British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme
Justin Madders Excerpts(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Kyle
I could have listened to the hon. Lady for much longer, because she is listing important areas across the sector. I am very aware of the challenges and opportunities in an economy that is full of great enterprise and a lot of highly profitable businesses doing great things with great entrepreneurs. Listening to her, we would think that the economy was not full of people and businesses that are thriving. She only focuses on the challenges.
Let me be clear on how BICS happened. It came about through consultation with the very businesses that the hon. Lady is asking us to listen to. They have been part of designing the system. We will release and implement a targeted scheme that will have maximum benefit. We will announce over the summer an eligibility checker, so that businesses can see their eligibility for the scheme. Of course, as we move forward, we will make payments for costs that may have been incurred this year.
Let me be really clear, however, about how those businesses are working. Most of the businesses—I include the business that was on the Radio 4 “Today” programme this morning; Sharon from Tees Components up in Teesside was on the programme—have entered into a contract with fixed prices for the coming year. Most companies in the categories that we are targeting, which have manufacturing processes in which electricity is a high-component cost, are either hedging, or are in contracts, so that they have some stability into the future. We have designed a scheme that takes that into account, will be there when they need it, and supplies support for costs that they would have had this year.
On CO2 and the issues that are in the news, six months ago, within days of becoming Secretary of State, I mothballed Ensus up in Teesside—a fantastic company. I have had to un-mothball it, and I did so in the first couple of days of the strikes in Iran to ensure resilience in key parts of our economy. That was leaked; we do not normally comment on leaks, but that is out there now. These are the things that I am doing. I am being bold and creative, and am acting in the interests of the whole of society and the economy to make sure that we have the resilience to carry on doing business, and come out of this with growth in our economy.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
We will not prosper as a nation without a lot of support for the manufacturing sector—vital for our security and our resilience—so I welcome today’s statement. I notice with some irony that the fertiliser sector is included. A producer in my constituency closed under the previous Government, and as the Secretary of State has already referred to, several hundred million pounds have already been spent correcting the failure to foresee the risks of such a move.
It is good to see that a number of sectors in my constituency are covered by the scheme, including automotive. The Secretary of State will be aware that the automotive sector faces multifaceted issues, not least on the supply side, but also to do with competition and European proposals. Will he say a little bit more about what else he can do to support the wider challenges facing automotive and manufacturing more generally?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work when he was in my Department, upon which I seek to continue. He is right to point to the closure of the fertiliser plant in, I believe, 2023. Those are the sorts of things that have stripped out resilience from our economy and society and which I have sought to rebuild in turbulent times. The automotive sector will qualify for the BIC scheme and other high energy- intensive industries outside automotive will also benefit from the supercharger before it does. I regularly meet automotive industry figures, and the Department is deeply engaged with the sector. He will know some of the outcomes of those conversations and that it is a sector that has this Government and me on its side.
Single Status of Worker
Justin Madders Excerpts(3 days, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of creating a single status of worker.
Good afternoon, Mr Efford; it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I am grateful for the opportunity to draw attention to an issue that has the potential to transform the world of work for millions of people up and down the country.
The Government’s plan to make work pay was one of our central policy commitments at the last general election. I was proud to play an important part in shaping the package and begin delivering on it in government. As a result of changes that this Government have made, the lives of working people are already improving. Minimum wage rates now take account of the cost of living, which is massively important to people on low incomes in this time of rising energy and fuel costs. Fathers are now entitled to paternity leave from day one; they no longer have to wait months to accrue that important right. Statutory sick pay is also now an entitlement from day one, and the lower earnings limit and the waiting period have been removed. This transformation of the world of work will continue as measures in the Employment Rights Act 2025 come into force over the coming months and years.
However, noticeably absent from that list is the promise that we made to the electorate to move towards a single status of worker, on which we committed at the election to launch a consultation in the first year of government. We are approaching the end of the second year with no further indication of when there will be a consultation or, indeed, whether there will be one at all. I understand that the focus of most of our time in office has been the mammoth process of passing and implementing the Employment Rights Act. I know only too well how significant an undertaking that has been and I commend the work of officials in the Department for Business and Trade to pass that transformative Act within less than 18 months of our entering office.
