Employment Rights Bill

Antonia Bance Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kate Dearden]

I listen to the Conservatives again and again as they come to the Chamber—they have done it again today—and talk down what was a clear manifesto commitment of this Bill.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister is coming on to this in her speech, but it might be worth reiterating, for the benefit of those on the Opposition Benches, that the best way to avoid having to pay compensation for unfair dismissal is to avoid unfairly dismissing someone in the first place.

[Kate Dearden]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as she always does, and I thank her for it.

To conclude, we are seeking the support of the House so that we can finally secure Royal Assent and move towards implementing our long-overdue reforms to make work pay. Today’s correspondence from business representatives to the Secretary of State states that British business believes that

“now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill.”

I urge Members across the House to reflect on that comment, on our election mandate from last year and on all the work and consideration that has been put into this Bill so far in both Houses. I thank all colleagues for their work, and I commend this motion to the House.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

The concerns that we Conservatives have with the Bill have long been known, and I accept that we have debated them at length. I will not repeat them all today, because we are not here to debate the whole Bill, just the message sent to us from the other place.

There was a time when the Labour party would have cared about protecting jobs and those who wanted one. There was a time when Labour believed, as we do, in the dignity of work and what that meant for families and communities—a Christian socialism, if you like, rather than the state worship that seems to have replaced it. I cannot honestly think of a previous Government who would ever have passed this Bill—certainly not since the 1970s. The result, whether Labour likes it or not, is that day by day, week by week, month by month, people are losing their jobs.

This Christmas there will be 192,000 fewer people in private sector payrolled employment than last Christmas, and who knows what it will be like next Christmas. We have the worst ever graduate jobs market. Adzuna estimates that jobs for degree holders have fallen by 33%. Labour used to care about youth unemployment, but for those aged between 16 and 24 unemployment has now reached 15%, according to the Office for National Statistics. As has been the case every month so far under this Government, tomorrow morning we are likely to hear that the rate of unemployment is higher.

This Bill could have been on the statute book today, but for one simple reason: a gross betrayal of trust. The small group of business groups that Ministers invited in for tea and sandwiches took this Government at their word.

[Antonia Bance]

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would like to tell the House which of these business groups he disagrees with and that he thinks we should not listen to today, because these are the groups telling us and peers in the other place that we should be voting for the Bill. Does he disagree with the British Chambers of Commerce or the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development? Does he disagree with the Confederation of British Industry, with the Federation of Small Businesses, with the Recruitment and Employment Confederation or with Small Business Britain?

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Lady would have been wise to contain her excitement, because I agree with all of those groups in their letter today, which the Minister selectively quoted; she did not quote them saying that they are not in favour of removing the cap. I have spoken to each and every organisation that was in the room, and they are crystal clear, with one group saying:

“That was not a concession discussed with us or agreed by us in the negotiations”.

I invite the Minister to intervene on me if she thinks that a word of what I say is wrong. She is misquoting, and it is misrepresenting those business groups that do not support the cap.

Why would any sane Government scrap the cap entirely? Indeed, this Government themselves did not for 13 and a half of the 14 months that we have been debating this Bill. It was not in the manifesto or the Bill or the impact assessment. It was not considered by the Regulatory Policy Committee, and it was never discussed in this House until Ministers threw it in at the last moment in a breach of trust of the business groups with which they negotiated.

Seasonal Work

Antonia Bance Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. As I say, the onus is on all of us in this place to make sure that we listen, learn and advocate on others’ behalf.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I will give way one more time, and then I will make a bit of progress.

[Antonia Bance]

While we are being nice to the hon. Gentleman, I think with affection of the times we have sat together on the “Politics Midlands” sofa. For the benefit of the House, will he tell us how many zero-hours workers he has spoken to in preparation for his speech today?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I have spoken to a few zero-hours workers, and many of them are not happy with the Government’s policy, because it is going to make some of them unemployed.

Of course, the one thing that we do know about Labour Governments is that they know how to spend other people’s money. They have no idea how wealth is created and how the money that pays for our public services is generated in the first place, but they certainly know how to tax and spend. We have seen tax increases of £66 billion in just two Budgets, and tens of billions of pounds in additional debt. As Margaret Thatcher said,

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for sharing that knowledge with us all. Obviously, that is something to reflect upon. That is why we are pressing the Government. It is the Government who hold the purse strings and the pen here. It is up to them to make those advances on behalf of the country.

[Antonia Bance]

I will ask this question in a spirit of genuine curiosity, if I may. The trade deal done with the United States earlier in the year by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the former Business Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), guaranteed more than 200,000 jobs in the west midlands at Jaguar Land Rover and in its supply chain. What future does the hon. Member envisage for those jobs in her ideal scenario, where we go back into a customs union tomorrow? What would she say to my constituents and the people in our west midlands region about the prospects for those jobs? Has she thought about that and does she have a plan?

[Sarah Olney]

Our allies in America are becoming increasingly unreliable, and it is absolutely right that we should look elsewhere for our alliances, not just on trade but on defence. Recent moves just this week show us the shaky ground on which our agreements with the US are built. For the long-term future of the car industry in the west midlands and of our whole economy, we need to look to Europe and build up those relationships with our European neighbours, because our partnerships with our allies in the US are becoming increasingly unreliable. If I were one of the hon. Lady’s constituents, I would be looking to the Government to fully investigate other opportunities for trade as well as with the US.

More broadly, as we look at issues affecting the workforce, Liberal Democrats welcome the industrial strategy that this Government have put in place, alongside a funding boost for skills and training. However, this progress stops well short of the fundamental reform we need to see if we are to address the workforce shortages that many industries are facing. British businesses must be able to hire the people they need with the skills they need. A key cause of workforce shortages is ill health. To tackle this deeply entrenched problem, the Government must do more to invest not only in our NHS but in social care, so that people can get the healthcare they need and rejoin the workforce more quickly.

Any business will tell you that the apprenticeship levy does not work, despite the Government’s attempts at reform. Firms cannot get the funding they need to train staff, and hundreds of millions of pounds of funding is going unspent. The Liberal Democrats have long called for proper reform of the levy, replacing it with a wider skills and training levy that will give businesses real flexibility over how they spend money to train their staff. We were pleased to hear in the Budget that more details on the wider youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy package would be announced shortly, but can the Minister provide a timeline for when we can expect to see that detail?

Will the Minister also set out a timeline for the introduction of a youth mobility scheme, which would be beneficial to our economy, easing some of the burdens that the hospitality sector is facing? Businesses across the country, especially our small businesses, are struggling with unprecedentedly high costs, such as the Government’s unfair national insurance rise, sky-high commercial energy bills and a broken business rates system. Struggling businesses mean fewer jobs and lower pay, so it is absolutely clear that we must look for ways to support local businesses and all those who rely on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Let us take a look at the amendment which Mr Speaker has selected in the name of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s amendment tells us that he

“welcomes the policy paper”

on

“the plan for small and medium sized businesses, which sets out”—

wait for it—

“a comprehensive vision for productivity and success”.

[Interruption.] “Wow” indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) says from a sedentary position—she is less well trained in keeping her excitement levels under control. After 14 years of opposition and 18 months in government: a policy paper, a plan, a comprehensive vision—that is the sum of the contribution from the Treasury Bench towards these important and vital parts of the sector. The Government need to learn, I suggest, a key and important lesson: policy papers, plans and comprehensive visions deliver of themselves nothing. They create no jobs. They give no certainty. They provide no confidence to employees, employers, investors, entrepreneurs, innovators or consumers. Strategy and policy are not the same things. Vision and delivery are not two sides of the same coin.

The Government tell us in their amendment that their Employment Rights Bill

“will help season workers by bringing the UK’s outdated employment laws into the 21st century”.

