about denigrating businesses and business owners. Many of them are fantastic and provide great opportunities. But without this bill, those who are unscrupulous employers will continue to sidestep responsibility and run a race to the bottom. The arguments say that these measures impose burdens on business. They discourage hiring. They risk flooding employment tribunals.

These concerns should not be a pretext for hollowing out protections, and should instead ensure workers know how much they will earn each month so they can plan and live their lives. Sarah and Dave, who I referred to earlier, are just two names, but behind them are thousands of lives blighted by unfair employment practices. And Madam Deputy Speaker, they won't mind me saying, But Sarah and Dave are not young. Madam Deputy Speaker, despite what the opposition want us to believe, zero hours contracts are not exploitative for the young.

They are exploitative for many other people in our society. Madam Deputy Speaker, people deserve the right to security. I urge colleagues to reject these weakening amendments. And because fixed hours entitlement is not a radical idea, it is a basic standard of decency in the modern work. And if this House, we really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mean that we respect working people, them. Yeah. Euan Stainbank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, I refer members to my register of interests and declare my interest as a proud, and declare my interest as a proud, experienced hospitality worker of six years. Will I have proportionate respect for the work of the Other place in this bill, and once again bemused and frustrated on behalf of my constituents, that this generational, fundamental and basic generational, fundamental and basic and common sense legislation is once again before us and the Hill
16:13
Euan Stainbank Portrait Euan Stainbank MP (Falkirk, Labour)
-
-
once again before us and the Hill that many in Other place seem to want to make a stand on. It is apparent that after years of stagnating living standards, that job one for this government was to make work, pay again, tip the scales in favour of working people, and especially for the younger generation that have been discussed today. Recapture, I think, an ethic of the value of work that sadly and I worry about this has been lost over the years of Tory government. So looking at the amendments, when that why then does the Other place insist on the amendments 23, 260, 120, which would remove the day one right to be unfairly dismissed? I think this is once again telling young, predominantly lower paid and insecure British workers in hospitality factories and worksites across our constituencies that their continued employment income is precariously balanced on the benevolence of their employer, not on the value of their labour.

I think this feeling is real for every day that this measure is not on the statute books. Young men and women are being bullied, prodded and pushed at their jobs by the very small minority of bad employers that do exist across our constituencies. I have had kids in the first job tell me that this was their chance as well. Straight out of school, straight out of further education or higher education, that this was their chance when they left school. Tell me that they've been sacked just before, in the weeks prior to two years of service.

Looking at this amendment, in my perspective, there is no reason that that same circumstance would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not just occur when it was six months, a few weeks before six months of their service, I will get. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. honourable. Friend, agree with me that good employers have nothing to fear from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

employers have nothing to fear from any of these? This legislation and good employers will embrace this as many do. Absolutely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely. All of the businesses in my constituency, I think every member across this House, they are worried across the piece for a number of across the piece for a number of reasons and have been for a number of years. Many good employers do not rank this in the top five concerns that they've got coming forward, and especially not employers that I work for within the hospitality and retail sector. They can see the benefits of this actually keeping workers for longer, having more security for them and knowing who their workforce is, knowing who their workforce is, which was a major concern, especially coming out of the pandemic.

The hospitality and retail sectors that I worked for in retail sectors that I worked for in a major cost as well, for those employers not being able to keep staff. So on the final point about staff. So on the final point about unfair dismissal, if we accept this amendment and leave these people without a legal right of action whenever they are unfairly whenever they are unfairly dismissed, we must reject this amendment. It is unfair proposal. Then moving to Lords Amendment one Then moving to Lords Amendment one be once again in the opposition.

Why do they insist upon this? I think it mischaracterises fundamentally the dynamic of the workplace of the majority of those who are currently operating on zero hours contracts, as I did for six years in the relatively recent past, rather than making it a right for the employer to proactively offer a guarantees our contract, this would put the obligation on employee to access and accept something in the lowest paid and most insecure industries would be rife with potential interferences and bad incentives for employees to opt out.

Convenience. The employer, as I think and I have experienced in hospitality and retail, it was a reference to the working time directive that was rife throughout the hospitality sector, especially when you were finishing a shift late on and they needed somebody in the next day. I cannot, cannot see a world in which this would not be subject to similar interference from employers or potentially worse, that especially with the reference period that is coming forward, that the devils that they are given are lower, especially if they have pre-emptively insisted on their employer that they would be accessing this right to finish amendment 48 B from the Lords.

And I have to say, I state this in several times. I'm getting exasperated to make it the definition of seasonal work, as is captured in this point for those from the creative industries, retail, hospitality and other sectors captured within this amendment would be an attempt to carve out the sectors from other rights contained within this. And I have to say, and they will have to go back and speak to their constituents about this. Why do the Tories reform Lib Dems and anybody else who is going to support this amendment tonight, believe that those who will be serving them from behind a bar should access less rights than those who work behind a desk? It is very specific on the industries that are getting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

targeted under this amendment. I will give way on that point. I am grateful to. The hon. Member who I would like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member who I would like very much for giving way on that point. He's clearly a massive fan of the Employment Rights Bill and of the Employment Rights Bill and and the people of Falkirk are watching him, and so would he like watching him, and so would he like to commit to them that if, having passed the Employment Rights Bill, passed the Employment Rights Bill, unemployment goes up and therefore we have fewer workers with fewer rights, that he would resign from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rights, that he would resign from his seat. That meant to the people of Falkirk that the quality of the en Falkirk that the quality of the en bloc, especially for younger people, is going to go massively through the roof. Younger people within my constituency who have been subject constituency who have been subject to insecure work, low pay and zero hours contracts have seen the quality of their work diminished. quality of their work diminished. So what I can guarantee to the people of Falkirk is the quality of work will go up and again, and I think other members refer to this, think other members refer to this, the cheek that's coming from Tory benches when they are talking to post-industrial communities such as Falkirk, that were savaged by the Falkirk, that were savaged by the Thatcherite government, will get absolutely no credence within my constituency.

So to conclude on constituency. So to conclude on this point, I say to the opposition benches that they have time to change their mind. They can back the government to get this bill the government to get this bill passed without it being watered down, and stop the attempts that are perceived, at least in my constituency, as an attempt to betray British young workers who are doing the right thing, going out and earning their way, but for too long lost a belief in the quality and opportunity that work provided under the Tory years.

And we will see massive benefits from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this bill. Make work, pay and get this done. Thank you madam. Final backbench contribution Anneliese Midgley. Hey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hey. Thank you, Madam Deputy. Speaker, and I'd like to draw attention to my members register of interest, both my membership and financial support from the trade union movement. I stand here as a proud trade unionist. With a couple of decades of work behind me, of of decades of work behind me, of standing up for the working class, and I would like to pay the truest and I would like to pay the truest of tributes to my right hon.

Friend from Ashton under. Lyne and my hon. Friend from Ellesmere Port and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bromborough. Thank you very much for giving way. I think the absolutely right way. I think the absolutely right with regard to some hon. Friends. Right hon. Friends, the work in Right hon. Friends, the work in which lots of people have done to bring this transformational bill to
16:20
Anneliese Midgley Portrait Anneliese Midgley MP (Knowsley, Labour)
-
-
the Commons. I think we need to mention my hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesbrough, Thornaby, Thornaby East, for the tremendous work he done, his will in the very beginning of this process is transformational. Everybody

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deserves lots of credit here. Success has many mothers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Success has many mothers. I'd like to thank my friend from. Blyth and Ashington for for his Blyth and Ashington for for his intervention, and I absolutely agree with him in terms of the work agree with him in terms of the work that my friend has done on this for that my friend has done on this for for over a decade now. This bill for over a decade now. This bill brings changes that tip the scale in favour of working people and taken together with the rest of the taken together with the rest of the New Deal for working people, it amounts to the greatest uplift in workers rights in our generation.

And that is down to the friends that I have just mentioned here that I have just mentioned here today. It is their legacy and one that will change the lives of millions of working class people millions of working class people for the better. And I know that my friend from Halifax will do a great friend from Halifax will do a great job of completing this. This for me is personal, Madam Deputy Speaker, is personal, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it was my dad's secure, well paid, unionised job on the well paid, unionised job on the production line in Ford's Halewood that gave me a better life than my mum and dad.

It lifted us out of poverty and provided us with enough money and stability for a decent home, and enough to live a life of dignity on. Everyone should have that. And that is why I will fight for work where people can flourish and thrive. Jobs to take pride in that can provide a good life. And no way would I be here in this place, representing the place where I was born and raised, if it was not for my dad's job? Madam Deputy Speaker, The Tories, backed by the Lib Dems in the other place, are trying to water down this bill.

They are aided and abetted by reform, who are never in this place to debate this and are consistently voting against this bill. The Lords Bill. Some of the Lords amendments rip out the heart of this bill. And I'm going to speak briefly to amendments 23, 106 to 220, which would delay protections from unfair dismissal until a worker has been in their job for six months. This would mean that a worker can just be dismissed at whim for no reason.

How is this okay? How is it defensible? A day one right not to be unfairly dismissed is good for workers and good for businesses. And my hon. My friend from Blyth and Ashington spoke about that and the research from the Ippr and the TUC, finding that 73% of employers support giving employees protection from unfair dismissal from day one of employment. The shadow Minister dismissed the TUC from the Dispatch Box in that research. But there are 5 million workers that they represent and everyone else at work.

Are they not stakeholders who should be listened to as well? Madam Deputy Speaker, we know good employers up and down the country already live up to the standards that we are setting out in this bill. And today we need to stop these attempts to water down the Employment Rights Bill, deliver the protections from unfair dismissal our constituents voted for, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make sure we deliver the New Deal for working people in full. The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. And I come to the Minister to wind up Kate Dearden. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to thank all members for their brilliant contributions today and engagement with this bill. Throughout the many months we have been debating it and discussing it. It's incredibly appreciated and valued. I'd like to start valued. I'd like to start reiterating a, quote, strengthening employment rights in this country in the last 50 years has had pro employment effects, and that the consensus on the economic impacts of labour laws is that, far from being harmful to growth, they contribute positively to productivity.

And that's a quote from the Cambridge University Centre for business. Professor Centre for business. Professor Simon Deakin. And in response to the shadow Minister, who made a number of contributions, I'd remind number of contributions, I'd remind him of my opening remarks. UK employment laws are mostly a product of the 20th century. They product of the 20th century. They have not kept pace with how businesses employ people or how people experience their working lives today, when, how and where they work. The world of work has fundamentally changed in recent fundamentally changed in recent years.

It is regrettable that his party spent 14 years watching Impotently at the rise of the gig economy. Many changes our
16:25
Kate Dearden Portrait Kate Dearden MP (Halifax, Labour )
-
-
economy. Many changes our employment, market and employment landscape and pretend that the status quo still works for everyone. It simply does not. That is why this bill is so important. Raising those standards, levelling the playing field for businesses that are not undercut by people who don't play by the rules because that negatively impacts their businesses, negatively impacts their productivity. That's why this bill is important for businesses and for working people that they get that security and those rights at work. But for those businesses who go above and beyond already and do brilliant work supporting our workforce and different economies across this country.

He mentioned seasonal work. And just to respond on the initial reference period that will be set out in regulations that I've already spoken to, and to reiterate that we do believe 12 weeks is the right length, balancing the need for qualifying workers to be offered those guaranteed hours reasonably soon after they start a role, and the need for a reference period long enough that they regularly work on employment tribunals. So the remarks from the honourable from the shadow Minister under their watch.