Although the Act has been implemented, we must not forget that a number of commitments in the plan to make work pay fall outside its scope. They include changes to the parental leave system and carer’s leave, reform of TUPE, the review of health and safety guidance, changes to allow collective grievances, and what we are debating today—the commitment to move towards a single status of worker. I know that steps have been taken to implement change in some of those areas, and I would welcome a substantive update from my hon. Friend the Minister on the progress being made to deliver on all the commitments in the plan to make work pay.
The need to deal with worker status has been an issue since long before we entered office. It is almost nine years since the publication of “Good Work: The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices”, which made some proposals on status, and more than seven years since the then Conservative Government accepted that changes needed to be made. It is a matter of record that nothing has been done since then to implement those proposals. It has therefore long been recognised that employment status is overly complicated, outdated and no longer reflective of the complexities of the modern labour market. We will see whether we can reach consensus on the solution, but we should at least begin to try to address it.
It might be helpful if I set out the current legal framework. I hope that that will demonstrate the need for reform and why this is a complicated area that requires careful consideration. First, there are those who are classed as employees, who receive almost all working protections, depending on service length. Then there are workers, or limb (b) workers—under section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996—who have access to some working protections, such as the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the minimum wage, but not others. And then there are the self-employed, who have no rights to working protections.
In practice, differentiating each status can be tricky, and reliance has been placed on court cases to establish the boundaries between them. It can therefore be a significant challenge for an individual to understand under which status their employment falls. If they do not readily know the answer, it can be difficult to enforce their rights without legal support. Matthew Taylor noted pithily in his report that
“without an encyclopaedic knowledge of case law, understanding how this might apply to your situation is almost impossible.”
People’s status and their rights under it should not be subject to their willingness to fight, sometimes for years, through an employment tribunal.
It might be said that people’s status and rights ought to be obvious from day one of their employment. For many that is true, but it does not recognise the explosion in what might be described as gig economy-type work in the past 15 years or so. By the end of the previous Administration, the number of people classed as being in insecure work stood at about 4 million, according to a TUC analysis. That represented a growth of about 1 million during the Tories’ time in office. Job growth in that period was driven largely by a rise in insecure work, which increased three times faster than secure forms of employment. Of the 4 million in insecure work, the TUC found that about half were low-paid self-employed, and many of them were unlikely to be genuinely self-employed at all.
During that period, the emergence of platform work saw the size of the gig economy explode. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that there were 1.6 million people working in the gig economy by 2022. Advances in technology, combined with ageing status laws, have allowed employers to avoid their responsibilities by advertising for positions that are described as for a “worker” or for the “self-employed” but, in reality, have all the hallmarks of direct employment.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and fellow member of the Business and Trade Committee for giving way. We have sat in a number of hearings where different industries have expressed to us the competitive disadvantage that they experience because people in the industry use the gig economy or platform work to avoid responsibilities. We heard evidence from Royal Mail about the disadvantage in the parcel delivery network, and from the British Hairdressing Association about the end of direct employment in hairdressing. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to think about the competitive disadvantage for employers who do the right thing in considering these issues?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the arguments put forward by not only those who represent workers, but those who represent businesses about the need for a level playing field. I will draw on some of the examples and evidence that the Select Committee has heard of the imbalances that are created.
Those who might be classed as being in bogus self-employment may perform work under the direction of a manager, and be told where to be and when; they may wear a uniform and follow policies; and they may not, in practice, have the opportunity to substitute their work to someone else. To all intents and purposes, they are acting as employees, yet they do not have the associated rights, such as sick pay, parental leave, protection from unfair dismissal or any sort of redundancy process. While that might be sold as flexibility to the worker, it is clear that the employer retains most of the flexibility.
I saw this at first hand a few years ago when I accompanied a self-employed delivery driver working for one of the large parcel companies. I saw the time pressure he faced each and every day just to make an hourly rate equivalent to the minimum wage, which, once overheads such as his van and fuel were taken into account, was not actually reached. If he was an employee, he would have the right to a minimum wage for each hour worked and the right to rest breaks, and he would not be forced to rush on a very tight delivery schedule just to scrape by.