Well, I would dispute first and foremost the idea that our employment laws are outdated; I think they have been organic and iterative over the decades, as one would expect. But the Government will not help seasonal workers if they cannot become seasonal workers because putative employers have neither the confidence to employ nor the headroom to create jobs and pay salaries. We are in fantasy land, with a fantasy idea about how to run an economy: we just legislate and, hey presto—pantomime-like—it happens. A strategy is published and—bingo!—it is all resolved. That is not the case.

This first example will, I am sure, be of enormous interest to the Labour party. Mark Fulton, a constituent of mine in Tolpuddle, is the landlord of the Martyrs Inn.

[Antonia Bance]

Lovely pub!

[Simon Hoare]

It is a lovely pub. The hon. Lady has been and has not been barred yet. Anybody who knows their trade union history, as I know she does, will know about the Tolpuddle martyrs in 1834. The pub is named after them.

[Antonia Bance]

Excellent sandwiches, too!

[Simon Hoare]

The pub was bought by the village for £500,000. It is a community asset-type pub. One significant stakeholder is the TUC itself, which decided that thirsty trade unionists might, after the martyrs memorial, enjoy a pint and, indeed, one of the excellent sandwiches that the hon. Lady has referenced.

After the Budget, Mark Fulton wrote to me:

“With the impact of this Budget, we risk losing these vital community hubs that are so important to our local life and economy.”

He, like others in all our constituencies, has been arguing for—and this freedom exists now we are outside the European Union—a bespoke reduction of VAT on pub sales, including the wet trade. We are asking publicans, who provide far more in the community hubs that Mark talks about, to fight with one hand tied behind their backs, when in essence they are paying a VAT rate of 20% compared with the 2% paid by supermarkets.

Business rates are clearly going to go up. That is, again, the fantasy world of this Government. One sector representative group after another tells the Government that, by the Government’s own figures and calculations, business rates will rise. “Oh no,” says the Minister. “Everybody else is wrong. I am right, because I am a Minister of the Crown.” This is the politics of the emperor’s new clothes. It is about time that one or two people on the Government Benches stood up and told the Treasury team that many of their policies leave the Government naked as they try to garner and foster a small, entrepreneurial business sector.

On employer national insurance and increases in the minimum wages, I quote Mark Fulton again:

“The latest rise risks opportunities for young people to be employed in our sector.”

He goes on to remind us that

“40% of young people begin their careers in hospitality—the sector plays a crucial role in training, upskilling and supporting social mobility.”

All that is put at risk. Surely, irrespective of geography or party affiliation, we should all be worried if a cogent argument is deployed about social mobility being reduced as a direct result of Government policy.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) said in his excellent speech, many of the harmful decisions taken in the recent Budget were not of the Government’s choosing. They were, in essence, a fulfilment of what the Chancellor rightly said to rebellious Back Benchers on welfare: “Rebel if you like, and we’ll abandon if we have to, but there’ll be a cost that will have to be paid. That cost will be taxed, and there will be a concomitant diminution in confidence among employers and customers.”

I could quote several publicans, but Barbara Cossins, who owns and runs the Langton Arms in Tarrant Monkton, would have my guts for garters if I did not take this opportunity to mention her. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) knows it well and says what a good pub it is. Barbara Cossins replicates many of the points made by Mark Fulton, but adds that rural pubs in tourist areas are particularly reliant on seasonal summer trade. They have to pay business rates, but their major competitor in those small rural settings, Airbnb, pays no business rates at all. It is an un-level playing field.

The Government had an opportunity—and they possibly still do, as the Finance Bill progresses—to try to level that playing field. We are asking these important sectors of our economy to go into bat for UK plc—to create the jobs that create the tax that funds our public services—but at every step and turn, this Government seem hellbent on hobbling and hamstringing them and tying their hands behind their backs.

The Government have the laudable aim of seeing housebuilding increase. Who does not? Again, that is an important part of social mobility—we know that a lot of seasonal jobs are created in the construction sector. However, Travis Perkins sent out a customer email just today that said that, from 1 January, supplier increases in prices will come in across the industry.

[Antonia Bance]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

I will, but let me finish this point.

Roofing prices are up 7%, bricks 8%, blocks 9%, landscaping 8%, drainage 8%, and plaster, plasterboard and cladding 7%. Costs can be increased, and companies can absorb as much as they can, but at some point, as Travis Perkins points out, those increased costs can no longer be self-absorbed and must be passported off to the consumer. When the consumer’s costs go up, their margins of profit decrease, and their likelihood, potential and appetite for creating additional jobs disappears, like an early spring frost, arguably never to return.

[Antonia Bance]

I am so glad that someone has mentioned the construction industry. However, the hon. Member is talking not about seasonal jobs but about contract work. The key to maintaining sustained employment in the construction sector is having a strong pipeline of repeated projects so that people can build their skills and move on to the next contract, and then the one after that, to build a career in that way. Does he agree that the Government’s announcement of construction technical excellence colleges across the country—including close to my area, at the end of the new tramline in Dudley—£39 billion over the next 10 years for sustainable housebuilding, including social and affordable housing, and the largest sustained infrastructure funding in four decades, means that there will be a sustainable pipeline—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

That may be the case, but the hon. Gentleman needs to read his data a little more accurately, because the number of young people on unemployment benefit has also gone up. I will repeat the figure: it has gone up 31% over the past year in the Gosport constituency alone. It is all very well swapping numbers across the Chamber, but these are lives, futures, and opportunities to get on a career ladder. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of his party for what it is doing to young people in my constituency.

The law of unintended consequences is at work. If local businesses are not giving opportunities to young people, that impacts the fabric of a town, including its social fabric. I recently received an email from one of the pubs in Gosport, which said:

“I can guarantee we will not be open this time next year if things continue. The Labour government is doing nothing to help the industry, the knock-on effect to the customers, staff, us, jobless, homeless…Sadly there will be no British culture left, and that is the very sad truth of it. It’s only the Government at the moment, who are gaining and laughing all the way to the bank. The place and the building and the customers—the whole aspect of the ‘local’ pub—will be no more.”

Then there is the hair and beauty salon—another fantastic industry, worth £5 billion and as much again in social value. According to the National Hair and Beauty Federation, the Government’s tax policies are forcing businesses to make very tough decisions, such as taking on fewer staff and fewer apprentices, and incentivising staff to become self-employed, without all the protections that the Government say they want to promote. The British Hair Consortium has warned of an existential drop-off in the number of apprentices entering the sector, while a beauty parlour in Gosport recently told me that it was not optimistic at all about the health of the sector over the next year, and that it does not think the Government are supportive of such businesses.

[Antonia Bance]

Does the hon. Member agree that the way to solve the crisis in apprenticeships in hair and beauty, as well as the crisis of bogus self-employment in hair and beauty, is to strengthen the single worker status?

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

It is all very well supporting the status of workers if there are jobs to offer people. If you have the status, but no job to attach it to, you feel like a bit of a lemon—as I am sure the hon. Lady might do after that question. She should listen to businesses in her constituency, because what businesses are saying is that they do not feel the Government are supporting them. Given her track record in her previous life, she should understand that the hair and beauty industry is one that disproportionately employs young people and women, and the businesses in that industry are very often women-owned. This Government are not friendly to women-owned businesses, either.

Retail, hospitality, and hair and beauty—taken together, the failure of those sectors will prove to be the death knell for our high street. The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) spoke about how important it is to see his high street regenerated. If we are going to regenerate our high streets and see them as living, breathing, vibrant things, we need to reimagine them as places where we not only shop, but live, work, socialise and engage in leisure activity. The only way that is going to be delivered is if our high streets are filled with small independent traders, but since the Budget, over 1,000 pubs and restaurants have closed—the equivalent of two every day.