Average wait time for unemployment claimant increased by 60% between 2010 and 2022 due to funding cuts. Their introduction of fees had a disproportionate impact on women in low pay and making sure that people can pay for access to work. So yet again, we're fixing messes that they left behind. And the task force that I mentioned in my introductory speech of how we can fix our employment tribunal system and our work under our fair work urgency that will be up and running next year is incredibly important

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as part of that wider package, yes, I will. Thank you. Minister. It's really good to hear about the taskforce. Could you give us some more information about what other things they're going to be having a look at, that they'll be able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at, that they'll be able to employees. I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Task force will be really important, bringing together really important, bringing together different stakeholders that we can assess the problems within the system and work out the best way to fix it, because at the moment, it's fix it, because at the moment, it's not working for employers or for workers who want access to justice and who want it quickly. And yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and who want it quickly. And yes. I wonder if my hon. Friend would agree with me that the introduction of these rights of protection is absolutely critical. But equally absolutely critical. But equally important is the ability to enforce those rights, and that the Fair Work Agency has got the potential Work Agency has got the potential to bring that to fruition and make sure that when people do are in sure that when people do are in those circumstances and, and are the beneficiaries of an award, that they ultimately receive it, because they ultimately receive it, because far too many people take these cases and do not get any redress.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

cases and do not get any redress. I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. We met with Matthew Taylor this week, the new chair of Taylor this week, the new chair of the Fair Work Agency, to discuss the progress of the Fair Work Agency and to make sure it's up and running at speed. It is really, running at speed. It is really, really crucial, as he rightly points out, that enforcement is absolutely vital that workers are aware of their rights. And that's why this agency, I think, is so transformational in our approach for that and very really important for our wider agenda to respond to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I do urge her to support the government in as we seek to update and upgrade our employment rights to be fit for the 21st century. And she mentioned lots around detail, and as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, as a standard for lots of employment, we want to consult extensively with businesses, with unions and with employers to make sure they get this right. And I'm sure the hon. Member agrees with that approach. She mentioned turnout thresholds. And as I've mentioned, we want to create an industrial relations framework fit for a modern economy and workplace that works for everybody.

We've been clear that we intend to ensure that trade union legislation is proportionate, effective and does not create unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. And we remain committed to removing the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. Under the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016, we support a strong mandate for strike action, but a threshold set in legislation is not the best way to achieve that. My right hon. Member and friend for Ashton-under-Lyne talked about our proud Labour legacy of the courage and conviction to change lives, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

she is a powerful demonstration and testament of. That. And inspiring one, too. And that's why this legislation is so important. Reshaping the world of work, delivering the security and dignity people can feel. As she rightly mentioned, we cannot build rightly mentioned, we cannot build a strong economy through employment insecurity. The legal loopholes that currently exist have that currently exist have contributed to the erosion of living standards and allowed a race to the bottom, and I'm always grateful for her support and thank her for her offer of support as we proceed with the Royal Assent, with proceed with the Royal Assent, with this Bill and the implementation stages, to make sure that everybody across this country can benefit workers and business alike.

And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

workers and business alike. And that's why it is pro-worker, pro-business and pro-growth. Hey. My hon. Friend the Member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough had a powerful speech and responded to lots of the points that have been raised throughout this debate and by members opposite very eloquently, and I thank him for that. I want to reassure him that we remain committed to the repeal of the 50% turnout threshold, and we've been clear that it's our intention to clear that it's our intention to align the removal of thresholds with the establishment of Ableton as an option for unions.

This amendment does not change that amendment does not change that commitment. We're working at pace to permit electronic balloting by April 2026, and we'll be pleased to know that we'll be shortly launching a consultation on electronic and workplace balloting code of practice. And I encourage all stakeholders to please respond to that consultation. My hon. Member for and friend for Tipton and Wednesbury. I thank her for her excellent points on the use and on the importance of political funds, and reiterate my remarks on the 50% threshold, and I hope she's reassured by those and on our commitment to deliver this bill in full, as you'll have heard from our Prime Minister at conference and from our second state, and hope to reiterate that at Dispatch Box here today.

And I thank her for her contributions. My hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, and I thank him too, for all of his work for this legislation. It's been a pleasure to work with him over a number of years. He mentioned Fair Pay Agreements, which we are introducing as you, as you rightly mentioned, in social care, and we'll learn from the process before considering introduction of Fair Pay Agreements in other sectors in due course. But I appreciate his passion for this area, and I'm sure we'll be in touch and speak with him about that progress.

And on trade union access, as he might be aware, last week we launched a consultation seeking views on a number of changes to modernise and hardwire negotiation, engagement and dispute resolution into industrial relations, including the enforcement mechanism for the right of access. And I thank him for raising that and bring that to the House today. My hon. Friend for Birmingham Northfield, for Falkirk, Portsmouth North and for Knowsley have made absolutely brilliant points today in this debate, and I'm forever grateful for their support.

They are strong advocates for working people across this country, and it's been absolutely wonderful to work with them over a number of years, and to be here in this House today with lots of friends who have contributed to this agenda in this vital, vital work. I really hope that we get at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some point to celebrate this. Yes, of course I will give way. I'm grateful to her for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to her for giving way. Madam speaker, I wonder if I could invite her to respond to two things. It was asked earlier how things. It was asked earlier how many times the word maternity appeared in the bill, and the word appeared in the bill, and the word pregnancy appears 16 times, parental 27 times, bereavement 34 times. Is it not the case that we can't restrict this to individual phrases? But second is not the real phrases? But second is not the real point, that this isn't some abacus exercise.

The real impact of this bill is the change and improvements

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill is the change and improvements this will make for millions of rights. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. I thank my hon. Friend and what an excellent point. Well made. I'm glad he's managed to find the control and function at such speed, and I always rely on him to provide that efficiency and that clarity. that efficiency and that clarity. This bill will benefit more than 15 million workers, and that is an incredible, powerful statistic from the Dispatch Box, over 2 million people on zero contract could benefit, as well as the many workers he's mentioned that will workers he's mentioned that will benefit from further protections and rights at work.

And I will give way, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way, of course. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I thank my my hon. Friend, my honourable good friend, the Member for Halifax for giving way with reference to zero hours contracts and the millions of workers that stand to benefit from all of the measures in this bill. I wonder if she would agree with me that the state of the bill, as it came back as a result of amendments from Liberal Democrat peers with regards to the right to guaranteed hours, actually are unworkable bureaucratic mess that open up scope for abusive practices in the workplace and withdraw the meaningful protections in this bill from far too many workers.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and and a very, very contribution and and a very, very important one. Exploitative zero hours contracts. I mean, I meet many people in my constituency who many people in my constituency who and as he will too, who don't know day to day whether they will have enough money for food or rent because they don't know how many hours they will make that week. That's why it's so important that we're giving people basic security we're giving people basic security by by banning exploitative zero hours contracts.

We know people do value the flexibility that's offered by them, and that's why offered by them, and that's why we're tackling exploitative ones, as he rightly outlines, and the impacts that amendments could have impacts that amendments could have on this could maybe look towards a different route of actually how we do tackle exploitative zero hours do tackle exploitative zero hours contracts. We want to protect that. It's so important for working people across this country that they do have that certainty week by they do have that certainty week by week of what they will be paid and what they deserve.

And I thank him for all of his work in this area for all of his work in this area over a number of years, and he brings a wealth of experience to this legislation and particularly this legislation and particularly to this part of the bill. So I thank him for his contribution. The government is clear that you cannot build a strong economy whilst build a strong economy whilst having people in insecure work. Employment laws have not kept pace with modern working patterns, and this has allowed some employers to exploit gaps in the law, undercut responsible businesses and fuel a race to the bottom.

But by new industrial and trade strategies, this bill will drive productivity, foster innovation and lay the foundations for long term secure growth. It will level the playing field for good employers and put the UK economy in step with competitors in other advanced economies, as you will have heard today. Madam Deputy Speaker, I stand on the shoulders and incredible hard work of many friends and members in this chamber and on this side of the House, and I pay tribute to them and put on thanks my gratitude for all of their work to be the place where we are today.

I really hope members support the government in our determination to get this bill over the line, to make sure that we update our employment rights legislation for this country, for businesses, for employers and for the future and for growth. And I thank hon. Members for all their contributions. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment one be as many opinion say I. Hi. I'm going to. No,
16:36
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues Colleagues should Colleagues should be Colleagues should be seated Colleagues should be seated if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues should be seated if they are near a bench not standing and queuing. I can still see you and queuing. I can still see you regardless of how you wish to stand sideways. The question is as on the order papers say I. I of the contrary, no. No tellers for the ayes I Jade Botterill and Mark Ferguson tellers for the noes Katie Ferguson tellers for the noes Katie Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The eye to the right were 310. The noes to the left 155.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noes to the left 155. The eyes to right 310. The nurse left 155 to the ayes have it. The left 155 to the ayes have it. The left 155 to the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. Order, order! I must now put the questions necessary to bring to a conclusion. Proceedings of the Lords Amendments. We now come to the government motion relating to Lords. Reason motion relating to Lords. Reason 120 be as set out on the notice paper.

I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that the motion. The question is that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords and disagreement with the Lords and their amendments, 23 and 160, 120, but does not insist on its amendments. 106 A and proposes amendments. 106 A and proposes amendments A to C in lieu of Lords amendments A to C in lieu of Lords Amendments 23 and 106 to 120, as many of our opponents say, I, I of many of our opponents say, I, I of Colleagues Colleagues observing Colleagues observing the Colleagues observing the chamber will see that I'm on my feet and should be seated.

The question is, as on the Order Paper as made that opinion say, aye. I of the contrary, no no tellers for the ayes Jade Botterill and Mark Ferguson tellers for the noes. Ferguson tellers for the noes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ian Ian Lavery Ian Lavery.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! The ayes to the right. 308. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 308. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 153. The Ayes to the right. 308. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right. 308. The Noes to the left. 153. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. We now come to the motion to We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 40 8BI call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 48 B as many other opinion say, I. I know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion say, I. I know. No. Colleagues Colleagues will observe in the chamber that I'm on my feet and they should be seated. Mr. Vickers, you bounced up just as I said. Be seated. Remarkable, remarkable. The question is, as on the Order Paper as Maidenhead say a of the contrary, no. No tellers for the ayes I Jade Botterill and Mark Ferguson tellers for the noes. Ferguson tellers for the noes.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The ayes to the right were 310.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noes to the left 150. The ayes to the right 310. The nose the left 152. The ayes have it. nose the left 152. The ayes have it. nose the left 152. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. We now The ayes have it. Unlock. We now come to the motion to disagree with come to the motion to disagree with Lords amendments 60 B and 60 C, but to propose amendments A and B in lieu.

I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 60 B and 60 C, but proposes amendments A and B in lieu, as many opinion say, I ii lieu, as many opinion say, I ii come to no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the government. Motion relating to government. Motion relating to Lords and Lords. Reason 72 B as set out on the notice paper. I call the out on the notice paper.

I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 61 and 72, but proposes amendment A in lieu, as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many as opinion say, aye. I know. No, Claire. Colleagues Colleagues observing the chamber. Mr. Alberto Costa, sir the chamber. Mr. Alberto Costa, sir Iain Duncan Smith, I should not be having to call out your names. The question is, as on the order papers, many opinion say, aye. of the contrary, no tellers for the ayes I contrary, no tellers for the ayes I Jade Botterill and Mark Ferguson. Tellers for the noes Katie Lam and Order.

Order. Order. Order. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 312 the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 151. The Ayes to the right. 312. The Noes to the left 151 to the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. We now. We now come to the government. Motion relating to government. Motion relating to Lords. Reason 62 B as set out on the notice paper. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House insists on his disagreement with the Lords and Amendment 62, but proposes and Amendment 62, but proposes amendment A in lieu.

And as many of that opinion say, I. I of the that opinion say, I. I of the Colleagues Colleagues should Colleagues should be Colleagues should be seated. Colleagues should be seated. Colleagues should be seated and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

quiet. The question is, as on the order papers that. Are of the contrary. No. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. Tellers for the ayes are Jade Botterill and Mark Ferguson. Tellers for the noes are Katie Lam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And And so And so on And so on. And so on. So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 311, the noes to the left were 152.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noes to the left were 152. The ayes to the right were 311. The noes to the left were 152. So The noes to the left were 152. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. Minister. To move that the committee be appointed to draw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

up reasons. I beg to move that a committee be appointed, to draw up reasons, to be assigned to the Lords for to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments. One b and 40 eight B, I Kate Dearden Nesil Caliskan and Jeevun Dearden Nesil Caliskan and Jeevun Sandher Laurence Turner. Antonia Bance, Andrew Griffith and Charlotte Cane. The members of the Charlotte Cane. The members of the committee at Kate Dearden b chair of the Committee that three. B quorum and committee, and that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

quorum and committee, and that the Committee do withdraw immediately. The question is that the Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment one B and 48 B that Kate Dearden Nesil Caliskan Gloucester Jeevun Sandher Laurence Turner Antonia Bance, Andrew Griffith and Charlotte Cane the members of the committee, that Kate Dearden b the chair of the Committee, that three b the quorum of the committee that the committee do withdraw immediately, as many as are of that opinion say, aye of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

That concludes consideration of the Lords message

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relating to the Employment Rights Bill point of order. Chris Philp. Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, at Prime Minister's Questions earlier today, the Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister was asked by my hon. Friend no was asked by my hon. Friend no fewer than five times whether he was aware of any prisoner released was aware of any prisoner released early having claimed asylum. We now know that he had in his possession know that he had in his possession of that time a folder containing details of the accidental release of Brahim Kader Sharif from of Brahim Kader Sharif from Wandsworth prison last week.