It is important to note that the abuse of employment status has a knock-on effect on the competitiveness of businesses that choose to do the right thing by their workforce, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) referred to. The Select Committee has seen the impact of the race to the bottom on standards and on responsible employers, such as Royal Mail, that meet the full costs of employment and maintain good, unionised jobs, but are not able to compete with companies that choose to treat their couriers as self-employed or limb (b) workers. They may be doing so lawfully, but it means that they can undercut the likes of Royal Mail by not having to worry about the minimum wage, sick pay or holiday pay. It also means that they can, and do, treat their workforce as ultra-disposable commodities. I do not believe that is fair competition, nor do I believe that it is the direction that we should be going in as a country.
Recently, the Communication Workers Union and Royal Mail gave evidence to the Select Committee, and they argued for reform in this area. When unions and management speak with one voice, they send a powerful message that should be heard. The sad reality is that large multinationals have been able to exploit the UK’s ageing status laws to completely undercut and undermine one of our oldest institutions. That is bad for workers in the sector, bad for competition and bad for the Exchequer, which loses out on their national insurance contributions and may incur additional costs of supporting low-paid workers in the welfare system.
These practices are on the march. Over the past 15 to 20 years, they have expanded from their traditional home in the construction sector into food and parcel delivery, services and, most recently, hospitality and retail. When I was a Minister, I was concerned to learn that digital platforms, which laughingly called themselves “talent platforms”, were moving into these sectors to match companies with individuals to work shifts, not as agency workers but as self-employed contractors. It is reported that big high street names such as Uniqlo, Gymshark and Lush have used those platforms to advertise work, but, to their credit, they stopped when concerns were raised. However, the TUC found that as late as last year, Urban Outfitters, Claridge’s hotel and Colicci cafés all continued to advertise on the platforms.
These digital platforms mean that, increasingly, the shop assistant helping us bag our clothes or the barista serving us coffee no longer receives the working protections that we all believe they should have. What happens when the coffee shop across the road finds that it can no longer compete with the prices of its competitor because the competitor has everyone bogusly self-employed? It puts those who want to do the right thing in an invidious position.
This has already happened in other sectors, including delivery driving and the hair and beauty sector. The massive drop-off in apprenticeships in the hair and beauty sector is blamed, at least in part, on the rise in the chair model, which of course is another form of bogus self-employment, forcing other salons to make difficult and unpalatable decisions. It is clear that bogus self-employment is driving the race to the bottom.
Bogus self-employment is also facilitating illegal working by those who do not have the right to work in this country. There have been repeated reports that platforms in the gig economy were failing to check people’s right-to-work status. Measures have now been introduced to legally require gig-economy companies to carry out checks to confirm that anyone working in their name is eligible to work in the UK. This is the first time that such checks have been extended to these casualised sectors, making employers liable to fines of up to £60,000 per illegal worker. However, that is only one approach to tackle illegal working, which requires stronger labour market enforcement across the board. The introduction of a single worker status would mean that the stringent checks that employers are already required to carry out on those who want to work for them directly are also applied to those who work through an app.
There is no time to waste on tackling bogus self-employment. It is already unlawful, but the law must be enforced properly. It is happening at scale in this country, and the Government should take stronger action now. There is no need to wait until single worker status policies have been finalised.
Steps that could be taken now, ahead of a consultation, include introducing a presumption of worker status, which would require an operator to prove that individuals it engages are not workers or employees, rather than putting the onus on an individual to test their rights and try to enforce them via the legal lottery. That presumption is already standard practice in relation to the minimum wage. We could also empower the Fair Work Agency to conduct investigations when status is in question.
We must move away from the piecemeal approach whereby workers fight tooth and nail in a clogged-up employment tribunal system, possibly waiting years to establish their working status. Too often, even when a worker succeeds, the business tweaks its terms of business so that it can avoid the consequences of the tribunal judgment and move people back into bogus self-employment. How is that gaming of the system in the interests of working people in this country?
We can also quickly reform the law on substitution clauses, which are used widely to provide a façade of self-employment, no matter how someone typically works. They allow companies to disavow employee and worker status, on the basis that someone no longer owes any contractual obligations to perform a service personally. Downgrading the importance of that when determining worker status could help to reduce the number of times that it is used to avoid obligations. These things could all be introduced as interim measures to help improve the situation while the consultation and subsequent legislation are pursued.