We on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee are seeing a similar trend in our work on grassroots music venues, which are still closing at the rate of two a week. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, those venues say that the outcome of the small business rates review is nothing short of a disaster for them. A cap of 15% this year is going up to a 40% cap in 2028-29—that is what they are getting after transitional relief, and that still will not be the end of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

I beg the indulgence of the House for a moment to welcome the opening this week on Market Place in central Wednesbury of the new Walden restaurant. The menu looks absolutely delicious, and I very much look forward to sampling it soon.

I also want to mention Chris Birch from the Swift Group in Wednesbury, who I met yesterday—he was in town to go to the Goldman Sachs “10k Small Businesses” reception yesterday evening. Chris is the managing director of a family-owned business; he and his 36 employees make industrial and commercial kitchens, and he spoke to me about the help he has received with solar panels, which are going to be installed on his buildings—he has got a grant for that. He has also got a grant to help with the CRM through the Goldman Sachs scheme.

Chris spoke to me about his recent success in winning a major Government public procurement contract to supply every prison in the country with kitchen equipment. I was so pleased to hear that, and I know that the Minister for Small Business will be particularly glad to hear it as well. That is a huge, multimillion-pound contract won by a SME thanks to the targets that have been put in place to ensure SMEs are able to access public procurement. I know the whole House will be so very pleased to hear that that bit of the small business strategy is beginning to take effect, and I thank Chris for coming down to Parliament and telling me about it yesterday. I look forward to visiting him and his staff team soon.

In response to some of the points made in the debate, let me say that no Labour Member will apologise for being a Government in a hurry. Perhaps at times we do try to do many, many things at the same time, but there is a reason for that. Opposition will teach you about the powerlessness of being unable to effect the things you want to, and I can hear the frustration of Opposition Members—the regret they feel about their powerlessness in the face of a Government who are doing things that they do not like—but it would be good to hear some Conservative Members apologise for the damage caused over 14 years that led us to the situation we are in now.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I notice that there are quite a lot of people on the Public Gallery at the moment. The former Government left almost record levels of low unemployment, and unemployment has gone up in every month that this new Government have been in power. Would the hon. Lady like to answer how this Government in a hurry are heading in the right direction, and perhaps suggest when unemployment in her constituency and across the country might start to come down, rather than continually going up?

[Antonia Bance]

I am sure the hon. Member knows me well enough by now to know that I am not going to indulge in silly games. What I will say is that this Government’s priority is to get the economy growing. It is why we are investing in infrastructure. It is why we are rebuilding our public services. It is why we have put the greatest level of investment in our public infrastructure. It is why we are investing £39 billion in house building, as I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who is no longer in his place. It is why we are rebuilding our public finances. At times, this does involve some difficult choices, and some that not everyone may always agree with, but we are making the fair and right choices: asking those with the broadest shoulders to bear the heavier load, rebuilding public services, helping with the cost of living—and, yes, clearing up the Tory mess.

We are cutting borrowing more than any other country in the G7, leading to a doubling of the headroom to £21.7 billion. We have the highest levels of public investment in four decades. We are backing entrepreneurs and fast-growing companies with tax breaks to list and to hire here in the UK. Our planning changes will back the builders. Devolution for local growth will mean that local growth spreads outside London and the south-east—something so very close to my heart and to the hearts of many in this place. We are proud to be putting up the national minimum wage so that people have more money in their pockets, because the core problem affecting the retail and hospitality industries is that people do not have money in their pockets to spend on our high streets. Getting wages going up—and they are going up faster than prices—is the way to have people with more money in their pockets.

[John Slinger]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Did she notice yesterday that the Leader of the Opposition said that she did not want the national minimum wage to increase at all? Does my hon. Friend think that indicates that there might be a cold freeze in the air?

[Antonia Bance]

My hon. Friend reads my mind, as that is the point I was just about to make. I was so sad to see the Leader of the Opposition abandon what was one of the better policies of the last Government: that there should be a fast-rising national minimum wage at all times. I agreed with the last set of Prime Ministers before this one on very little, but one thing I did agree with them on was that it was right to maintain the machinery of the Low Pay Commission—a tripartite body where unions, businesses and academics come together with Government to look at the prevailing conditions in the country. Those at the commission get out there and visit businesses of all types in all regions, including hospitality and retail, and set the national minimum wage at a level that would work for workers and for businesses. It is an approach that this Government have continued, and I am sad to see that the Leader of the Opposition intends to abandon it and to abandon low-paid workers to frozen pay.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that under the last Conservative Administration, the minimum wage rose at the same time as we created 4 million new jobs and left unemployment at a record low? The difference now is that in only 17 months, unemployment has risen by 280,000 as a direct result of her Government’s policies. Our caution on the minimum wage is that it is now at a level, with their economic policies, that means they are pricing younger people out of work.

[Antonia Bance]

I would not wish to try the hon. Member’s generosity, but it seems to me that I have already been generous in my tribute to the work of the previous Government in continuing to maintain the machinery of the Low Pay Commission—something that this Government have continued—and in continuing to make sure that the national minimum wage rose. I will admit that many people in my position feared greatly in 2010 that the Conservatives would come into government—admittedly, in coalition—and immediately tear up the national minimum wage. The fact that they did not was a great thing. The pinning to two thirds of male median wages was a good thing, and I am so sad that the Leader of the Opposition has departed from the consensus on this point.

The national minimum wage is set by a tripartite body. It is not too high, because businesses were in the room arguing their case. The commissioners went out on visits around the country to look at the prevailing economic conditions. The wage is set by consensus using the tripartite machinery, and it is important that we all understand that that has served this country well and has made extreme low pay a thing of the past. I am sad that the Conservatives have departed from this consensus.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point about the need to see the minimum wage increase—people who live in my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough simply cannot afford to live or work in the area, and that is a real problem—but does she accept that it is not just the minimum wage that is the issue for employers, but the combination of increasing employer NICs and business rates? When I go out and speak to people, that is what they are worried about. It is not necessarily about the minimum wage, but the cocktail of measures that the Government have introduced.

[Antonia Bance]

The hon. Member need have no fear about the extent to which I talk to businesses in my constituency and more widely. I see at least one employer every single week—often not in retail and hospitality, as I represent a manufacturing constituency. I recognise the concerns, but I would say that in this country we need to have a functioning set of public services. We need an NHS that is not asking people to wait as long as it was when we took up office. In my constituency, waiting lists for those waiting over a year for an operation have fallen by 45%. That is absolutely incredible, and it was achieved because of the difficult decisions that our Chancellor of the Exchequer took to put money into the NHS. I know that many people regret that decision. They wish the ends—the reduced waiting lists—but they do not will the means. On this side, we will not dodge hard choices; we will the ends and we will the means.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Lady is being incredibly generous in giving way. Given the focus on cutting waiting lists and tackling NHS challenges, how does the hon. Lady feel about the employer national insurance contribution changes, which also fell on GP surgeries, care homes and children’s hospices? Those changes are proving to be an enormous burden on the NHS and are sucking up a lot of the extra money that the Government purport to be putting into it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antonia Bance]

The hon. Lady makes her point well, and she has made it; there is no need for me to respond.

After 14 years of flatlining wages, wages are now growing faster than prices. That is incredibly important. I was so proud to see wages go up by more in the first 10 months of this Government than they went up in the first 10 years of the last one. The Budget did more on the cost of living, whether it be through frozen fares, frozen prescriptions, frozen fuel duty, £150 off energy bills or—my favourite policy—thousands of pounds in the pockets of the poorest families in the UK. They will spend that money on high streets, like those in my constituency: Crankhall Lane and Union Street in Wednesbury, and our shopping centre in central Tipton. That is where low-income families spend any extra pounds on food and on stuff for their kids.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being characteristically courteous. She is entirely correct in outlining the choices and some of the policies that her Government have made, but does she not agree that those choices and policies will be delivered on the back of higher taxation? As a result, employers have less money to employ people, so the proceeds of growth do not mean that there will be better public services. The hon. Lady is right that her Government are spending more money, but that is on the basis of taxation, because of the policies that her Government are advancing, and not on the basis of growth or entrepreneurship.