A man previously convicted of sex previously convicted of sex offenders who is, as we speak at large and posing a risk to the public. It has emerged since then public. It has emerged since then that another man, William Smith, was accidentally released on Monday. The deputy Prime Minister failed to disclose that relevant information to this House, the House and the to this House, the House and the public are entitled to be told about these things, but the deputy Prime Minister withheld that information.

The police have subsequently confirmed they have no objection to this information being released, contrary to briefings from the government. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, will the Justice Deputy Speaker, will the Justice Secretary come to this House before the close of business and make a statement so members of this House can question him? We cannot wait until the House returns on Tuesday

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for a proper account. I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Whether the government chooses to make a statement is, of course, a matter for is not a matter for the chair. for is not a matter for the chair. However, the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Member's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have heard the hon. Member's concerns. Point of order. Iain Duncan Smith. Thank you speaker. The reality

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you speaker. The reality is that I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that he was held back for clear that he was held back for operational reasons by the Metropolitan Police. In answering that question at Prime Minister's
17:38
None Portrait Points of Order
-

Questions. The times right now has published, Mr. Swinford of the Times has published that far from that being the case, that there is that being the case, that there is now significant frustration in the Met Police that they said there was clearly no operational issue with the release of that information at all. I wonder if the deputy, Madam all. I wonder if the deputy, Madam Deputy Speaker, you take that into consideration, because surely this is a process of misleading the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House. Here by by not mentioning. I thank the right hon. Gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my previous answer to the previous gentleman's answer to the previous gentleman's point of order. It is not a point of order, and it is not a matter

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the chair, but it is a matter of debate. Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. No, no. Can you confirm? It is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

point of order? Point of order. Graham Stuart. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You'll be aware that a bill was brought before Parliament presented brought before Parliament presented to Parliament only this week, providing a duty of candour for public servants. Not enough. It's public servants. Not enough. It's not enough simply to tell the truth. You've got to have a duty of You've got to have a duty of candour. Can the you, Madam Deputy Speaker, share with the House whether the sponsoring Minister, the Justice Secretary, has decided, has decided to remove himself as the sponsor of that bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the sponsor of that bill? I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. However, that is not a point of order. It's a is not a point of order. It's a point of argument. We now come to public authorities. Point of order,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

public authorities. Point of order, doctor Andrew Murrison. I do hope that this is a point of order. Very much is. Madam Deputy. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. We have had this week the publication of a very important bill, so important that the Prime Minister himself came to this House Minister himself came to this House to present it at Second Reading. But the sponsor of that bill is the Justice Secretary. And whilst I have no doubt that today the Justice Secretary was being truthful, there is a question over whether he was being candid. Which is a higher test. Can you advise me on how the Justice Secretary might be requested to come to this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to clarify his position? Lee Dillon Jon Pearce. I thank the hon. Gentleman for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. However, I will repeat, this is not a matter for repeat, this is not a matter for the chair. That is not a point of order. We now come to public authorities for Error and Recovery) authorities for Error and Recovery) Bill programme number two. Motion to be moved formally. The question to be moved formally. The question is as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say, aye of the country.

No. I think the ayes the country. No. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We're now moving to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The next business. Where? Public Authorities (Fraud, Error

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill consideration of Lords amendments. Now I can inform the House that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege. We will begin with the government motion to disagree with Lords Amendment one, with which it will be convenient to consider all the other Lords amendments and other Lords amendments and government amendments and motions as on the Group in selection paper. I call the Minister to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call the Minister to move the motion. Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I beg to move that this House disagrees with Lords Amendment one and proposes, in lieu of the Lords Amendment Amendments one A and one B to the Bill. The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill delivers on this government's manifesto commitment to safeguard public money and ensure that every single pound is wisely spent. Fraud against the
17:42
17:43
Andrew Western Portrait Andrew Western MP (Stretford and Urmston, Labour)
-
-
First of all, can I thank the Minister for bringing it forward and for all his hard work that the government have done releasing it. There's one thing that always concerns me and my office. Nearly every week I have people who come to me who have made inadvertently made mistakes. They perhaps don't understand how the online system works, how the paperwork it has to be filled in, and sometimes they've picked the wrong box and they find themselves in a difficult position that doesn't take away from those who deliberately, deliberately fraud and try to get money they shouldn't be receiving.

Can I just ask the Minister this question? How can we absolutely be sure that those who make inadvertent mistakes will not find themselves in a difficult position alongside those who have done wrong, and make sure that the sympathy that is needed for those is right. I know the Minister would be of the same opinion as me to make sure it's done right. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He will be aware that it is enshrined elsewhere in legislation. That claimant error is legislation. That claimant error is recoverable as part of Universal Credit. But what I can assure him of as part of this bill is that the of as part of this bill is that the eligibility verification measure will enable us to identify errors that are legitimate as well as that are legitimate as well as illegitimate, or, shall we say, perhaps deliberate in order to perhaps deliberate in order to minimise the level of debt that individuals who have done this accidentally in some cases.

I do accidentally in some cases. I do accept they're caught earlier. Any overpayments will be smaller as a direct consequence. So I do believe direct consequence. So I do believe that one of the advantages of this bill is that it can minimise suffering for people who have suffering for people who have inadvertently made a mistake. Before I turn to the Lords amendments, I want to thank my amendments, I want to thank my noble friends Baroness Anderson, Baroness Sherlock, who expertly guided the bill through the other guided the bill through the other place.

I shared their appreciation of all the peers who contributed to its detailed scrutiny and their invaluable insights that have invaluable insights that have helped the government strengthen the bill. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government made important changes to the bill in the other place, and I now ask this House to endorse these government amendments. They were made to ensure that the Bill would deliver its aims and clarify the operation of the powers, as well as ensuring that the safeguards this government has introduced are strong and effective.

More procedural yet still important, amendments have been made to part two to reflect the Scottish Government's position on how they want the powers to be applied to devolved benefits. And across the Bill, we have also made amendments that are more technical in nature, including to reflect the recent Data Use and Access Act and to ensure flexibility in the commencement of certain provisions of the bill across the different nations of the United Kingdom. In the interest of time, I will focus my update to the House on the following areas that are most substantial and pertinent.

They reflect extensive engagement that has taken place with external stakeholders, as well as points made by peers in the other place. Firstly, in part one of the Bill, the government tabled a group of amendments to enable the PSFA to be merged with another statutory body, rather than necessarily being set up as a standalone statutory body, although the power to do so remains. This builds flexibility into the legislation enabling the PSFA to achieve the aim of separation between investigators and Ministers in future, whilst also avoiding the need to set up an entirely new statutory body if it is not considered proportionate to do so.

Linked to this, I would like to speak to a minor and technical amendment I am making to Lords Amendment 75 to schedule two, the amendment 75 A simply ensures that authorised investigators are captured within the regulation making power, which is set out by schedule two if or when the powers conferred under part one of the bill are transferred to another public authority, or if the PSFA is set up as its own statutory body. It does not change the use of any powers laid out within the Bill.

In both part one and part two. The government also made changes to ensure that government must disclose relevant information to the PSFA Independent Reviewer and EVM Independent Reviewer. Effective oversight is a critical aspect of this government's approach. These amendments do not represent a change in that approach. Indeed, they simply further strengthen the commitments this government has made to support open and transparent use of the powers. I will return to the point of oversight later in relation to Lords Amendment 43.

The government has made several amendments to its debt provisions across part one and part two of the bill. These are a consequence of PSFA and DWP extensive engagement with the financial sector, and clarify important aspects of the operation of the powers, including situations where a liable person might have a legal deputy managing their affairs. They also strengthened the rights of debtors by ensuring that a deduction order cannot be in suspension indefinitely, and that after a two year period in suspension, it will not be resurrected.

The government has also responded to the continued confusion that seems to have arisen arisen on the DWP debt recovery provisions in part two of the Bill, and who these powers apply to. The government has made amendments explicitly stating that a direct deduction order, as outlined in schedule five of the bill, and a disqualification from driving order outlined in schedule six, cannot be made where the person is entitled to and in receipt of a benefit from the DWP. This clarifies the existing intent that these powers are only for use with those who are not on benefit, where the money cannot be recovered from a payslip, and where the person can afford to pay and is refusing to do so.

I remind the House that this power addresses an important point of fairness. It cannot be right that those who can pay money back can avoid doing so. And these amendments underline this point. The government also acted to strengthen the legislative safeguards around the use of the eligibility verification measure. I remind the House that this is simply a measure that enables DWP to ask for limited data from financial institutions that will help the department to identify incorrect payments and verify eligibility for specific benefits.

The amendments made by the government and the Other place will introduce an explicit, necessary and proportionate test before an eligibility verification notice can be issued and clarify the purpose for which an eligibility Verification notice can be issued. To only assisting in identifying incorrect payments. These put onto the face of the bill the existing policy intent. Again, I will refer return to the eligibility verification measure when I address amendment 84. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will now turn to the amendments made by peers in the other place.

We welcome the challenge and scrutiny provided by their contributions, but we cannot accept changes that risk undermining the powers. The government's position today will continue to reflect that, including in amendments in lieu. We have put forward, firstly, Lords Amendment one will give the Minister for the Cabinet Office the power to initiate an investigation when they consider it necessary in the public interest. And just so he is sure of that power, he has joined me on the front bench. We are proposing some technical changes to the Lords amendment with alternative amendments one A and one B.

This will give the Minister for the Cabinet Office the power to initiate an investigation when they consider it as necessary in the public interest. The other place asks us to go further than the original drafting of the bill allowed, and this amendment shows we have listened. This government believes it will almost never be necessary for the Minister to exercise this new power, due to the collaborative approach of the normal working of government, but it will be available if there is genuine necessity.

Our amendment in lieu also makes some consequential changes to clause two to preserve the should not take on matters assigned to the Secretary of State with responsibility for Social Security or His Majesty's Revenue and Customs. The reason for this is because DWP and HMRC already have well established functions and frameworks to tackle Social Security and tax fraud. Of course, it goes without saying that both departments may still collaborate with the PSFA. If a fraud crosses many departmental boundaries.

I now turn to Lords Amendments 30 and 31. The government wholeheartedly agrees that the measures in part one of the bill are powerful and must be used with care. We agree that staff must be appropriately trained before they are able to use these powers, and we agree that these powers, and we agree that Internal and external, is essential. We have now put forward amendments in lieu amendment 31 A, 31 B and 31 C that mandates statutory guidance, a new reporting requirement, and sets internal record requirements.

The amendments ensure strong ministerial and parliamentary oversight of the powers as called for in the upper House, without unnecessarily involving Ministers in operational decisions. The statutory guidance will detail how the Minister will exercise the function of investigating suspected fraud against public authorities. It will outline structures of internal oversight, delegation of powers, standards for the training and appointment of all authorised officers and investigators, and the SFA's collaboration with an independent reviewer. New reports will be prepared following the end of each financial year and laid in Parliament by the Minister stating how many times.

Investigation and enforcement powers in part one of the bill have been used, and there is now a requirement for the PSFA to keep internal records of the use of those powers available for scrutiny by an independent reviewer that is now on the face of the bill. Together, these ensure Ministers are accountable for the use of these powers and shows how they are delegated in places. They build on processes that would already have been in place, but we have brought them forward to the face of the bill.

Moving on to part two of the bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, I focus first on Lords Amendment 84 on the treatment of information obtained under an eligibility verification notice. Even whilst I understand the intent of the Other place, I cannot accept this amendment as drafted and I urge members to instead back the government and 84 Lords. Amendment 84 as drafted risks compromising the weight that DWP may be able to attribute to information obtained through an even. The government has been clear that even information on its own has no tag of suspicion attached, and DWP must look within its own systems first and check for any inconsistencies before taking further action.