Governing is all about making choices and intervening to solve problems, no matter their complexity. Doing so might not be popular with everyone, and it might not be easy, but effective Governments are guided by their principles on what is right and what is wrong. I think that most Members would agree that the current employment status system does not treat working people fairly. It is unnecessarily complex, it is no longer appropriate for our modern labour market, and it facilitates rampant bogus self-employment and exploitation. The Labour party decided that it was no longer fit for purpose, and we fought the last election pledging to “move towards” a single status of worker to simplify the system.
I will be the first to admit that that commitment was not as strong as I or others on the Labour Benches would have liked, but moving towards a single status of worker would at least be a step in the right direction. However, it is a step that we have yet to take, and that needs fixing. The Government must not forget about this important strand of the Make Work Pay agenda. I understand the challenges of doing this alongside implementing the provisions of the 2025 Act, but we entered government to deliver transformative change for workers, and that takes hard work and determination. We should not take our eye off the ball.
I have sympathy for the Minister; she is wholeheartedly committed to the Make Work Pay agenda and, indeed, was closely involved in its development while we were in opposition. I know that she will advocate for the package in internal discussions among Departments and push tirelessly for its implementation in full. Sadly, as I know from my own experience, she will also be facing scepticism and belligerence from other parts of the Government that are against bringing forward a consultation on worker status.
The Minister has my support, and no doubt the support of a large number of the Back Benchers here today, to continue pushing in internal discussions. She should remind those she has discussions with of not just what was in the plan to make work pay but the commitment at the Dispatch Box in the other place by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, who I pay tribute to for all her work on the Act. On 23 July 2025, she said:
“I am pleased to be able to confirm to your Lordships’ House that we will publish our consultation on employment status by the end of this year.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 July 2025; Vol. 848, c. 358.]
The Minister will not need it pointing out that we are already well into the next year.
I am concerned that some may have the view that the Make Work Pay agenda was completed as soon as the Employment Rights Bill received Royal Assent, but the job is not done. We cannot let this opportunity to transform the world of work slip through our fingers. We owe it to working people in this country to deliver on the change that we promised. The Government need to demonstrate their commitment to moving towards a single status of worker by opening the consultation this spring and setting out a timeline for delivering change. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Justin Madders
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—it was my oversight to not mention that earlier.
Technically, the problem for a lot of the people who we are discussing is that they are not employees, so they have no recognition process. The debate has been interesting. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who made some very important points, particularly on the tax take. That is something that we absolutely need to address, but this issue is fundamentally about fairness. Our Make Work Pay agenda has to be bolstered by action to address this problem. I hope the Minister gets the message that we need to do that soon.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Congratulations to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell) for keeping the debate in the main Chamber going long enough for us to finish this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of creating a single status of worker.
Department for Business and Trade
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
At the end of a long day, let me express my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for providing us with this time to debate the supplementary estimates and the priorities of the Department for Business and Trade.
I rise to open this debate and simply make three broad points. This is an important debate because, of all of the supplementary estimates that have been laid before the House this afternoon, the Department for Business and Trade has had by far and away the most significant increase. Day-to-day spending has been increased by some £360 million, which is a rise of almost 18%. Investment spending has risen by £626 million, which is a 41% rise. Those are significant sums, so I pose the following questions to the Ministers. First, are these increases justified? Secondly, is the Department spending its money on the right priorities, given what we have heard from the business community? Thirdly, I want to underline this question about why there is not more significant support for small business, which is suffering what our Committee has found to be pandemic-style pressures but without a pandemic-style support package in place.
Let me start with the significant increases in the Department’s supplementary estimates. Some £375 million has been provisioned extra to support British Steel. That takes the total support that this House has agreed under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 to about £710 million. That is a significant sum. I think it has broad cross-party support. Certainly, the House did not divide when we were recalled for that unusual hearing on a Saturday to agree to the passing of that Act. None the less, there is one significant question that we have to ask this afternoon: where is the steel strategy to go with the extra money that the House is being asked to agree?
When representatives from Tata Steel came before our Committee just a couple of weeks ago, they were very clear that there are now just eight weeks to save the steel industry in this country. Therefore, having passed that Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act, and having been asked to agree this extra money, the House now has to ask the Minister today where that steel strategy is. As we know, a wave of subsidised Chinese steel is about to land on our shores. The United States has put up significant defences. The European Union has put up significant defences. We had significant defences, but they are about to come down in June. Industry is sending a message loudly and clearly to the Government that, unless they act and unless new defences and a steel strategy are put in place, we are looking at the end of the steel industry in this country. Thousands of jobs will go, along with a sovereign capability, which as a country we simply cannot afford to happen.