[Antonia Bance]

I thank the hon. Member for his kind words, and for his intervention. It is absolutely clear that alongside investment in public services, there is investment in infrastructure, in house building, and in making sure that this is a good country in which to grow and scale a business. I am glad of those things. I am also glad that we took action to ensure that the poorest families are able to feed all of their children. The way to make the high street thrive is for people to have more money to spend. Let me repeat the statistic mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger). There are more people aged between 18 and 24 in work this year than there were a year ago, but NEET numbers are still too high. People familiar with the constituency I represent will not be surprised to hear that they are particularly high in my corner of the Black Country. This is in no small part due to the failures of the Conservatives in government, not least during the pandemic, when they kept the schools closed but allowed pubs to open.

Opposition Members keep calling on us to engage in further welfare reform to cut the welfare bill. It is interesting to me that when we do so—when we announce a clear, costed, proven, evidence-based plan to get young people back into work, as we did this weekend—they do not like it. It feels like history repeating itself. I remember the future jobs fund from 15 or 16 years ago, and the way it gave hope to a generation of young people kicked out of work as a result of a global financial crisis, through no fault of their own. Hundreds of thousands of them got jobs through the future jobs fund. It was particularly effective for the hardest-to-help young people, and in tough labour markets, in places like the one that I represent, but it was canned, basically on day one, by a Conservative Chancellor. I am so glad that our Work and Pensions Secretary is building on the legacy of the future jobs fund to help a new generation of young people.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Much like my hon. Friend’s constituency, mine relies on its manufacturing industry, and our apprenticeship guarantees and support will make a huge difference to people there. However, having listened to my hon. Friend’s history lesson, I am thinking back to the youth training scheme. I recently met someone who did a YTS apprenticeship at the age of 16, and is now about to take over as chief operating officer of the company for which he works. That is the difference that a good apprenticeship and investment in young people can make.

[Antonia Bance]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, as I have done since the first time we worked together, more than 20 years ago.

It is interesting to hear the advocacy for welfare reform. Today we have heard a lot about the difficulties with business rates, and I will not rehearse the arguments—they have been well made by my friends on the Front Bench—about the action that this Government are taking on business rates to help the hospitality and retail sectors, but I will make this point. We have heard repeatedly from Opposition Members that they would like to abolish business rates for retail and hospitality, yet they do not have a plan to do that. To pay for it, they will somehow find £47 billion worth of “savings”. The majority of that will come through indiscriminate cutting of the welfare budget. It is not clear to me how that is a credible plan, when the annual welfare bill went up by £114 billion on their watch.

Of course, Members would not expect me to speak in a debate like this without talking about my pride in our Employment Rights Bill and our plan to make work pay. I am proud beyond words to speak for hospitality workers and for seasonal workers who will benefit from that Bill. Earlier this week, I asked colleagues in the trade union movement to run the numbers, based on Government statistics, on how many workers will benefit from the reduction of the waiting period for protection from unfair dismissal from two years to six months: 6.3 million workers will benefit from that—from protection against being unfairly dismissed, without due process, for reasons that are not good enough—and 36% of hospitality workers will benefit as well. I am so very glad that we are making rules that will benefit disproportionately the workers most likely to be exploited at work.

[John Slinger]

My hon. Friend, who continues to make an excellent speech, has referred to unfair dismissal. I think it worth putting on record that much of the debate over recent hours, days and weeks has implied that employers will not be able to dismiss people. That is simply not the case. What we are talking about here is unfair dismissal, not dismissal. This is a right that absolutely has to be at the heart of the biggest uplift in workers’ rights that any Government have introduced for a generation, or perhaps more.

[Antonia Bance]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Employers may continue to dismiss, as long as they do so for fair reasons and following a fair process, and good employers already do that.

My favourite measures in the Employment Rights Bill—this could be a very long speech, but I will bring it to a close—[Interruption.] I will! I will just say this: I am so proud of the ban on zero-hours contracts, and I suggest to my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that we should have a nice short reference period for that when the consultation begins. I am so proud of the plans on sick pay, and on fire and rehire. I am so proud of our enhanced parental leave, the fair pay agreement and the school support staff negotiating body.

In conclusion, I often say that my goal is for people in my constituency to be able to take the family out for a curry on Friday night and not worry about the cost. I want that for all workers, including the hospitality workers who are serving and cooking that curry, and the seasonal workers who make it such a pleasure to be on the beach at Blackpool or down in Brighton, having that curry. That is why we need a Government focused on growth, new rights for every worker in the Employment Rights Bill, and a higher national minimum wage.

Employment Rights Bill

Antonia Bance Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

Nobody is keener to see the Bill pass than the Liberal Democrats, and we have repeatedly worked with the Government to try to express our concerns. We would support the motion were it not for the lifting of the compensation cap being snuck in at the last minute. This last-minute change has not been part of any conversation that we have had with Ministers in the other place. That is why we will abstain on the motion.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

The hon. Member seems to be under the misapprehension that the lifting of the cap was not agreed as part of the negotiation on the compromise. It was. Perhaps she would like to revise her remarks.

[Sarah Olney]

I will not revise my remarks. We have been speaking to many business groups that were in the room with the Minister, and they have told us that it was not part of the agreement. That is why the fact that it is in this motion has taken everyone by surprise, and why we will not be supporting it today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I will not give way anymore, because we have not got much time. I will pick up on what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) said about compensation. I accept what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box. I hope that when the Lib Dem spokesperson checks back, she will be able to instruct her Lords that this measure was part of the deal and they should not block the Bill any longer. It is also telling that she has only spoken to businesses, not trade unions, about what was agreed. That shows which side the Liberal Democrats are on.

It has to be pointed out that unfair dismissal compensation limits are not operated that often. Most people’s claims are much lower than that. Most people who have been unfairly dismissed who would benefit from the measure tend to be much older workers who sadly do have not any employability in the job market. They are the ones who will benefit from the uplift in compensation, not bad water bosses, because to qualify people have to be unfairly dismissed. I suspect many water bosses would struggle to show that they had been treated unfairly.

Let us ensure that we get this legislation delivered and maintain vigilance across the whole agenda. That means proper meaningful access, not people being stuck in a shed somewhere far away from where the workers are, and serious fines linked to turnover for those who do not play by the rules. It means no loopholes and proper deterrents on fire and rehire so that companies do not think it is even worth going there. We do not want to see those P&O scenes repeated anywhere. It also means holding firm on some of the nonsense that we are still hearing today about zero-hours contracts. People seem to have a problem with fixed-term contracts and zero-hours contracts being completely different things. There has been a lot of conflation there, I am sad to say.

What comes next is important, because the Make Work Pay agenda is not just about this Bill. Let us get this Bill over the line and delivered, and let us get all the important regulations implemented, but there are so many other important things that we need to tackle in our workplaces in this country, particularly, bogus self-employment. That is going well beyond the gig economy; in fact, it is an epidemic, and it is important that we tackle it. The Bill will level the playing field, allowing good employers to compete fairly, and create more security at work. Employing people with proper terms and conditions may even lead to a greater tax take.

Further down the line, we must tackle unfair dismissal law, which is half a century old and desperately needs updating, but that is for another day. We have debated the Bill for over a year, and it is about time the Lords accepted the democratic mandate and accepted that we must deliver it. Let us get it over the line, and let us start delivering for working people in this country.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

I wish to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, my membership of Unite, and the kind support of ASLEF and the GMB for my election campaign.

This Employment Rights Bill is our promise to working people on its way to being fulfilled, thanks in no small part to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders). I am glad to see that Ministers have tabled amendments that reflect the constructive negotiations between themselves, unions—including my former employers at the TUC—and business associations, because that is how we roll in the labour movement. We get round a table, we talk, we come to a deal and we move forward. That is the right way to do things when people do not agree.