But depending on the information held, EVM information may form an important part of any further action. We must not compromise this. This amendment also risks legislating for a person's state of mind, in this case that of a DWP authorised officer. This is something we should avoid where we can. It is far better to focus legislation on the actions which must or must not take place following receipt of EVM information. The second part of the amendment relating to the seniority of staff who must review EVM information, also risks undermining the existing public law principle that staff at DWP take decisions on the Secretary of State's behalf, and there is also uncertainty about what would constitute a suitably senior person.

In any case, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that officials are suitably trained and experienced to take decisions on their behalf. The government amendments in Lieu Amendments 84 A and B seek to address these risks and build on the amendments that the government tabled at Report stage in the Lords. They more accurately reflect the policy, intent and focus on the actions which DWP staff must take following receipt of EVM information. The amendments clarify that where DWP has received EVM information, it must also have regard to all other relevant information it holds before taking further actions.

First, it requires an authorised officer to consider all information held, which is relevant to the question of whether to issue an information notice as well as the relevant EVM information before issuing the notice. Under the department's investigatory powers. Secondly, it requires a DWP agent to consider all information held which is relevant to the question of whether to suspend a payment as well as the relevant EVM information, before suspending that payment. And finally, it requires a DWP agent to consider all information held, which is relevant to the question of whether to change an earlier benefit decision, as well as the relevant EVM information before making that change.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe our amendments succeed in offering the necessary reassurances about the way individuals within the DWP will take decisions once EVM information is received by DWP, namely, that no decisions will be made using EVM information in isolation and therefore, I urge hon. Members to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

back these amendments. I will. Thanks very much for giving way. Just on that, I'm still not exactly Just on that, I'm still not exactly clear why he disagrees with Lords Amendment 84. I understand that Amendment 84. I understand that what he's saying is that we'll look at EVM and everything else, but in the circumstances that they've only the circumstances that they've only got EVM and not much in the way of information. Is that why he can't agree with Lords Amendment 84? agree with Lords Amendment 84? Because if they've only got that, he wants them to be able to take decisions based only on that and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decisions based only on that and not on anything else. I think there are a couple of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think there are a couple of issues with amendment 84 as drafted. The first is that it could minimise The first is that it could minimise what may be very, very clear evidence from an EVM. The point evidence from an EVM. The point about an EV that has been returned. The point about which information they would have to consider is pertinent in that it may answer the question as to why. For example, somebody has more than £100,000 in a bank account, so it's about considering all information, not considering all information, not having no further information on which to act.

I'm probably not explaining that tremendously well. explaining that tremendously well. But what I'm what I'm what I'm effectively saying is that an an even could provide information that is sufficient for us to launch a fraud investigation. What we would want to do is consider all relevant information, including that, to see whether that information is valid or should be discounted for any reason of which we are aware. So the. Lords Amendment 43, which would add three additional requirements to the role that the EVM independent reviewer would be required to undertake.

Madam Deputy Speaker, is an amendment that I cannot accept on part D of this amendment regarding costs incurred by business. The government is committed to keeping costs associated with this measure proportionate and to a minimum. Officials have discussed this part of the amendment with the finance industry, who acknowledge that this may place a significant burden on financial institutions if they are asked to report on costs every year. This is something we clearly would want to avoid. As for part E, let me be clear that there is no reason for individuals to lose access to banking services solely because of information shared under EVM.

We have been clear that this information does not imply any wrongdoing, and this measure simply provides a source of data that feeds into long standing processes. In DWP, where layers of support and specialist staff already exist to support those who are vulnerable or have complex needs. The amendments 84 and 80 4BI have spoken to reaffirm this. Furthermore, we believe this measure will help our customers. It will help us spot errors in claims sooner, help us take steps to correct these, and help prevent larger overpayments and debts building up, which I spoke to in response to the intervention from the hon.

Gentleman from Strangford. And as for part F, I have already outlined the government's amendments made in the other place, which require the Secretary of State to provide the independent EVM reviewer with all reasonably required material. Given this, there is no need for the reviewer to write a statement to this effect on every report, but if they did feel the need. There is nothing to stop them doing so. Finally, Lords Amendment 97 concerns DWP authorised investigators use of reasonable force. I would like to begin by reminding the House that the powers of search and seizure are intended to be used by expert DWP staff trained to industry standards, to tackle only serious and organised crime against the DWP.

Madam Deputy Speaker again, whilst I understand the intent of the Other place, I cannot accept the amendment as drafted. The use of reasonable force is set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and governs all bodies exercising this power to ensure a single, consistent framework that does not distinguish between use of force between items and persons. We cannot break down section 107 of Pace, and there is no precedent for specifying where or on what reasonable force may be a wide in pace.

However, I have been clear from the outset that Dwp's policy position was never for a DWP authorised investigator to use reasonable force against a person. Instead, it was allowed to allow them to gain access to property such as locked filing cabinets or cupboards when on a premises to search for and seize critical evidence where force against a person might be needed. The intention has always been to rely on the likes of the police. I stand by the position that the best way to provide for DWP to have powers of reasonable force is to remain within the umbrella of Pace, to safeguard that consistency.

There is clear precedent for this, with other government departments drawing down the same powers of reasonable force. However, I have heard the level of concern raised about this measure from the Other place, and so I am introducing amendments in lieu. 97. A, B, c, d, E and 97 F to clause 76 and schedule four to draw a distinction between the power of reasonable force exercise above by DWP authorised investigators and police officers. This amendment removes the power of reasonable force derived from section 107 of Pace, and instead creates a standalone provision on reasonable force.

In this bill, it restricts DWP authorised investigators access to reasonable force against property only, while retaining the police's power to use reasonable force where necessary against people and property. This is the policy intent but brings DWP power of reasonable force outside of pace to ensure the standalone power of reasonable force benefits from the safeguards provided by alignment with Pace, DWP authorised investigators will still operate in compliance with Pace code B for the exercise of search and seizure powers. My department are working with the Home Office closely on this.

Officials in the Home Office have confirmed that secondary legislation will be laid to insert the relevant clauses on reasonable force of this bill into Pace code B

**** Possible New Speaker ****

People. People. And People. And I People. And I believe People. And I believe that People. And I believe that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

People. And I believe that this amendment puts that beyond doubt. The government is grateful for the scrutiny of this bill, and there have been improvements made as a have been improvements made as a result. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government cannot accept amendments that undermine how these powers will operate, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

how these powers will operate, and I urge the House to support the government's alternative proposals. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment one. I call Shadow Minister Rebecca Smith. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to first begin by echoing the thanks that have already been expressed to members on all sides of the House and in the other place, of the House and in the other place, who have contributed to this Bill in particular. I also pay tribute to the excellent work of Baroness Finn, Viscount Younger and Lord Finn, Viscount Younger and Lord Vaux, whose detailed and constructive engagement ensured that the bill before us today is stronger, more balanced and more stronger, more balanced and more effective as a result this bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker, is about protecting taxpayers money, ensuring fairness for those who play by the rules and giving our play by the rules and giving our public bodies the powers they need to tackle fraud and error wherever it occurs. Every pound lost to fraud is a pound taken from fraud is a pound taken from taxpayers, from public services and from the people who rely on them. Tackling fraud and error is. And sending a clear message to fraudsters that they will not succeed is vital. And this bill takes an important step toward doing that.

But there was more to doing that. But there was more to be done, and our colleagues in the other place have done a brilliant job scrutinising this legislation. I also want to acknowledge that the government has been incredibly constructive in their approach, and thanks to the determination of conservative and crossbench peers, a number of important concessions have been made improving the bill for the better. So I'm going to touch on several of the Lords amendments in my comments, if I may. So on Lords Amendment one, looking at the PSFA proactive investigations.

Let me first turn to this amendment concerning the powers of the public Sector Fraud Authority to conduct proactive investigations. When this bill was introduced, the PSFA could only act when invited in by another authority. We believe that that risk preventing it from acting, even when there was credible intelligence that fraud was taking place. Our conservative colleagues in the Lords rightly identified that gap and brought forward an amendment that empowers the PSFA to act proactively, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect fraud without waiting for a formal request.

That ability to act swiftly and decisively is essential if we are to stop fraud before more money is lost. The government's amendment in lieu reflects the principles made in Lords Amendment one, ensuring that the SFA's new powers operate within a clear and accountable framework. This is an important issue, so we welcome this concession to strengthen the SFA's ability to intervene early and protect taxpayers money. Lords amendment 30 and 31. They relate to oversight and accountability, ensuring that with new powers come clear lines of ministerial responsibility.

Conservative peers raise legitimate questions about how serious investigative powers under this bill would be authorised, particularly those based on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The principle is simple when government officials are to exercise significant powers, Ministers must remain accountable to Parliament for how those powers are used. Following discussions, the government have tabled amendments in lieu of Lords Amendments 30 and 31, which we have accepted as a compromise on the basis that the initial guidance is subject to a take note debate in Grand Committee, allowing Parliament to consider and scrutinise that guidance in full.

And I'd be grateful if the Minister could confirm that this remains the government's position in his closing remarks, and apologies if he said it already and I didn't quite catch it. And I next turn to Lords Amendment 84. Modern fraud prevention increasingly relies on technology, including artificial intelligence and data driven eligibility checks. Used well, these tools can help identify patterns and protect public funds, but they must be used responsibly and transparently. Lord Viscount Younger and Baroness Finn raised their concerns that the use of AI or automated eligibility indicators should never amount to reasonable grounds for suspicion on their own.

Technology might inform decisions, but they must not replace human judgement. So it is welcome that the government have listened. Its amendment in lieu makes it explicit that before any intrusive action is taken, such as amending a benefit or launching an investigation, the information must be reviewed by a suitably qualified human officer. We believe that that ensures we get the best of both worlds, harnessing innovation to protect the taxpayer while retaining human judgement to safeguard individuals. Lords amendment 43 concerns the eligibility verification mechanism and its impact on vulnerable people and financial institutions.

Specifically, it tasked the independent reviewer of the mechanism to assess how the system is taking into account the additional needs of vulnerable people, whether it risks benefits claimants from being prematurely debunked and the cost to banks and financial institutions of complying. Throughout the passage of this bill, members, including those on the conservative benches, have emphasised the need to protect those who may be more vulnerable, including people facing financial hardship and those with disabilities. While we are disappointed that the government is not today backing the amendment, it is reassuring that they have committed to ensuring that all the points made in both houses are fed directly into the work of the independent reviewer.

We understand also that a meeting will be set up between members and the independent reviewer after Royal Assent, so that these issues can be explored in detail. We will continue to to push to ensure that Ministers deliver on these promises, but we hope that this engagement will ensure the review proceeds with a full understanding of Parliament's concerns about proportionality, cost and fairness. Very briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker on Lords Amendment 75, which, as the Minister rightly said, is essentially a technical correction.

We essentially have no issue with this at all because it tidies up the text but does not alter the substance of the bill. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I turn to Lords Amendment 97 concerning the issue of reasonable force by Department for Work and Pensions investigators. We do not believe that it was the government's intention that DWP investigators should use force against individuals. That power rightly rests with the police, who are trained and accountable for its use. However, we do believe that it was not clear in the legislation.

The explanatory note stated that the power will be limited to using reasonable force against things, not people, but it was not specified in the bill itself. After we raised this in the Committee stage in the Commons, Lords Amendment 97 sought to clarify this position that DWP officers may use reasonable force only against property and not against people. The government's amendments in lieu is a are a compromise, but it does now distinguish between the use of force between people and property. For investigators who aren't constables, which was the clarification we were looking for.

In summary, Madam Deputy Speaker, thanks to the thorough work of colleagues in both houses, the bill before us today is better than when it was first introduced. It gives the Public Sector Fraud Authority the power to act proactively. It embeds ministerial accountability. It ensures responsible use of technology. It protects vulnerable people, and it provides clarity on how enforcement powers may be used. There remain areas that we think that the bill could further be strengthened. There is nothing still in here to tackle sick fluences, nor will amendments requiring the government to review the whistleblowing procedures within the civil service accepted.

It is regrettable that the Minister missed these opportunities, but it is welcome that they were at least willing to listen on other areas of the bill. And I know we also had some very good debates on the bits some very good debates on the bits that they haven't accepted. Mr. speaker, while we will not be opposing the amendments that the government has put forward in government has put forward in response to the Lords amendment, this must not be the limit of their ambition. This is just the latest step to crack down on fraud and step to crack down on fraud and error, but we will need to see continued effort, action and enforcement from this government.