I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain how, if the House is to agree the spending, we are actually going to make sure that that money is not wasted, because there will be further policy measures in place to ensure that we do not lose our steel industry in the weeks ahead.
That takes me to the Post Office. Post Office provisions for the Horizon scandal and the payouts have now risen to about £1.2 billion. Our Committee has consistently criticised Governments of all stripes for not paying out the money to those victims much faster. The Committee has now agreed a further report on measures, which we think Ministers should take in order to ensure that justice is genuinely delivered to all of the victims of this scandal. That report will be published in a few days’ time. The House is being asked to agree this increase in the provision to £1.2 billion, yet the question we have for Ministers is this: where is the provision that Fujitsu is supposed to be making? After all, the Fujitsu system was at least half the cause of this scandal.
We now think that the total cost of the Horizon scandal, when we add in the legal costs, will be something like £2 billion, yet when we asked the head of Fujitsu what provision he had made for contributing to that bill, the answer was zero. When we followed up with the auditors, they confirmed that the directors had acted within the law because the Government had not yet made any demands on Fujitsu for the money that should come back from that company in order to help fund it. Just to add insult to injury, this is a company that has taken a grand total of £362 million in new contracts over the past year alone. It promised us a moratorium on bidding for new contracts, but that moratorium turned out not to be real and was merely a press stunt.
Why are we not asking for more money from Fujitsu, so that we do not have to put up these provisions of £1.2 billion? I would be grateful if the Minister could answer that question.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I have enjoyed an interesting few months on the Committee so far. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is perplexing that we do not have any understanding as to why there is not more pressure being put on Fujitsu to come up with a figure? Fujitsu keeps saying that it is waiting for the outcome of the inquiry, but it has made a commitment and we would expect some kind of provision to be made to reflect that.
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The chief executive of Fujitsu came before the Committee to say that Fujitsu did indeed have a moral obligation to make a contribution. That is why we were so surprised when earlier this year, when we asked for him to return, he said that no provision had yet been made. For a company that is making hundreds of millions of pounds out of British taxpayers, it is simply egregious that it has not offered to pay, but it is also wrong that Ministers have not demanded that it pays up, and pays up quickly.
I have touched on a couple of the significant increases in the estimates. There are two more points I want to make in the time available. The second broad point is the question of whether the money that the Department for Business and Trade is asking us to approve is in line with business priorities. As a Committee, we spend a lot of time listening to the business community, and we set out priorities based on what the businesses we talk to when we travel the country think we should be focused on. On our last national road trip we visited seven cities and did many roundtables on that tour. Last year we had 1,000 witnesses appear before the Committee—three quarters in private and a quarter in public—and we received 168 bits of evidence as we set out priorities for the future.
We heard very clearly that what business is looking for is far more certainty about the investment environment for the years ahead. Businesses want a better return on investment. For that, they need energy costs and business rates to come down, and they need the skills system to be far more flexible and available. Critically, they need much better access to finance so that we can mobilise capital on a different scale. Trade deals need to become a gateway to increasing exports. Finally, they are asking for a lot more coherence in regulation. Right now people are being smothered in red tape, often because one Department is not talking to another.
As we look at those priorities and at the estimates in front of us, we see that certainty has improved. The spring statement was a step forward, and the Chancellor has increased her headroom significantly. That definitely takes risk out of the investment environment. But there is nothing in these supplementary estimates about driving down energy costs. There is nothing about driving down business rates. There is nothing about making the skills system better financed and more available, in particular to small business.
Where there is progress is in the extra £200 million for the British Business Bank and the £50 million for the growth guarantee scheme. That is significant, but it is probably not quite enough. Indeed, the evidence we have received suggests that the market for loan guarantees is probably about £2 billion bigger than the Government have provided for. If we want small and big business to have access to scale-up finance in particular, we need to make sure that the British Business Bank has a much bigger loan guarantee scheme available.
Finally, there was nothing in the estimates to roll back the very deep cuts to export support. At a time when we have basically finished signing the free trade agreements that are available to us as a country, it is surprising to the Committee that export support staff are being cut so aggressively. If we want to make the most of these new opportunities and new free trade deals, we would have thought that increasing export support would be a Government priority.