To be clear, unions negotiated this deal with the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), and it has my support. Today I will not let the best be the enemy of the good. Cutting the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months will benefit 6.35 million workers—disproportionately, young workers, ethnic minority workers, and an astonishing 36% of hospitality workers. New figures based on Government data have been produced today to tell us about the impact that the Bill is going to have. Removing the cap on unfair dismissal compensation means that workers will be able to get what they deserve, and bad bosses cannot price in the cost of ignoring the law.

I was also glad to hear my hon. Friend’s clarity about the timing. Our opinions have not changed, and our opinions on the principle have not changed. What is needed now is practicality to ensure that the Bill moves forward—and as we take it forward, Members should be sure to notice who opposes it. I would expect nothing less of the Tories. I would expect the Lib Dems to remember their total opposition to the Trade Union Act 2016, including their opposition to changes in the political fund rules and their opposition—at that time, but apparently no longer—to the undemocratic ballot thresholds that create a higher bar for trade unions than for anyone else in society. I would gently remind their spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), that the right to request worked so well for flexible working that flexible working does not work—we are having to fix it with this Bill—and yet she proposes to bring in an unworkable right to request, instead of a guaranteed right to a decent hours contract. I will take no lectures from the Greens—what a shame that they are not here—who are letting their peers vote whichever way they want on something as important as this. As for Reform UK, they pretend to be the representatives of working-class people, but vote against their interests at every turn.

I say to those in the other place: it is time to pass this Bill to make work pay and to deliver the rights that were promised in our manifesto and voted for—the rights that millions have waited far too long to see.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to support from trade unions, of which I am proud.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) that this is a transformational piece of legislation, but it has been weakened. My motion would restore day one rights on unfair dismissal. I tabled a motion to reject the Lords amendments, since when the Government have tabled a motion to adopt a six- month qualification period. I commend the remarks of Lord Collins about issues relating to unfair dismissal. He said:

“These are areas clearly linked to our manifesto commitments, which the Government have an electoral mandate to deliver… we remain committed to delivering unfair dismissal protections… day-one protection from unfair dismissal will not remove the ability of businesses to dismiss people who cannot do their job or pass a probation period, but it will tackle cases of unfair dismissal in which hard-working employees are sacked without good reason.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 November 2025; Vol. 850, c. 561-62.]

That was a very good speech, made just a short time ago.

Employment Rights Bill

Antonia Bance Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

I am trying to be generous to the hon. Member, as this Bill was part of his legacy before he was so rudely fired by a bad boss without any notice.

It is not unreasonable to say that a strike must be supported by a mere quarter of workers in order to be valid. I do not think the Labour party would claim the mandate that the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) was talking about on the votes of merely a quarter.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is not being very clear. Does he like the pre-2016 trade union regime, which is the one this Bill takes us back to, or does he like the post-2016 trade union regime, which is the one he seems to be advocating except when he talks about the 30 years of settled consensus? Which is it, because it cannot be both?

[Andrew Griffith]

We on the Conservative Benches seek to respect the role of trade unions, but in a flexible workplace where we see growth in the economy and—unlike what we see today—more people in jobs, rather than fewer people in jobs. That does not help anybody at all, least of all a Government who claim that their No. 1 obsession is growth. That is not an unreasonable position.

Not for the first time, I think Ministers have got themselves in a bind. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade is going around telling business groups that he is listening, but every one of them is against this Bill. From what the Health Secretary has been saying privately, it is clear that he is no fan of giving more 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 disincentivising employers from hiring. Are Treasury Ministers really looking forward to the Office for Budget Responsibility next week scoring the impact of this Bill, given the independent estimates 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-Lyne (Angela Rayner), but it is a disaster for Britain. It is bad for business, bad for growth, and bad for jobs. Far from furthering workers’ rights, it punishes those who want a job. We do not protect workers by bankrupting their employers. Even the Government’s allies are warning them against this Bill.

Government Members have a choice. They can stand by and watch as their Government bring 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, businesses shut their doors, and young people stop believing and stop hoping, no one on the Government Benches will be able to say that they were not warned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and hear her passionate advocacy for this Bill.

The Liberal Democrats support many of the principles of this Bill. We have long advocated for strengthening employment rights in several ways, including by increasing support for carers, boosting statutory sick pay, and giving people on zero-hours contracts more certainty about their working patterns. There is a lot in the Bill that we support in principle and that moves us in the right direction, but we remain concerned about the specific way in which the Government plan to implement many of its measures. So much of the detail that should have been in the Bill has been left to secondary legislation or future consultations, making it impossible for businesses to plan ahead with certainty.

For that reason, we support amendments that provide clarity for businesses, for example by setting the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims at six months. Training, hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues that affect businesses across the country, and we must ensure that this legislation strikes the right balance for both employees and businesses.

[Antonia Bance]

Does the hon. Member believe that, in the first six months of employment, it is appropriate for people to be dismissed for unfair reasons and without a fair process?

[Sarah Olney]

The point has been made on a number of occasions that it is always possible for employers to make mistakes in their hiring—for people to not be the right fit for the job. There should be a straightforward way for those employers to dismiss those people without being challenged on the basis that the dismissal was unfair. The key point is not that employers should be allowed to make unfair dismissals, but if a dismissal has been fair, they should not have to defend it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I absolutely cannot believe that the Conservative party, which saw massive increases in unemployment in my constituency in the 1980s and 1990s when they were in power, have the cheek to start talking about the effects of unemployment on my constituents now.

The Resolution Foundation has said some things in recent weeks that I do not agree with, but it has said things in the past that are much more in line with what we believe the international evidence shows. So the kindest thing I can say about the Resolution Foundation is that I prefer its earlier work.

I turn to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 62, on repeal of 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-balloting, if done properly, will lead to much greater participation in ballots and render arguments about turnout obsolete. The implementation timetable that the Government published indicates that e-balloting will begin next April. I hope that the Minister, when she responds, 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, or very shortly thereafter. I would be disappointed if the amendment was an attempt to kick this issue into the long grass. I am not particularly keen on the conditionality in the amendment, which talks about whether to repeal the thresholds. There should be no question of “whether”; it should be about “when”. After all, that is what we promised to do in our manifesto. I urge the Minister to resist any temptation to introduce any conditionality and to deliver the Make Work Pay agenda in full, as we said we would.

I will conclude, because I am conscious that a number of Members wish to speak. I am proud that the Government are continuing to commit to implementing this Bill in full. The policies in the Bill are overwhelmingly popular with the public. They formed a key part of our manifesto and remain central to the Government’s plan for change. We on the Labour Benches proudly stand against those who seek to water down this Bill and hamper its implementation. We are proud to back workers and to deliver meaningful change in their working lives. We stand against maintaining the status quo of low pay, low security and little dignity at work, and we stand for job security and for delivering on our promises.

[Antonia Bance]

I wish to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, my proud 23 years in Unite, and the generous support from the millions of ordinary members of the GMB and ASLEF in paying into their political funds to put representatives of the working class here in Parliament.

I am here to deliver a simple but firm message: there will be no concessions on this 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 talk about two sets of amendments, starting with Lords amendments 61 and 72, on political funds. The Lords want to keep the opt-in system, but it is abundantly clear that this is a deliberate attack on 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 organisation has faced these rules. Unions’ political spending is transparent and accountable, with annual returns to the certification officer and the Electoral Commission regulating donations and campaigning. 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 oppose Lords amendment 62, on keeping the unnecessary and unneeded ballot thresholds, which are designed to stop workers having a voice. The Tory and Lib Dem Lords want to reinstate the 50% turnout threshold that was introduced by the draconian Trade Union Act 2016. I remind Members from the Liberal Democrat party that they opposed that Act in 2016, including the ballot thresholds, and I wonder why they have now reversed their position. Ballot thresholds weaken unions and stall negotiations. Before 2016, ballots triggered talks and resolved disputes early. Now the thresholds delay dialogue and make resolution harder. No other organisations face turnout thresholds; this just singles out unions. Of course, anyone who is familiar with how the trade union movement works knows that no union would call members out on strike if they are not up for it.