Because, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Because, Madam Deputy Speaker, the message must be clear fraudsters must not and will not succeed. Every pound stolen through fraud is Every pound stolen through fraud is a pound lost to the taxpayer, to our public services and to those who do the right thing. That is why who do the right thing. That is why we will keep pressing for vigilance, transparency and fairness as this bill becomes law. bill becomes law.
18:13
18:13
18:13
Neil Duncan-Jordan Portrait Neil Duncan-Jordan MP (Poole, Independent)
-
-
Even now, this would give the DWP power to give certain financial organisations an eligibility organisations an eligibility verification notice. This notice would require the receiver to identify relevant accounts which specified benefits are paid into, assess the accounts against eligibility indicators and where there is indication that incorrect there is indication that incorrect payments have been or may be made. payments have been or may be made. Share specific details of the accounts with the department. Now. Currently, the bill includes provision for an independent provision for an independent reviewer to conduct an annual review of the Secretary of State's review of the Secretary of State's powers under the EVM.

Amendment 43 seeks to expand the scope of that seeks to expand the scope of that review to ensure that the costs to banks are proportionate and any banks are proportionate and any unintended adverse consequences to benefit recipients are identified. Now, the independent review of the EVM need only consider the extent to which the Secretary of State and the financial institutions, in receipt of a notice have complied with the requirements when exercising the measure, and whether the EVM has been effective in assisting in identifying incorrect benefit payments.

But it doesn't require the independent reviewer to also consider whether the EVM is being used proportionately, and this is the key to amendment number 43. It is essential that any consideration of the proportionality of the EVM takes into account the potential harm to individuals during the bill's Committee stage. Several witnesses warned that the EVM could result in serious harm to benefit recipients. For example, there is the possibility of a algorithmic error when automated systems are used on a population wide scale.

If the algorithms are scanning the bank accounts of 10 million people, an error rate of just 1% will result in 100,000 cases where innocent people are wrongly investigated. As I mentioned at Report stage, I'm concerned about what this bill says about our welfare state. The danger of creating a second class citizenship where welfare recipients have less civil liberties than the rest of us. It turns banks into an arm of the state empowered to trawl through personal data, even when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing.

And this strips away a fundamental principle, I believe, of British justice. The presumption of innocence. That's why we need to make sure that when the annual review of the power takes place, the independent reviewer considers the harm to individuals so that we can understand whether the powers being exercised are proportionate. I therefore urge the Minister to address these concerns while there is still time, and accept amendment 43 as a basic safeguard to ensure that those who are most likely to be impacted by these powers are accounted for.

When we scrutinise the way in which these powers have been exercised.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liberal Democrat spokesperson Steve Darling. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to thank the government for the steps that have been made on the improvements to been made on the improvements to this bill compared to when it was debated at the Bill Committee stage. debated at the Bill Committee stage. We as Liberal Democrats still have concerns around elements of the
18:17
Steve Darling Portrait Steve Darling MP (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
concerns around elements of the bill, but as proposed, it is in a much better place. And I would like to thank all colleagues for working together in a collaborative way to drive for the improvements. But there are still elements where we have grave concerns. Clearly, fraud is wrong. Some people believe that fraud against large organisations such as supermarkets and the government are victimless crimes, but clearly we have to apply larger taxes or choose not to spend money on things such as tackling environment, environment, climate change.

If we don't have that money because it's been fraudulently claimed. So it's important that it's tackled. But we need to make sure that we have two words guiding us proportionality and fairness. And we as Liberal Democrats still have grave concerns that elements of the bill are not as proportionate as one would wish. I would like to particularly focus my remarks on amendment 43, where we feel as liberal Democrats, there should be, you know, more responsibility given to the independent reviewer around proportionality and fairness.

We we still have concerns that there are a blanket approach to this. And effectively, mass fishing will occur with with the proposals as before us. One doesn't have to look that far back in recent IT history to see where things have gone wrong. Only I believe it was last week where child benefit in two two sorry, 23,500 households across the United Kingdom were frozen because of those families leaving the country, and they're not being accounted for in returning back to the United Kingdom.

And that was an error made upon a computer system. And that's just on a small proportion of what this is set to be applied to. I think it's also important, and it's something that was debated repeatedly at the bill committee about the reasonableness of Ministers. And whilst I'm not questioning the reasonableness of the current Minister or multiple Ministers before him or her, I do question what we're seeing on the other side of the Atlantic and the person who has the levers of power there in the Oval Office, and what may have been seen as reasonable in politics within the United Kingdom, is sadly a distant memory in the United States of America.

And so we need to ensure that we are guarding against that in the future in our current legislation that we're putting forward now on the use of force, Liberal Democrats are well pleased that the government have made a step in the right direction as far as the amendments concerned, but we feel it could be stronger. But in conclusion, we would go back to amendment 43 and would encourage colleagues to vote against these proposals that the government have before us, because we strongly support the amendment as proposed by the Other place.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

John McDonnell. I do get a bit edgy when the front benches agree so much, to be front benches agree so much, to be frank. But on 84, I just want to be absolutely clear about what the absolutely clear about what the Minister has said. As far as I'm aware. First of all, we've now got a human being making the decisions. a human being making the decisions. The authorising officers, the authorising officers will be able authorising officers will be able to draw upon all other information as what the Minister said.

I'm not as what the Minister said. I'm not clear, though, whether or not still a decision can be made simply on the EVM information. Useful to read the EVM information. Useful to read into the record more clearly what what the intention is of the what the intention is of the government with regard to 43. If I come to that, I want to follow from
18:21
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)
-
-
come to that, I want to follow from my hon. Friend from Poole with the reference to the representations that we've received, particularly with regard to people suffering from mental health issues and who some of whom will will be living chaotic lives as well. My understanding of what the Minister has said is that the independent, the annual independent review, and this is the review, whereas the Minister is right on individual decisions, it's not for the Minister to engage in the decision making process.

That's for the authorising officers, etc. But this is the one occasion when the Minister can be held to account. When there's the annual review takes place, my understanding of what the Minister is saying is, to use his words, is that the reviewer will not be prevented from exploring this issue about the exercise of powers and the impact on vulnerable people. Can I suggest that that could be maybe strengthened in when in his response, in that it isn't just about being prevented, that it is appropriate that the independent review looks at this largely because of the representations that we've received consistently throughout the debate on this bill, from a wide range of organisations that represent people with disabilities and in particular, challenged by mental health issues.

In that case, it would, I think, be more reassuring than the words that that we've heard so far, I don't understand, really why the government would resist this, because it's just a basic element of accountability in an area which, as my hon. Friend has said, could affect so many people and could have such a significant adverse effect. And I don't want to exaggerate that. But having been in the House all the way through, when we discussed the work capability assessment introduction, it did result in what we now know.

The past government refused to accept it. It did result in a large number of suicides. And what I wouldn't want to see happen here is that we enter into a reform of the processes that we have before us in this legislation, without having a regular review of the harms that could be caused, because a regular review would be able to enable us then, if necessary, to adjust the legislation as we go forward. So I'd welcome the Minister's clarification or maybe

**** Possible New Speaker ****

strengthening of the words that he's used so far. Thank you. John Milne.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

John Milne. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Everyone accepts that we need to keep a handle on fraud, but the powers being taken by this bill, powers being taken by this bill, including DWP access to people's private bank accounts, going much further than anything we've seen in further than anything we've seen in the past. Can we trust the DWP to exercise these sweeping new powers exercise these sweeping new powers in a fair and responsible way? Unfortunately, past DWP errors have Unfortunately, past DWP errors have had the most tragic consequences.

Philip Ed Davey was 27 years old when she died. She was found when she died. She was found unconscious next to a letter from the DWP, refusing her request for the DWP, refusing her request for an at home assessment. Philippa had agoraphobia and anxiety, making it agoraphobia and anxiety, making it impossible for her to attend a Pip assessment in person. The DWP knew
18:25
John Milne Portrait John Milne MP (Horsham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
assessment in person. The DWP knew this. They were told by her sister and they would have been told by her mental health team if they had bothered to speak to them, but they did not. The letter by her side was the last of a long back and forth exchange with the DWP. During their final conversation about the DWP, Philippa said to her sister I am done fighting them, but why was she having to fight them in the first place? Surely this is a system designed to help.

The coroner's report identified 28 separate failings by the DWP and the private assessor capita from the very outset. Errors were made. Her Pip claim form was lost, her mental health needs weren't logged, no attempts were made to communicate with her mental health team or her GP to ensure that the very system designed to help her would do just that. It's easy to see, with a system riddled with errors and seemingly devoid of compassion, how someone could be driven to just give up the fight.

Philippa wrote I'm not dying because I'm suicidal. I've been trapped for so long and then comes along. The government people, I assume, are there to help. Since January the 11th, 2019, my benefits have been severely cut. I also want to share with the house what happened to Christy Hunt. Christy was training to become a nurse. She was 31. She had been on Pip and ESA until she rejoined the workforce after 13 years. Ababil giving considering her struggles with mental health, she, like Philippa, was basically a strong person.

Christy informed the DWP about her return to employment, but they forgot to log her call and so Christy was hounded by the Counter-fraud team with calls and letters. They even sent incorrect information to her local council, resulting in further letters, letters and threats of losing her home. For months, Christy was subjected to erroneous accusations of fraud, threats of losing her flat, and the life she had fought so hard to build back. On her final call with the DWP, she was noted as being confused and tearful, yet no one even asked if she was okay.

No one flagged concerns for her welfare. All they wanted was the money. Christy is an example of a person using the system that was designed to support her back into work, but instead she was the victim of mistake after mistake. And there are many others I could describe. Karen McBride, Stephen Carey, David Holmes, David Clapson, Errol Graham, Kevin Gale, Jodie Whiting, Roy Curtis, James Oliver all of them were wrongly hounded by the DWP, at least contributing to their deaths.

It does not reassure me that the name of this bill starts with fraud, when the biggest cause of overpayment is departmental error, the DWP has a long track record of badly handled mistakes. It's a cultural failing, and it's wildly optimistic to assume that everything is suddenly going to be fine going forward. From now, does the government really believe that this bill has enough checks and balances to protect vulnerable claimants? Because one thing is for sure, there will be more DWP mistakes.

So going forward, I would ask that the government commits to making coroners reports automatically available to the public in every case, wherever there is a link to DWP actions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kirsty Blackman. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's not easy to follow that speech, which was follow that speech, which was excellent and I really appreciate the Member for Horsham reading out those names of people who have been failed by the system that was meant to support them, we should remember
18:29
Kirsty Blackman Portrait Kirsty Blackman MP (Aberdeen North, Scottish National Party)
-
-
to support them, we should remember that the system is what failed them. They were, as I said, a number of the cases, incredibly strong people who had fought through adversity but then were failed by the system. A significant number of people who are disabled, people have had to fight for so much of what they have. They've had to fight every day for just just to, you know, manage to get to work or just to manage to get to the shop. They've had to fight for so much.

We should not have the system that's meant to support them. Then being another battle ground, I want to talk about a number of different things in the bill, but I'll start with the fact that this is not a happy bill. This is not a bill that the SNP supports. We're not happy with a significant proportion of the of the direction of travel in terms of the eligibility verification, for example, not least because of the potential future risks that there are. I mean, I said when the Conservatives were in government, in the Labour Party, in government, you're not going to be in government forever.

At some point somebody else will be in government. And if it's somebody that is got the kind of authoritarian ideas of some potential future leaders, then I'm not sure I want them to have access to everybody's bank accounts. In terms of the people whose bank accounts there will be access for, in terms of the looking at the proportionality of having Universal Credit claimants have their bank accounts considered to see if they're committing fraud. I wonder what proportion of Universal Credit claimants defraud the system, compared to the proportion of proportion of billionaires that are defrauding the HMRC, for example, that are not paying the level of tax that they should be paying? I don't think it is proportionate for us to say that Universal Credit claimants need to have their bank accounts looked at, because they are so likely to commit fraud that we need to check their bank accounts, whereas people who are earning millions and millions of pounds and storing it in offshore trusts don't deserve that requirement, don't deserve that level of proportionality, and don't have exactly the same constraints put on the checks of their bank accounts and all of their many bank accounts that they may have.