My final point is about the emergency facing small business. Right now, as I said in my introductory remarks, small business tells us that it is facing pandemic levels of pressure without a pandemic-style support package. Labour costs have gone up. As we know, the national minimum wage has gone up, which in my view is a good thing, and the Employment Rights Act 2025, which will improve rights, is coming through. That is also a good thing. But when we add on the national insurance contributions, we must accept that labour costs will rise. That means that labour has got to become more productive, and that the skills system has got to become better available to small businesses. But when we add to that rising energy costs—so much higher; perhaps 50% bigger than before the covid crisis—the lack of regulation in third-party intermediaries, the increases in business rates, the costs from crime, the organised crime takeover of the high street, late payments and a lack of access to procurement, we see the crisis that small business now confronts.
Those are the priorities where we would have liked to have seen more action in the supplementary estimate. They will certainly be a focus of the Committee’s scrutiny work over the course of the next year.
Sale of Fireworks
Justin Madders Excerpts(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on his breakneck introduction, in which he took so many interventions on this massive issue. He was right, as many other Members have been, to observe that we have had these debates year on year. I remember being sat across the Chamber while we were in opposition, I remember being sat in the Minister’s seat a year ago, and now I am here again. Every year, we get more and more Members attending, and more and more members of the public demanding change. I think the case has been made that it is now time to act.
It is interesting to note that despite an increased awareness campaign in the last year, there were 550 child admissions to A&E on bonfire night for burns alone. That shows us that education and information can only get us so far. As we have heard, there are adverse impacts from using fireworks responsibly as well. People are impacted by the noise. For some, fireworks are a nuisance and can interrupt sleep or leisure; for others, particularly those with sensory challenges or conditions such as PTSD, bangs can be harmful. With that in mind, I understand why some want greater restrictions on who can put on displays and on the days on which they can do so.
In my time as the Minister responsible for product regulation, I engaged with businesses, consumer groups and charities to gather evidence on the issues with and impacts of fireworks. I also met with a number of MPs, some of whom are here today, to hear about the impact that fireworks were having in their communities. Of course, there was a wide range of views about what could be done, but my view, when I embarked on those discussions, was that, as a minimum, a relatively straightforward change that we could make would be to reduce the decibel level from 120 dB. Nothing I heard during those discussions, and nothing I have heard during the debate today, changed my view that we should take that straightforward step. The precise level should be determined by consultation, but we have heard strong cases this evening for what that level should be. That would reduce the noise, and the impact on people and animals, without harming manufacturers or impacting the quality of displays.
There have been plenty of other suggestions. One of the petitions calls for a limit on sales to local authority-approved events only. Other suggestions include limiting locations, days and times at which fireworks can be released. However, it is clear to me that those kinds of measures do not work unless we get enforcement properly resourced. The experience in Scotland was instructive: we can tighten the rules, but it does not necessarily deliver change. The reality is that trading standards is overstretched and underfunded, meaning that any form of close monitoring of fireworks sales will be very difficult. I do not think that there is a consensus on how best to move forward on that. There is also a concern that that would simply move sales into the black market.
Reducing decibel levels, as New Zealand has done, is a straightforward, simple step that we can take. I will be candid: I think that some in the Government hold the view that taking action on this is seen as nanny-statism. I think that view is wrong. When I hear today that we are looking to consult on banning social media for under-16s, I do not think that the nanny-statism argument can be consistently held any longer, so I will continue to advocate for a reduction in decibel levels. Sadly, I was not able to do that when I was in office, but I am convinced that taking this step would affect those most impacted by noise—those with certain mental health conditions, those who are neurodiverse and those who care about the welfare of animals—and could be done without taking anything away from the people who enjoy fireworks.
I wish the Minister well in trying to navigate the competing views and administrative blockages that she will face, but I hope that she will come to the same conclusion that I did: that the easiest and best way to address this issue is through a reduction in decibel levels. As we have seen from the consensus across Westminster Hall today, and the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), this will happen through Parliament, whether via Government or Back-Bench action, so I urge the Minister to act now.