With all due thanks and respect to the other place, we will still repeal the Trade Union Act 2016 in full, with no concessions. This 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 unelected Tory and Lib Dem Lords siding with bad bosses to weaken workers’ rights—not now, not today, not ever.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to support from trade unions, of which I am most proud.

The past four decades of structural decline in the share of the national income going to employees, decades marked by the erosion of trade union rights, has been exacerbated by 14 years of the 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 to deliver that.

The Bill represents a cornerstone of the Government’s new deal for working people, a vote-winning manifesto pledge. I very much welcome evidence of the popularity of these policies in the platform of Zohran Mamdani, New York’s newly elected Democrat mayor. Among other things, he pledged protection for delivery workers, including guaranteed hours. Yet the amendments to this Bill made in the other place would water down that commitment and deny working people the rights they were promised. I therefore must speak in strong opposition to the Lords amendments, which, taken together, would weaken the protections that this House has committed to deliver for working people across the United Kingdom.

Lords amendment 23 and Lords amendments 106 to 120, which concern day one rights, would remove the right not 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 limited protections apply. That is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Government’s manifesto. It would leave new employees vulnerable to arbitrary dismissal and recreate the very insecurity that the Bill was designed to end.

Commemoration of Matchgirls’ Strike

Antonia Bance Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Uma Kumaran]

This is the first Adjournment debate that I have secured, and I am delighted to be a recipient of one of the hon. Gentleman’s famous Adjournment interventions—I have finally made it as a Member of Parliament. I certainly think that the spirit of the matchgirls reminds us that unionism and collective action have long been in the domain of women, regardless of how male-dominated the union movement or the struggle for workers’ rights may be.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that commemorating the struggle of workers, particularly women workers, is key to understanding working-class history—our history? Does she also agree that the matchgirls should be commemorated alongside industrial struggles across the country, not least those of the 19 teenage girls who were killed in the disaster of 1922 in the Dudley Port factory, the Wednesbury “Tube Town” strikes of 1913 and the 1910 women chainmakers’ strike in Cradley Heath, all of which helped to form our modern-day trade union movement?

[Uma Kumaran]

I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. All Labour Members have stories of women who have shaped the struggle for working people’s rights in British history. Too often, those stories do not get told, so I am really pleased that we have a chance to hear them today.

As I was saying, the strike took place exactly 137 years ago this week, and I am proud to be in the Chamber speaking about it. The union movement is still fighting for dignity and fairness at work, and standing up for workers’ rights against mistreatment and malpractice. We owe so much to the women who came before us—the pioneers of the rights we enjoy today. They stood up against injustice, took power into their own hands, and won all the concessions they demanded from greedy factory bosses. Those women changed the course of history, and I and many other women would not be here without them. I come to the House today in that same spirit, to ask the Minister whether we will finally formally recognise the matchgirls’ role in the British trade union movement and in the advancement of the rights of women and girls in Britain.

I mentioned Mr Graham, one of the MPs who met the matchgirls in Parliament. Those MPs’ names are recorded in Hansard, but the names and voices of the matchgirls are absent, because it would be decades more before a woman first sat on these green Benches. The matchgirls’ contribution to the story of new trade unionism, British labour history, and the struggle for rights and dignity at work is too often forgotten. That history is too often overlooked; working-class stories are left untold, and are under-represented in our curriculums and our history books. It is a history that belongs to all of us, and that we all have a responsibility to keep telling when we have the chance.

Parental Leave Review

Antonia Bance Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ support for this review. The hon. Lady is right to point out that it was the coalition Government who introduced shared parental leave, although that is the first time in a long time that we have heard anyone admit that they were part of the coalition Government. She raised some very important points, a number of which will be covered by the carer’s leave review, which is also taking place. Kinship caring will be a part of that. I know that the Liberal Democrats have a long-standing policy on carer’s leave and pay, and the review will be cognisant of that.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

As I welcome the Minister’s announcement, I think of the HGV driver who I met recently who said that he was not able to take time off to be with his partner and their newborn baby. Will the Minister assure me and all my constituents that the new rights will work for working-class people as well as people on higher incomes in professional jobs? Does he agree that today’s announcement, along with our announcements on free school meals, childcare and housing, make it clear that the Labour party is the party of the family?

[Justin Madders]

One of the real achievements of the last Labour Government was to recognise that giving children the best start in life is fundamental to rebuilding our society, and that is at the heart of what we have proposed today. My hon. Friend raises an important point that these entitlements have an element of income inequality to them, which we will bear in mind. One message we heard very clearly is that many fathers would like to take more paternity leave but simply cannot afford to do so, and we will be looking at that as part of the review.

UK Modern Industrial Strategy

Antonia Bance Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Well, I think that was a positive response to the industrial strategy. It certainly sounded like there were some positive themes there. The hon. Member asks a reasonable, specific question about her constituency, and I will check that with officials and write to her so that she has the correct information. If she has had a chance to look at it, she will see that the strategy includes big commitments to the advanced manufacturing R&D budget for a whole range of sectors. We are putting in the money that perhaps was not as firm as it is now in the national finances, but we also have long-term plans in many of those sectors around quantum, advanced manufacturing and aerospace 10-year settlements, for example, to give the kind of assurance and consistency we really need, but I will get her the specific answer she needs.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

Representing Tipton, the birthplace of the first industrial revolution, I hugely welcome this industrial strategy and its 1.1 million good jobs. I am particularly pleased to see the Black Country singled out as a centre of clean-energy industries. We recently welcomed £45 million of investment in Eku Energy’s new battery energy storage system at Ocker Hill in my constituency. The action on high energy prices is especially welcome, and I wonder if my right hon. Friend could give us more details about how soon we can expect it to make a difference to businesses in our constituencies.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The birthplace of the industrial revolution is somewhat contested by several of us Labour MPs, but we do not need a vote on that. My hon. Friend’s constituency certainly has a rich history and a great future for her constituents, who have been well represented by her since the election. On energy prices, we all want action sooner rather than later. There are some parts of the programme that I can implement more quickly than others, and I have to do this in the proper way and let people consult on the threshold. In my Department, we are often dealing with big inward investment decisions or existing domestic business investment decisions, and if they can have certainty as to where they will get to in a short space of time—many of these are investments that pay back over not just years but decades—that will make the difference. I believe that the benefits can be felt even sooner than the programme can be put in place, but I promise I will stretch every sinew to get it in place as soon as we can.

Business and the Economy

Antonia Bance Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien]

One of the things that happened during our time in government was a massive global pandemic that brought the entire world economy to a complete halt, but memories are short. Perhaps more importantly, every single thing that this Government are doing is bad for growth. That is the bottom line.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

Perhaps the hon. Member has not had a chance to see the piece of work produced by a former shadow Chancellor that sets out the relative recovery rates of different world economies in the developed world since the pandemic. It shows that the United Kingdom is right at the bottom of the pile thanks to the mess left to us by Liz Truss crashing the UK economy.

[Neil O’Brien]

Labour Members who were not in the House at the time—it is before their time—will not remember that the deficit we inherited in 2010 was twice the size of the one that Labour has inherited, and the structural deficit was twice as big. Indeed, we went into the global recession—the financial crisis—with the largest structural deficit in our peacetime history. That is the record of the last Labour Government.