I think it's disproportionate for us to assume that Social Security claimants are more likely to defraud the system than anyone else, especially if we've got significant levels of proof that other people do defraud the system, and that a significant number of the errors that are made in terms of overpayments, for example, are made by DWP itself rather than by claimants. One of the members earlier. Sorry, I've forgotten your constituency South Dorset and Poole, is that right? Poole the the Poole MP earlier talked about some of the things around amendment 43 and the the vulnerable individuals that may be disadvantaged as a as a result of the situation that there is.

I mean, if we could trust that the DWP never or very rarely made mistakes, I could understand the government putting forward this bill. We know, we know a matter of incredible written down fact from coroner's reports. We know from all of our constituency casework that the DWP makes mistakes, and we're not blaming individuals at the DWP for making those mistakes there. There are sometimes systemic failures, sometimes individual failures. There are mistakes that are made within the DWP. Adding another layer of of place where they can make mistakes, adding another layer of ability to sanction people as a result to, you know, take, take their car away to look at their bank accounts, for example, I don't think is proportionate until the DWP has got a much is much less likely to make mistakes, as much less likely to greatly overpay carers, for example, and then attempt to claw it back.

I think that there are a number of things in terms of getting your own house in order, getting the government, getting the department in order before taking the activity against individuals. I do understand that there are people that defraud the system. I know I'm not doubting for a second that that is the case, but I think, as the hon. Member said, putting the error word first might have been helpful, given that that is where a significant proportion of the money that is overpaid is created by overpayments in terms of some of the things around the costs and savings that are mentioned in Lords Amendment 43, and how much does it cost to recoup this money? How much does it cost to undertake an investigation in order to see whether or not somebody is defrauding the system? We know that the system that was set up for school meals, for example, in a school meal debt system where we've had bailiffs at the door of people looking for under £10 of school meal debt, it is disproportionate cost to send a bailiff to somebody's door for under £10.

And obviously I'm hoping that everybody around the room, when they hear about that thinks, well, we shouldn't be spending that much money and upsetting somebody's life that much for the sake of £10. And if the person can't afford to pay £10 of school meal debt, I think they've got pretty significant problems. And signing a bailiff to their door is not going to help. But we only know because we know about some of these bailiff situations, because it's been reported about some of these, because they've come to MPs or because it's been reported by various organisations.

Aberlour have done a huge amount of amazing work and charity on public sector debt and some of the methods that are used to recoup that money. I think in terms of the the situation where the government should have to report on, does it is it costing a disproportionate amount for us to ensure that we are not paying out a very small amount? I think it's completely reasonable for that question to be asked. I think it is completely reasonable as well. As the hon.

Member from Poole talked about, to think about those vulnerable groups and whether they are overly disadvantaged by the system that is being put in place. Is it the case that people with learning difficulties, with people, that people with specific mental health conditions, that people with physical disabilities, that people from certain minority communities that are already marginalised, for example, Gypsy travellers will be disadvantaged by the changes. And all we're asking is not all the amendment 43 is asking. There is about reporting on that and ensuring that those vulnerabilities, if there is an entrenchment of inequality, an increase in the disadvantage that is faced by people that that is reported on.

So we are aware of it so that it is transparent so that we can see that this is having a significant additional disadvantage on an already vulnerable and marginalised community. So I think the I would really appreciate it if the government would agree with a Lords Amendment 43 rather than come against it. In terms of the last thing on on 43, about the amount of money that is proposed to be saved and the amount of money that's proposed to be saved by this bill in its entirety, understand as 1.5 billion, I am looking at the total amount of savings.

Governments of all colours are monumentally bad at reporting back on how much savings have actually been achieved by any of the measures that they put in in just about anything, unless a tax is hypothecated, for example, you do not see exactly how much money is saved, exactly how much was spent on something, and whether or not it delivered what was promised by the government. And again, that's governments of all colours. They don't do post-implementation reviews in the right amount of time, and when a government changes, they just forget that post-implementation reviews exist sometimes, and we will not know with any level of accuracy unless we get proper reports on the costs and the savings.

Exactly how much money is saved by this, and whether the government has met its target or its expected amount of £1.5 billion. So I do have significant concerns in terms of the Minister's answer to me on Amendment Lords Amendment 44. I appreciate the fact that he answered. I was able to I didn't understand what he'd said originally. On his position on Lords Amendment 84. The answer that he gave me in response did clarify his position. I do not agree with his position.

However, I now understand why the government holds holds that position. I still think it would be important to look to ensure that there has to be other things in place other than the EVM. I understand the government wants a little bit more flexibility, and is saying that they have to look at all the other information that they hold. It is possible that the DWP may not hold any more information, or may hold very little more information, and therefore the decision to investigate a fraud to initiate fraud investigation could be taken almost entirely, if not completely entirely, on the EVM.

So that's why I still disagree with the minister's position on this, because I would like to see a requirement for the the DWP to have more than just that one piece of information. And my understanding was that that was what 84 was intended to do in the first place. But I do appreciate that there have been some other amendments being placed to to by the government amendments in lieu to provide a little bit more clarity on on what is expected. I would expect them to look at all of the information that is that is provided.

Like the Minister said, I am just concerned that they may not hold lots of information and require them to look at all the information they hold. When they only hold, one piece of information gets us back to the situation we were at the beginning, where it could hinge on something, some one thing, rather than looking at a wider suite of things. Generally speaking. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will sit down in just a moment. We're not in favour of this bill. We've got significant concerns about it.

If the Minister, when he speaks in response, could just confirm that they will do as much as they can about the level of transparency, the level of costs and savings that are created by this, this bill, that they will report back on some of those measures that would give me a measure of comfort. I still won't support the bill, and I'm still potentially vote against some of the amendments that are put in place today, but I think it would make people a bit more comfortable around the house that we will have a better understanding of what's happening and whether the bill is working, as the government intends it to work or not.

Thank you very much.
18:40
Andrew Western Portrait Andrew Western MP (Stretford and Urmston, Labour)
-
-
We'd leave the House. I call the Minister DEA.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And with the leave of the House, And with the leave of the House, can I begin by thanking members who have contributed for what are thoughtful contributions, even thoughtful contributions, even where we do fundamentally disagree on aspects of the bill, I've on aspects of the bill, I've already outlined the benefits of the government's proposed approach. However, I will briefly respond to However, I will briefly respond to some of the specific points made in the debate.

And can I begin with the opposition spokesperson, the Member for South West Devon, and firstly, thank her for the constructive way that she and colleagues in both houses have colleagues in both houses have engaged on this bill. She is correct that we've ended up in a better place, and I thank her and better place, and I thank her and all members who fed into that process. That is the point of it, and I'm pleased with where we have and I'm pleased with where we have ended up on her.

Two specific questions. Yes, I can confirm that there will be a take note, take there will be a take note, take note debate at Grand Committee, as she referenced at the point when statutory guidance is laid in statutory guidance is laid in Parliament and on the question of whether members will be able to meet with the PSFA independent meet with the PSFA independent reviewer. Yes, that will happen. But I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, But I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I just briefly touch on some of the points surrounding 43, because this has taken up the majority of the debate, and I'm grateful to the comments made by my hon.

My hon. Friend from Poole and Hayes and Harlington, but also to the members for Aberdeen North, Horsham and of course, the Lib Dem spokesperson. The Member for Torbay. If I just begin by saying, firstly that I do think we need to be clear about where we have already acted in other parts of the bill or in amendments that have come forward today. So, for instance, on the question of costs, the independent reviewer already has to look at effectiveness and has already committed to updating the impact assessment within 12 months of the powers coming into force, the question of vulnerable people, which in particular the hon.

Member from Horsham illustrated very eloquently indeed with moving examples. I would just want to say something specifically on banking, because that is a concern that has been raised at multiple stages throughout the bill. We're very clear that nobody, vulnerable or otherwise, should be debunked as a result of this bill that was made clear in the code of practice and in amendments we are considering today, there are many existing layers of protection in our existing processes, but the the point that I would particularly want to make on vulnerable people is that Lords Amendment 82 clarifies, the use of the power must be necessary and proportionate.

So I believe that that would cover this. And on the specific point from my right hon. Friend from Hayes and Harlington on whether information alone is enough. We are baking in a human decision maker at all points throughout the process. We cannot take a decision based on EVM information in isolation. We must consider all other relevant information. So practically that means that we must look at a benefit claim and check for disregards or, for example, for any other reason that someone may perhaps have capital in exceedance of £16,000 the limit before taking any action.

But Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said earlier, I do think that this bill is much improved from where we started. I want to thank all members for certainly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to clarify this point. I can't for the life of me. I can't understand why the government is resisting having contained within the annual review whether or not harm is being done, because that's the only way we'll learn to see if this is operating in the way the government wishes it in the way the government wishes it to be, to be fair. And then if any changes in the system are needed. changes in the system are needed.

When we had the work capability assessment, it took us ten years and over a thousand suicides before and over a thousand suicides before we got to the situation where people accepted there was a problem because there was no review mechanism publicly available. mechanism publicly available. That's all this amendment is asking for. And all I'm asking the for. And all I'm asking the Minister to put on the record is to say very clearly, it is perfectly appropriate for the independent appropriate for the independent reviewer to look at those harms that could have been created by this legislation.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

this legislation. I appreciate the point. My right hon. Friend is making as I as I have just said, the question of whether actions taken as part of the eligibility verification measure are necessary and measure are necessary and proportionate are baked into the bill. I believe that that would cover the points that he is making, and I would also strongly encourage and I would also strongly encourage him to attend the meeting that I referred to earlier with the independent reviewer to to stress that point.

And certainly I will go along. It's something that that I will undertake to to press on also. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand where we are as it pertains to amendment 43, but I do believe with the additional safeguards that are now baked in through the amendments that we are considering today, that we have reached a point where this bill will achieve what it needs to, whilst being fair and protecting vulnerable people. So I urge all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

colleagues to support the government today. Thank you. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment one, As many as are of that opinion say, aye. I of the that opinion say, aye. I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. With the it, the ayes have it. With the leave of the house, I shall put a single question on government amendment A and B in lieu of Lords amendment A and B in lieu of Lords Amendment one. I call the Minister to move amendments A and B in lieu of Lords Amendment one formally.

The question is that government amendments A and B in lieu of Lords amendments A and B in lieu of Lords Amendment one, be made. As many as are of that opinion say, aye. I of are of that opinion say, aye. I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now have it, the ayes have it. We now come to government amendment A Lords Amendment 75 as on the notice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords Amendment 75 as on the notice paper. I call the Minister to move the amendment. Move formally. The question is that amendment A

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment A to Lords amendment 75 be made as many as are of that opinion say, many as are of that opinion say, aye I. I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it. The ayes think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to disagree with Lords Amendment 30. 75.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Page 80. The question is that this House agrees with the Lords and Amendment agrees with the Lords and Amendment 75, as amended. As many as are of that opinion say, aye. I of the that opinion say, aye. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 30. I call the Minister to move the motion formally. The question is that this formally.

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 30. As many as are of that opinion I,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 31. I call the with Lords Amendment 31. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 31. As many as I have that opinion say, aye. I of the that opinion say, aye.

I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. With the leave of the house, I shall put a leave of the house, I shall put a single question on government amendment A to C in lieu of Lords amendment A to C in lieu of Lords Amendments 30 and 31. I call the Minister to move amendment A to C in lieu of Lords Amendments 30 and 31. Formally, the question is that government amendment A to C in lieu of Lords Amendments 30 and 31 be made.

As many as are of that opinion say, aye. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 43. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 43, As many as are of that opinion say, aye. I of the contrary. No, no.
18:49
None Portrait Division
-

On On the On the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion say, aye. I of the contrary, no no tellers for the contrary, no no tellers for the eyes. Jade Botterill Mark Ferguson tellers for the noes Tessa Munt

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. The. The. Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 268 the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 80. The ayes to the right. For 268. The noes to the left were 80. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. We now come to the motion unlocked. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 84. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 84.

As many as are their amendment 84. As many as are of that opinion say, aye. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. With the leave of the house. I shall put a single question on government amendment A and B in lieu of Lords Amendment 84. I call the Minister to move amendments A and B in lieu to move amendments A and B in lieu of Lords Amendment 84. Formally, the question is that government amendments A and B in lieu of Lords Amendment 84 be made.