We had had a recession that was the size of the 1980s recession and the 1990s recession put together, and when I say we were cleaning up the mess—I am afraid I am going to use a generation X metaphor—I mean it was like one of those enormous brontosaurus poops in the film “Jurassic Park”. We were cleaning up a big mess, and it took us a long time. We had to make some difficult decisions, particularly during the coalition years, to clean that up. Members have referred to my peroration, but I am afraid I am only getting started. [Interruption.] The House groans at the prospect.

Automotive Manufacturing: Employment

Antonia Bance Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

Thank you for indulging me, Sir John, and for letting me speak after I walked in so late. I also thank the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) and congratulate her on securing this important debate.

We have heard today how strategically important the automotive industry is for our country and about the £93 billion turnover across the industry and its supply chain. I would also like to flag how important the industry is to many of our regional economies. In my constituency, which covers Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley—the home of the industrial revolution—we have 21,000 manufacturing jobs across 1,000 firms, many of them in the supply chain for the automotive industry.

I recently visited J.H. Lavender & Co., which makes cast aluminium casings for JLR’s new electric Land Rover. It was incredible to see the process go from the silver liquid all the way through to the finished casing. Those world-class products are made in a family firm in the heart of my constituency. Truflo makes industrial air-cooling fans that go in industrial vehicles—the construction and heavy goods vehicles we are all so familiar with—and exports across the world, including to China and the US. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) so eloquently outlined, the west midlands is also the home of Jaguar Land Rover, with its 34,000 jobs—many of those people live in my constituency—and 200,000 jobs in the supply chain.

The automotive industry faces two key challenges: transition and tariffs. On the transition piece, automotive is critical if we are to reach net zero. I do not believe that this country will give up its cars—I certainly do not want to give up mine—so it matters that we move towards net zero in a way that is sustainable and that supports the freedom that owning a car brings. We can see that the investment towards that net zero future has already begun, whether it be JLR’s investment of £18 billion over the coming five years or the investment elsewhere in the industry. I was so glad the Prime Minister went to JLR in April to announce the flexibilities that have been needed for so long in the ZEV mandate to smooth the requirements, cut the fines and ensure that there is a continued role for hybrids.

We know there is more to do to increase the uptake of electric vehicles, whether that be on consumer demand or the charging infrastructure we need. More broadly, I hope that the industrial strategy, when we see it, takes action on the issues that have held back advanced manufacturing: skills, access to finance—particularly in the supply chain and for smaller manufacturers—and energy costs. I was absolutely appalled to hear Nissan tell the Business and Trade Committee two weeks ago that its plant in Sunderland is its most expensive in the world, because of the energy costs. It will be great to hear the Industry Minister’s thoughts ahead of the industrial strategy, although I know she will have more to say in the coming months.

Let me turn now to tariffs. This morning, I talked to Richard Parker, our Mayor of the West Midlands, and his team. They have produced research by Steve Rigby, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East touched on, showing a £6.2 billion hit to the west midlands economy from the US automotive tariffs if nothing changes—the biggest regional hit in the country. Some 52% of firms in our local manufacturing base are warning about profits because of the tariffs.

JLR alone accounts for 4% of UK goods exports. We need a deal, and soon. I thank the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Business Secretary and the Industry Minister for their calm approach to the negotiations. That is right, but we must get a deal; otherwise, that impact will be coming down the road in my constituency and in all our constituencies in terms of jobs and the critical research and development that will help us navigate the transition that we need to electric cars and net zero. When it comes to a deal, fast is better than perfect: that is the message from the west midlands automotive industry to my colleagues in the Government.

I would like to hear from Ministers what options they intend to explore to help the industry, and especially the employment base in the automotive industry supply chain in my constituency, if—God forbid—we get no deal. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee set out a number of options in a letter to Ministers earlier this week. It would be good to hear what consideration is being given to things such as a reduction in employer costs, help with energy costs, domestic sales subsidies for EVs, an increase in research and development tax credits, and help with cash flow, particularly for the smaller companies in the supply chain, which tell me time and again that they need that.

Then, of course, there is the £2 billion that was allocated in the Budget to the automotive industry’s transition, which we will hear more about in the industrial strategy. It would be good to know whether that can be used to help in the event that there is no deal and there is a prolonged period of tariffs. But that money is necessary for the transition—for research and development, and for moving our workforces to the new industry’s new production techniques and requirements—so it will have to be replaced in time.

My colleagues in Government know how urgent this issue is and have been working at pace to get the deal that our automotive sector needs. They have the support of all of us in this House, and I urge them to continue that work for this vital sector of the UK economy, of which we are so proud.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

We will move to the winding-up speeches now but, given how much time we have left, I emphasise that Front Benchers should not fall into the Gladstone trap of becoming intoxicated by the exuberance of their own verbosity.

Employment Rights Bill

Antonia Bance Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Saqib Bhatti]

The hon. Lady should speak to the Deputy Prime Minister, who failed to name a single supportive business when challenged to do so.

In the short time I have left, I will make a couple of quick points. Labour Members keep saying that the Bill will lead to fewer strikes. It will not; it makes it easier to strike. In fact, the Transport Secretary today said that strikes will be necessary in the areas covered by her portfolio. The Bill will make it easier to strike, not harder. [Interruption.] Labour Members are exercised; I am sure that they will get a chance to comment. The country is at risk of being turned into a 1970s-style striking country. This Bill should be a wake-up call for all working people and businesses that will be undermined. As we have heard from Members from across the House, only the Conservatives will stand up for businesses.

I have questions for all Labour Members. People ask what this Labour Government stand for. They undermine businesses and working people, so that is a legitimate question. I fail to see who, other than trade unions, the Labour party now stands for. When people asked what we Conservatives stand for, Margaret Thatcher had a very good answer. She said that the Labour party—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who spoke before me, read out a quote; I think I should do so as well. Margaret Thatcher said:

“The Labour Party believes in turning workers against owners; we believe in turning workers into owners.”

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

I proudly draw attention to my membership of the Unite union and my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I thank my friends at the GMB and ASLEF for their support of my election campaign.

I am in this place to stand up for working people, and that is what I will do. The best protection anyone can have at work is the support of their workmates, organised together in a union, and bargaining with management, sitting down with them as equals at the table, and making sure that the business grows and thrives, and that everyone takes home a fair wage. This Bill and the Government amendments will make it easier for working people to choose their union, be represented by their union, and get all the benefits of being in a recognised union, so that we have an economy where better terms and conditions at work go hand in hand with the growth that we need. Let us be clear: this Bill supports growth. It could add £13 billion to the economy through improvements to employee wellbeing, reduced stress, improved national minimum wage compliance, reduced workplace conflict, and increased labour market participation. That is the type of growth that we want.

[Joe Robertson]

I invite the hon. Lady to acknowledge the £5 billion cost to businesses that the Government’s own analysis says will be caused by the Bill.

[Antonia Bance]

I do acknowledge that, every single of which will go into the pocket of a working person in improved rights and higher wages, alongside £13 billion of increased productivity, reduced stress, better employee wellbeing and reduced conflict in the workplace.

On the amendments, I will start with access to workplaces, which are the key to getting more workers into unions. I strongly welcome provisions to give unions the right to access workplaces for meeting, representing, organising, recruiting and collective bargaining. I am glad the Government amended the rules to ensure they cover digital as well as physical access, and I am glad to see the Central Arbitration Committee oversight and penalties when employers do not comply, as is sometimes the case.

Once a union has established membership in a workplace, it will want to seek recognition. Most employers do not have to be forced to recognise a union—it is just what they do as a responsible employer—but where employers refuse, statutory recognition can be triggered. Until now that process has been absolutely mad and totally dysfunctional, and the cards are stacked against the working people and their union at every turn.

The worst example of this in recent years is at BHX4 in Coventry where a company dedicated to keeping unions out of its warehouses brought its US-style industrial relations to the UK, and took on its own workers who wanted no more and no less than for management to have to sit down and negotiate with their union, the GMB. Amazon is a £27 billion company in the UK yet its sales are growing three times higher than its frontline workers’ wages and it has had 1,400 ambulance call-outs in just five years. BHX4 in Coventry is not a safe workplace, with fulfilment centre workers getting injured, being asked to pick up too much, to load from the back of vehicles on their own, and to lift heavy weights above their heads. Those workers at that Amazon plant were forced to take 37 days of industrial action over poverty pay. At the Select Committee, the company’s badly briefed, evasive executives could not bring themselves to acknowledge that.

Recognising the GMB is a modest request, something 1,000 companies would have accepted without question, but not Amazon. At the Select Committee, the GMB organiser, Amanda Gearing, told us that Amazon flooded the bargaining unit; there were 1,400 workers when the GMB first sought statutory recognition but, strangely, just 27 days after that application went in the number went up to 2,749. Amanda told us how Amazon delayed the access agreement— 52 days to agree access to the workplace, a chance for the company to swamp the workers with anti-union propaganda. All the screens in the warehouse and the app used for work allocation were anti-union, threatening to close the site if workers unionised. When the access scheme was finally agreed, the GMB got a tiny number of screens and one 45-minute session with each worker, while Amazon had five one-hour sessions and screens everywhere. It induced GMB members to leave the union and in every way impeded access.

I pay tribute to the GMB leaders at Amazon in Coventry: Ceferina Floresca, Garfield Hylton, Paramanathan Pradeep and Mohammednur Mohammed—heroes, all of them. Standing up to huge intimidation and under huge pressure, they ran a brilliant campaign, but the deck was stacked against them, and they lost the ballot by a heartbreaking 29 votes. The GMB’s general secretary, my friend Gary Smith, is clear: if the legislation we are debating today had been in place, the GMB members at Amazon would have won their fight.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is a fearsome campaigner on the Business and Trade Committee. She talks about intimidation and paints a lovely picture of unions working actively for their workers, but how can we square that with the version of intimidation that the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) seems to be referring to with the return of flying pickets?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before the hon. Lady responds, she will no doubt realise that she is close to eight minutes. I know she will want to speak for a little while, but not too much longer.

[Antonia Bance]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my fellow member of the Business and Trade Committee for his intervention. As he will have seen from the amendment paper, the Government are not proposing the return of secondary picketing.

New schedule 2 will give unions greater protection from unfair practices during a recognition process and make winning it more likely. I wish that Ministers had gone the whole hog and deleted the three-year lockout; perhaps there will be an opportunity to take that forward.

In conclusion, as a whole, this package of modern industrial relations will lead to more sitting roundtables sorting out issues, fewer picket lines, fewer strikes, more productive relationships, more long-termism across our industrial base, better jobs, higher wages, higher skills and higher productivity. That is why the changes in this Bill to both collective rights and individual rights are so crucial, and so opposed by the Tories and the absent Reform party. This is the type of growth that my party stands for—the type of growth where proceeds are shared by all. It is time to make work pay.

[Lincoln Jopp]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). She is such a compelling advocate that I am tempted to go on strike myself. I do sense a certain amount of antipathy between the two sides of the House, so, before I come on to make a fair point in support of amendment 292, I want to prepare the ground by doing two things.

First, I want to try to convince Labour Members that they missed an opportunity, because I am, at heart, a rabble-rousing potential motivator of people. When, about three Christmases ago, the ambulance drivers went on strike, it irked me that the soldiers who were going to stand in for them at no notice would have their Christmas ruined, so I started a campaign to try to get them an additional £20 for every day they stood in for the ambulance drivers. This plan was—the Chancellor would have loved this—net positive to the Treasury. Of course, the departments that employ the ambulance drivers and the arm’s length bodies do not pay them on strike days, and the pay differential between them and the £20 bung to the soldiers meant that the Government still saved money. I managed to get The Sun on board and get a letter into the paper, and did a bit of television.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Although I have broadly welcomed the Bill as it has progressed through the House, I have caveated that by stating that the Labour Government should be bolder and must go further in future for the rights and protections to become entrenched rather than rolled back. Indeed, on Second Reading I quoted the Scottish Trades Union Congress general Secretary, Roz Foyer, who summarised the Bill by saying:

“the Employment Rights Bill isn’t the terminus. It’s the first stop. This can be the foundations on which we can build.”

I agree.

[Antonia Bance]

The hon. Member may not have had a chance to look at the Government website and encounter the document entitled “Next Steps to Make Work Pay”, which sets out a programme of continuing work to improve rights at work and parental leave and the review of employment status to come. I am sure he will be glad to hear that.

[Chris Law]

No, I have not had the chance to look at the Government website, but I thank the hon. Member for raising that. As I have broadly said, I support the Bill, but there are reasons why I am contributing to the debate, not least because of a lack of devolution to the Scottish Parliament, which I will come to shortly.

On Second Reading, the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and local Government, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), made it explicitly clear that the foundations will not be built upon in the long term, as a future Conservative Government would simply repeal protections. He declared that

“many of the measures will be brought in through secondary legislation, therefore making it easier for a future Government to reverse some of the catastrophic changes.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 58.]

Employment rights for workers in Scotland cannot be dependent on the merry-go-round of Westminster politics. They have seen their rights attacked and diminished by years of Conservative Governments, and where the Bill reverses some of the worst excesses of those Governments’ policies, that must be protected and strengthened in the long term. Westminster cannot guarantee that for the people in Scotland, so I have tabled new clause 77, which would amend the Scotland Act 1998 to devolve employment and industrial relations to the Scottish Parliament.

Back in 2014, all Unionist parties, including the Labour party, promised maximum devolution for Scotland, as displayed on the front page of a national newspaper days before the independence referendum, in which Scotland voted no. This Labour Government have failed to devolve a single power to Holyrood since coming to power in July—not a single one—despite the Scottish Parliament voting for employment rights to be devolved.

In November, the STUC called on the UK Government to

“end the excuses and devolve powers over taxation, migration and, importantly, employment law from Westminster to Holyrood.”

Moreover, Scottish Labour’s 2021 election manifesto stated:

“We support further devolution of powers to Holyrood including borrowing and employment rights”.

Here is a question for Scottish Labour MPs: will they respect the wishes of the Scottish Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

[Antonia Bance]

indicated dissent.

[Chris Law]

The hon. Member shakes her head, but I am speaking to Scottish Labour MPs.

[Antonia Bance]

I care about the people of Scotland.

[Chris Law]

I care about the people of Scotland and what they say. Will Scottish Labour MPs listen to trade unions and deliver on the promises made by their party by supporting the new clause, or will they continue to follow instructions handed to them from No. 10? Silence. I thought so. They are too scared to stand up for the people of Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I return to what industry leaders are saying. They have shared their fear about

“union influence slowing down decision making and hindering flexibility”,

making it harder for companies to remain competitive in global markets. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s survey found that 79% of organisations expect measures in the Employment Rights Bill to increase employment costs, placing further strain on companies that are having to grapple with increases to national insurance contributions and the rising national minimum wage. It is also likely that the measures will lead to

“more strikes, more disruptions, and ultimately less productivity.”

[Antonia Bance]

The hon. Member has referred a number of times to yesterday’s proceedings. I am sad that he was not able to join us in the Division Lobby in voting against the amendments and in favour of the Bill, given that 73% of his constituents in Farnham and Bordon support statutory sick pay for all workers from day one, and 67% of his constituents support banning zero-hours contracts.

[Gregory Stafford]

I am sorry that I am such a disappointment to the hon. Lady, but maybe she will get over it.

The Bill is a roll-back of the most important changes that we made when we were in government. It is no surprise that trade unions have warmly embraced the legislation, over 200 amendments having been hastily shoehorned in to satisfy those who line the Government’s pockets. Perhaps it is purely coincidental that their wishes have been granted, although one might wonder if the £5.6 million in donations the Labour party has received since July has something to do with it.