As many as are of that opinion say, aye. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 97. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 97. As many as are of that opinion say, aye. I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. With the leave of the house, I shall put a single question on government amendments A to F in lieu of Lords Amendment 97.

I call the Minister to move amendment A to F in lieu of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords Amendment 97. Formally. Formally. The question is that government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that government amendments A to F in lieu of Lords Amendment 97 be made as many as are Amendment 97 be made as many as are of that opinion say, aye I. I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. With the leave of the House. I call the Minister to move that this House Minister to move that this House agrees with the Lords and their agrees with the Lords and their amendments.

2 to 29, 32 to 42, 44

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. 2 to 29, 32 to 42, 44 to 74, 76 to 83, 85 to 96, and 98 to 121. Move. Formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move. Formally. The question is that this House agrees with the Lords and their agrees with the Lords and their amendments 2 to 29, 32 to 42, 44 to amendments 2 to 29, 32 to 42, 44 to 74, 76 to 83, 85 to 96, and 98 to 74, 76 to 83, 85 to 96, and 98 to 121. As many as are of that opinion say, aye. I of the contrary, no I say, aye. I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

Minister. To move that a committee be appointed to draw up

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee be appointed to draw up reasons. I beg to move that a committee be appointed, to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment 43 that Andrew Western Josh Simons Taiwo Owatemi David Pinto-Duschinsky, Chris Vince, Rebecca Smith and Steve Darling be members of the Committee, that Andrew Western be the chair of the Committee, that three be the quorum of the Committee. That the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee do withdraw immediately. The question is that a committee be appointed to draw up the reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment 43 disagreeing to their amendment 43 that Andrew Western Josh Simons Taiwo Owatemi David Pinto-Duschinsky, Chris Vince, Rebecca Smith, and Steve Darling be members of the Committee for Andrew members of the Committee for Andrew Western be chair of the Committee. That three be the quorum of the Committee that the Committee do Committee that the Committee do withdraw immediately.

As many I. I of the contrary, no I think the of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. That concludes consideration of the Lords amendment to the public Lords amendment to the public authorities. Fraud. Error and authorities. Fraud. Error and authorities. Fraud. Error and Recovery) Bill. Motion number five on trade. Motion number six on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on trade. Motion number six on competition. Motion number seven on move. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as that of that opinion say, aye. I of the opinion say, aye. I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Petition

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jayne Kirkham. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to present the petition about Falmouth's need for a swimming pool. Since our pool was shut in 2022. The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urge the government to support the campaign government to support the campaign to build a swimming pool in Falmouth, recognising the health and social benefits to the and social benefits to the community, particularly as a facility for children growing up in safely. safely.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Petition swimming pool

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition swimming pool facilities in Falmouth.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

TU. I beg to move that this house do now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now adjourn. The question is that this House do now adjourn. Charlotte Nichols. Madam Deputy Speaker, madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, madam Deputy Speaker, I extend my thanks to Mr Speaker for providing the opportunity to discuss the crucial matter of drug related deaths. I declare an interest as the Unremunerated chair of the centre for Evidence Based Drug Policy, a
19:07
19:08
Charlotte Nichols Portrait Charlotte Nichols MP (Warrington North, Labour)
-
-
Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stoke on Trent has the highest number of drug related deaths in North Staffordshire and synthetic North Staffordshire and synthetic cathinones, colloquially known as monkey dust, is a was used in to an extent not seen elsewhere in the extent not seen elsewhere in the country. Would my hon. Friend agree with me that more needs to be done to battle the scourge of monkey

**** Possible New Speaker ****

dust and Stoke on Trent? I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and absolutely agree. There are huge regional disparities There are huge regional disparities in drug deaths across the country and really regional approaches that need to be taken in tackling that. While I do appreciate that drugs policy and legislation does not fall under the Minister present fall under the Minister present today's departmental remit, I am happy to see her here. As the drugs related deaths crisis is indeed related deaths crisis is indeed primarily a public health issue and must be treated as such in order to avoid repeating the same mistakes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from the last 50 years. Will she give way on. That point? I will give way. I thank the hon. Member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I am proud to be patron of Burton Addiction Centre in my constituency. That is a residential constituency. That is a residential rehab centre and they are calling for a 2% target across the nation. Is that something that she agrees Is that something that she agrees with in terms of residential rehab, and perhaps the Minister would like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

able? I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and completely agree about the role that rehab facilities can play in supporting people into recovery, and that needed to be something that has proper funding and consistent funding from the government. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And Dudley speaker, first of all, can I commend the hon. Lady for Warrington North for bringing this forward and congratulate her on the campaign and the words that she says in this House trying to address this issue. We're all address this issue. We're all admire what the hon. Lady does greatly and thank her for that in Northern Ireland. There were 169 Northern Ireland. There were 169 drug related deaths in 2023. It represented an increase of 47% on represented an increase of 47% on the decade before, which goes back to the hon.

Lady Point earlier on. This isn't just specific to our own constituency, it's everywhere. Unfortunately. It's sad to say that. Does the hon. Member not agree that Does the hon. Member not agree that the tactics we have in place, unfortunately, are not addressing the growing prevalence of drug the growing prevalence of drug abuse and governments, not just here but in the regions. here but in the regions. Administrations must work to save what I refer to those precious souls that are passing away.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

souls that are passing away. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and indeed, it wouldn't be an adjournment debate without an intervention from the without an intervention from the hon. Member. And I completely agree with the points that he has made there. The deaths that I'm talking there. The deaths that I'm talking about today only relate to drugs poisonings in England and Wales. But actually when we look at drug deaths in Scotland, when we look at drugs deaths in Northern Ireland, when we look at drugs related to alcohol and to deaths of despair, we know that this is a very small part of what is a very huge issue across every part of our United

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kingdom. I will give way. I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend for giving me and for bringing this important debate to the chamber tonight. Scotland to the chamber tonight. Scotland has sustained the highest number of drug deaths in Europe for seven drug deaths in Europe for seven years in a row in 2024, with 1017 drug misuse deaths. Does she agree drug misuse deaths. Does she agree with me that cuts to funding for rehabilitation facilities and drug and alcohol support services undermine the holistic, comprehensive approach that is comprehensive approach that is needed to bring down the number of drug deaths and give families and those living with addiction some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those living with addiction some hope. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I think the number of Friend, and I think the number of drugs deaths that we're seeing in Scotland is really quite stark and underlines the fact that this is underlines the fact that this is something that affects every part of the UK, and also that we know what we need to do to start what we need to do to start addressing it. I welcome in particular the report that the Scottish Affairs Committee did recently on this, something I'm recently on this, something I'm going to come to later on in my speech.

I have spoken about the fact that I believe that the Home Office is ministerial purview over drugs means that drugs policy is in the wrong place, and it's something that I'm very happy that we have a health Minister here responding on that basis, because I think the current approach is rooted in the belief that we can simply arrest and imprison our way out of this. And in the six years that I've been doing this job, despite the rising death toll every year, measures on harm reduction seem to be something that the Home Office seems to show not just a lack of curiosity on, but also often hostility towards.

My overarching question today is this will the government finally take an evidence based stance on drugs policy to reduce the immense harm the status quo causes in our constituencies? Will the Minister work across government to bring forward the changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 needed to deliver a fit for purpose, public health led approach to drugs across the UK, which will save thousands of lives? I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the hon. Lady and commend her for bringing forward this debate. In the Bradford district. debate. In the Bradford district. There were 70 drug related deaths in 2023. I really agree with her in 2023. I really agree with her that we need to take a different approach to tackle this problem, and that it needs to be a public health approach, and would she agree with me? There's much that the UK could learn from countries like Portugal, which have gone a like Portugal, which have gone a long way towards adopting a public health approach to drugs and drug related deaths.

I absolutely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

related deaths. I absolutely. Agree with my hon. Friend, and that kind of approach, and what we could be doing here that we're not, could be doing here that we're not, is something that I will try to develop a bit further during this speech. As a parliament and as a speech. As a parliament and as a society, we may have inadvertently come to accept these statistics as yearly occurrences and have perhaps yearly occurrences and have perhaps not given them all the necessary thought.

But I want to stress that there are solutions, cost effective solutions that could both save taxpayer money and the lives of our constituents while simultaneously constituents while simultaneously taking money out of the pockets of exploitative, organised criminal gangs. I'm afraid to say the problem may be far worse than currently recognised. A recent report by King's College London indicates there has been a severe under-reporting of drug related deaths statistics over the past 15 years. These researchers found that drug related deaths have been under-reported by 30%, and opioid related deaths from 2011 to 2022 were found to be 55% higher than recorded, putting the estimate number of deaths related to opioids

**** Possible New Speaker ****

north of 39,000 from 2011 to 2022. I will give way. I'm very grateful to her for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to her for giving way and indeed for securing this debate in the first place. She will, of course, be aware that many will, of course, be aware that many of those who have died from complications and overdoses related to opioids died on their own, to opioids died on their own, reflecting in general, the social isolation that so many experience when they become addicted to drugs. when they become addicted to drugs. Does she agree with me? It is incredibly important that that social isolation for those seeking social isolation for those seeking to move beyond addiction is broken through.

And will she with me thank organisations like The Jungle in My organisations like The Jungle in My constituency, which seek to provide companionship and support to those addiction.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

addiction. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and she is exactly right. I think the clearest way to right. I think the clearest way to recovery is with companionship and support. There is there is no path to recovery without that. And I, of course, pay credit to the organisation that she referenced there who are doing some really fantastic work in this space, fantastic work in this space, something that we were discussing earlier today. The implications of this underreporting of drugs related deaths is that the problem is far worse than previously is far worse than previously thought, but also that the decision to cut funding to services under the previous government was based on flawed figures.

The National Audit Office reported that between 2014 and 2022, there was a 40% reduction in real terms spending on adult drug and alcohol services. I don't think it's a coincidence, then, that since 2014, the ONS reported a near doubling in drug related deaths and that the number of deaths only rises every year. It's clear, then, that this problem has been made substantively worse by an investment by the previous government. We can all acknowledge that, but acknowledgement without reform is meaningless. Persisting with failed punitive policies will only deepen a crisis that already ranks among Europe's worst.

Now is the time to show the difference a Labour government can make by putting in place harm reduction policies that will start to undo this extensive damage. As I mentioned previously, and I'll repeat it again because it's important. Nearly half of all drugs related deaths registered in 2024 were confirmed to involve an opioid. In addition, this year's ONS report found that the number of deaths involving Nitazenes, a group of highly potent synthetic opioids, almost quadrupled from the year before. This marks the beginning of a new stage in the drugs related deaths crisis.

And as we've seen across the Atlantic, once these synthetic opioids take hold, it becomes all the more difficult to limit their devastation. I welcome this government's changes to the human medicine regulation, which further expanded access to naloxone, the life saving opioid antidote administered in the event of an overdose. Indeed, naloxone plays a vital role in the fight against drug related deaths. However, further change is necessary and naloxone should be available rapidly and reliably in every community pharmacy in the UK so that it can be quickly accessed in the event of an overdose.

It's important to note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that naloxone cannot be administered by the person overdosing and must instead be administered by someone else. This necessitates further education on the existence of naloxone and how and when to use it, with people who may come into contact with people who use opioids, including frontline service workers such as police officers and transport workers, and the loved ones of those struggling with addiction. The period immediately after release from prison or discharged from hospital is when risk peaks.

Opt out pathways for naloxone distribution should be the norm. Take home naloxone on release or discharge, same day linkage to community treatment and a clear pathway for handover care are essential for people struggling with substance use disorders. As of December 2021, the government estimated the annual cost of illegal drug use in England at £20 billion. Around 48% of this is attributed to drug related crime, while harms related to while harms linked to drug related deaths and homicides accounted for a further 33%.

Notably, the majority of these costs are associated with the estimated 300,000 people who use opiates and crack cocaine in England. Dame Carol Black's landmark 2021 review of UK drug policy found that for every £1 spent on treatment, £4 are saved through reduced demand on the health and justice systems in the face of rising fatalities and a cost of living crisis, failing to scale treatment and harm reduction measures is both morally indefensible and financially illiterate. If we want to realise that 4 to 1 return, we must provide long term funding for organisations delivering services.

Drug treatment services can only deliver if they are able to retain staff, train consistently and scale according to demand. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend and commend. Her on bringing this important debate to the House. Does she agree debate to the House. Does she agree with me that organisations like change, grow, Live that I visited change, grow, Live that I visited in Rugby are doing superb work with people as they recover after the problems they've been facing, and that it's incumbent upon us all to do everything we can to encourage do everything we can to encourage the government to to make sure that they get the funding and the support to do the important work that they're doing.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and he's exactly right. Change, grow, live are absolutely fantastic organisation. absolutely fantastic organisation. And it's why multiyear funding schemes with clear outcome metrics such as faster time to treatment, such as faster time to treatment, improve retention and increase naloxone coverage is something that will actually make a difference in will actually make a difference in bringing down some of these figures that I'm here to talk about today. That is the path out of this crisis.

I recently received a letter from my hon. Friend, the Member for my hon. Friend, the Member for Croydon West, stating that she could not support overdose prevention centres because of concerns about organised crime concerns about organised crime supplying the drugs there. Overdose prevention Centres are a front line, evidence based intervention that evidence based intervention that saves lives and public money, reducing ambulance callouts and A&E attendances, cutting public injecting and needle stick injuries and creating a bridge into treatment. I recognise the minister's concern about supply and share them, but with or without such centres, people will use the same drugs either in alleyways and stairwells or in safe, hygienic settings where sharps are disposed of.

Staff can intervene and build relationships that can be the foundation for recovery from addiction. The Scottish Affairs Select Committee recently published a report into problem drug use in Scotland and Glasgow's Safer Drug Consumption Facility, and it's interesting to note the call for legislative action from the UK government and UK Parliament, and the fact they seem to share my frustration with the Home Office's ideological rather than evidence based approach when it comes to safer drug consumption facilities. In written correspondence to me, my hon.

Friend the Member for Croydon West also maintains that supplying essential, safer inhalation equipment would contravene current legislation that the government is unable to support such a provision or to provide a legal pathway to address this, encouraging drug users to change their method of consuming drugs from injecting to inhaling can be an important harm reduction step. And yet, while supplying clean hypodermic needles is exempt under section nine of the Misuse of Drugs Act, the government continues to support a policy of criminalisation of, potential

**** Possible New Speaker ****

providers of and users of safer inhalation equipment. I will give way. I am grateful to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to. the Member for taking an. Intervention and for bringing. Forward this debate. As she has. Referenced, the Scottish Affairs

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Referenced, the Scottish Affairs Committee has done some work on the. Issue and has visited the Safer. Drug Consumption Room.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Drug Consumption Room. In Glasgow, but also has looked at facilities in Norway and in Lisbon as well. And the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the. Disappointment I think that we have is that at the moment the Thistle operates under the Thistle operates under the prosecutorial discretion of the Lord Advocate in Scotland, and that could continue indefinitely. She could continue indefinitely. She has made that clear, as could her permission to other centres to open permission to other centres to open to. But what it really needs is to have the change in the legislation have the change in the legislation that would allow such centres to be set up across the country if necessary.

But what was particularly disappointing was that particularly disappointing was that there is going to be a three year assessment of Thistle, and if that assessment of Thistle, and if that assessment comes up with the results that we think it might, then surely that evidence should be then surely that evidence should be used to inform government policy. And our disappointment particularly, was that the government seem to not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

was that the government seem to not think that that was relevant. I agree with my friend, and in fact, I took a note from the report where it says. However, it was clear from the Minister's evidence that the Home Office will not make legislative changes even if the evaluation finds that the facility has been effective in meeting its aims. This is ideological. It's not evidence based. And this is why I believe the Home Office is fundamentally incapable of dealing with the issues with drug deaths

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and drug harm in our communities. I will give way. I thank the. hon. Lady for giving way and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hon. Lady for giving way and commend her in securing this debate on this really important topic. Would you agree with me that even if the Home Office doesn't agree if the Home Office doesn't agree with changing legislation, there is more that can be done within existing legislation? For example, existing legislation? For example, in drug checking facilities, of which a very small number are already licensed by the Home Office, that allow those consuming drugs to that allow those consuming drugs to have clarity about what they are consuming, but also provide important intelligence to important intelligence to authorities about the drugs that are in circulation to inform the health and other authorities

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response. I absolutely agree that there is more that can be done without the need for a change in legislation, need for a change in legislation, but it is concerning to me that the Home Office does not look at legislation. And despite everything legislation. And despite everything that's been said in the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry on drugs from the last parliament, for example, that made very clear how example, that made very clear how outdated our current legislative framework is, that there doesn't seem to be curiosity about fixing seem to be curiosity about fixing this.

I completely agree with what he said about treatment and testing, particularly at things like large particularly at things like large scale events and festivals, because that can absolutely be a life saving intervention. Madam Deputy saving intervention. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is both bizarre and frustrating that the Home Office actively chooses not to take some of the measures that they could, in reference to what I've already mentioned safer drug consumption facilities, but also in terms of safer inhalation equipment. This is something that is very much within their gift.

We cannot continue to hide behind. 1970s statute periodically tightened but rarely reviewed. That has too often exacerbated harm. If the House wishes to take money out of criminal markets, I ask the Minister to work across departments to expand diamorphine assisted treatment, proven to be effective and cost saving both here and abroad, to provide dignified, supervised care for those with the most entrenched opioid dependence. After all, it was in this country that this type of world class treatment originated with the publication of the Rolleston Report in 1926.

I have focussed much of my remarks on opioids, but in the short time I have left I do want to quickly touch on some other substances. First, cocaine with 1279 deaths involving cocaine registered in 2024, which was 14.4% higher than the previous year and 11 times higher than 2011. This is perhaps not surprising, given the UK is now the largest consumer of cocaine per capita in Europe and second largest in the world, according to the OECD and the National Crime Agency.

Estimated that in 2023, England, Scotland and Wales consumed 117 tonnes of the drug. It's worth mentioning that around 52% of homicides are drug related, and there's also evidence that cocaine use is fuelling domestic violence. In 2023, a pilot scheme found that 59% of domestic abuse offenders arrested in seven police force areas tested positive for cocaine and or opiates. The status quo isn't working. And secondly, on ketamine. While ketamine deaths are relatively low with 60 deaths. Again, the stats are trending the wrong way, as is the prevalence of the drug in our communities.

I refer members present to the rate of past year ketamine use amongst 16 to 24 year olds, which has doubled since its reclassification from class C to class B in 2014. We need a fit for purpose national drug policy, not a platform for point scoring or performative. Tough on crime posturing while harms continue to mount. There is much talk at the moment about reclassification of ketamine to a class A, as though this is some sort of panacea, despite the fact that both heroin and cocaine deaths, both class A substances, have been increasing year on year.

It's like the Home Office think that making something already illegal illegally is somehow doing something worthwhile. In that light of tabled a number of questions recently on the effectiveness of the reclassification, and I'm genuinely concerned that no analysis of that move has been made. And now the intention is clearly to ramp up further. Other policy levers are available, and in particular, emphasis should be placed on tackling the mental health crisis among our young people. That can make the dissociative effects of ketamine an appealing proposition.

Throughout this intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker, I've sought to lay out the extent of the problem and to offer realistic, cost effective and constructive measures which could save this country billions. Not to mention thousands of lives. There are solutions to these issues, and the UK has both the expertise and the capacity to lead in this area. We must simply find the political expediency and courage to take bold action and do what's right. We cannot govern as the custodians of a failed conservative settlement.

We must replace it. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a solvable problem. What works is clear, with clear guidance, consistent commissioning and the courage to back frontline services. We can save lives, support families and ease pressure on our NHS. We will not solve this problem overnight, but I hope to come back next year with the figures at least trending in the right direction. As there's no amount of warm words or hand-wringing in this place that will absolve us of our collective responsibility if we do not take the steps necessary to do that now.

We promised the country change, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now it's time to see it. Minister. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd like to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Warrington North for securing this debate. And I thank all hon. Members from I thank all hon. Members from across the House for their wide ranging interventions. They all ranging interventions. They all raise a number of important points. The continued rise in drug related deaths is deeply concerning, and it is something my department is is something my department is committed to tackling, and I hope hon. Members will recognise that.

My presence at the despatch box My presence at the despatch box today confirms this government's public health approach to drug related deaths. I continue to work related deaths. I continue to work with my colleagues in the Home Office and others to to bring Office and others to to bring forward measures to improve in this space. As the hon. Member has space. As the hon. Member has mentioned, the latest office for National Statistics figures show that there are over 3400 drug that there are over 3400 drug misuse deaths misuse deaths registered in England in 2024, and registered in England in 2024, and that's a continued increase on 2023 and over the last 12 years.

In terms of the work across our four nations, I am proud to regularly attend the UK Ministerial Drug and attend the UK Ministerial Drug and Alcohol Forum and I work closely with my counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Having recently met them just in September and I will continue to work with them moving forward. Many drug deaths are preventable and this government is committed through our health mission to ensure people live longer, healthier lives. We are also determined to make our communities safer, more secure and free from the violence caused by the illicit drugs market through our Safer Streets mission.

We also know that many people struggling with a drug problem are already at the sharpest end of inequality, often with multiple and complex needs, with strong links between drug use, prison deprivation and homelessness. The government's work to tackle drug related deaths and to fund and improve drug treatment and recovery services can therefore also contribute to reducing social inequalities. The government is committed to ensuring that anyone with a drug problem can access the help and support they need, providing evidence based, high quality treatment.

Treatment is protective and is the safest place to be for anyone with a drug problem. In addition to the public health grant in 20 2526, the Department of Health and Social Care is providing local authorities with an additional £310 million to improve the quality and capacity of drug and alcohol treatment and recovery services. As a result of increases in funding. There are nearly 345,000 people now instructor treatment in England, which I'm pleased to say is the highest number on record. But patterns of drug use are always changing, and my department remains alert to tackling new threats.

We recently launched a public awareness campaign informed by new patterns of drug use, focusing on the dangers of synthetic opioids, ketamine and THC vapes. The campaign includes online films and targets 16 to 24 year olds, following a worrying rise in the number of young people being harmed by drugs. The campaign highlights particular risks, including the potentially irreparable damage ketamine can cause to the bladder, the dangers of counterfeit medicines purchased online and containing deadly synthetic opioids, and the risks from so-called THC vapes that often contain dangerous synthetic Jack Abbott.

I can never say this word. Thank you. Cannabinoids like spice rather than THC. We are distributing resources to local public health teams, drug and alcohol treatment services, youth services, schools and universities, and we remain alert to the wider threat posed by synthetic opioids. We are working with other government departments on enhancing surveillance and early warning to improve our ability to respond to this threat. We've established new data streams, including collecting information on deaths linked to Nitazenes through laboratory testing and ambulance call outs in which naloxone was administered, and as a result, we have a much closer to real time understanding of current levels of prevalence and harms.

In addition, we have also provided data to local areas on factors related to drug and alcohol deaths and are developing a self-assessment toolkit that local areas can use to identify where to focus more on issues and interventions known to reduce the risk of drug related deaths. The first quarter report of data from these sources has now been published on the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System website, and a weekly report is released to local authorities. We also know that many people struggling with drug addiction have multiple and complex physical health needs.

These issues together can be mutually reinforcing, making treatment and support much more complex, often increasing their risk of overdose. We are developing plans to improve care pathways between drug treatment and services for physical health care, such as heart and lung disease, as recommended by Dame Carol black. Intervening earlier and treating co-occurring physical health conditions to reduce drug related deaths and improve outcomes. We are also looking again at naloxone, the opioid reversal medication. A key pillar of the government's response to drug related deaths, this government made changes to legislation last year to enable more services and professionals across the UK to supply the medication without a prescription, making it easier for people at risk and their loved ones to access.

We intend to consult soon on further steps to expand further access to this life saving medication. I would once again like to thank the hon. Member for Warrington North for bringing forward this debate on such a critical issue. The government is committed to reducing the harms caused by illicit drugs to both individuals and wider society. The Department of Health and Social Care will continue to champion a harm reduction and public health approach to drug related harms. Many of these deaths are avoidable, and I am confident that the steps we are taking will put us in a stronger position to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tackle this complex issue. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn as many as are of that opinion say, aye the ayes have
11:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Women and Equalities
-

19:40
11:01
None Portrait Oral questions: Women and Equalities
-

19:41
11:01
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page