Points of Order
Justin Madders Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a slightly unusual point of order, but one that it is important to deal with now as it may become more of an issue going forward. Last week, it was claimed I had participated in a Westminster Hall debate on digital ID, where I allegedly not only spoke but voted in favour of digital ID. Of course, as we know, we do not usually hold votes in Westminster Hall; I was also actually in the Chamber at the time, speaking on the Employment Rights Bill. On further inquiry, it transpired that Google AI had claimed that I was in Westminster Hall at the time, speaking in favour of digital ID. As I know many more constituents will seek to use these devices to understand our positions on various matters, I wonder whether there is any way that I could correct the record, and in fact whether the House could give some advice to these tech companies on using Hansard as the authoritative source for positions on various subjects.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for advance notice of his point of order. As he acknowledges, external AI services are not a matter for the Chair. However, he has certainly put his accurate position—and his presence in this Chamber, and not in Westminster Hall—on the record.
Employment Rights Bill
Justin Madders ExcerptsMonday 15th December 2025
(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 View all Employment Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 15 December 2025 - large print - (15 Dec 2025)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Members will be aware that the debate has to conclude by 8.24 pm, so there will be an immediate five-minute time limit. Of course, if Members did not feel obliged to use all five minutes, that would help their colleagues.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
May I first declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and donations from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers trade union, as well as my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions? I am not sure if we are on a ping or a pong now, but there is a whiff of stubbornness about the fact that we are back here again.
Last week, I called for the Government to make this place sit every day until Christmas to ensure we got the Bill through—it is a shame that the other place took that as an invitation rather than the contingency plan it was intended to be, but, if that is what it takes, that is what we should do. We are ready. It is wrong that an unelected house, where jobs are given for life, can dig in and push back on something that will give millions of workers rights that we promised long ahead of an election, and for which we have a decisive mandate.
I commend the Government and the Minister for not backing down. A deal was reached with the relevant stakeholders. It is a pragmatic compromise, and a deal they are publicly saying needs to go through. That is how mature, effective industrial relations are supposed to work.
I do not think that the Lords’ arguments are particularly substantial; they are certainly not reasons to delay the Bill again. Their point that we should not agree with the lifting of the cap because it fell outside the scope of manifesto commitments in this area does not really take us very far, given that the original concession made on qualifying periods was also outside the scope of the manifesto, and of course, that is all part of the same package. It feels to me that this is more about the Lords wanting to have the final word rather than having to deal with the substance.
Graham Stuart
We did not hear it from the Minister, so could the hon. Member please explain the case for removing the cap?
Justin Madders
I am glad that there are some Conservative Back Benchers here. Last week they were all somewhere else, but now we are hearing some contributions. I was not in the room when the negotiations took place, but I understand that that was the deal. I am afraid that there have been some wilful misunderstandings on the Conservative Benches about what lifting the compensation cap actually means. Compensation for unfair dismissal is calculated by defined heads of loss under the law, so lifting the cap will not change that one bit. If the claims are still necessary, they will be there. It just means that some workers—particularly older workers who might not be able to get another job and who may have substantial pension losses—will benefit, not the fat-cat bosses that have been talked about. It is important that we stress that point.
Also, I do not remember the Conservatives’ manifesto in 2010 promising to double the period for qualification on unfair dismissal. Neither do I remember a pledge in either the Tory or the Liberal Democrat manifesto to put a cap on compensation. None the less, the coalition Government pushed both those policies through. Those who claim that the lifting of the cap will see an avalanche of claims ignore the fact that the rationale used for introducing the cap in the first place was to deal with perceptions about levels of compensation people might recover—in other words, legislating on perceptions rather than on facts—and I have to say, we have heard plenty of those perceptions repeated again tonight.
The Opposition can complain about a two-year wait for tribunal claims, but I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for recognising his party’s culpability in that. It is important that this Government are working with the trade unions, businesses, the judiciary and ACAS to find ways of improving our system, so that we get justice more quickly, instead of just ignoring it as the previous Government did. This Government have shown flexibility and strength to negotiate a change in order to get a deal over the line. Workers in this country should not be made to wait any longer for these important rights.
It is worth reminding the House that the road map we agreed earlier this year shows that the following laws should be in place by April 2026: doubling the maximum period of the protective award; day one paternity leave and unpaid parental leave; whistleblowing protections; establishing the Fair Work Agency; day one statutory sick pay and entitlements for the first time for millions of people who have been denied them to date; and simplifying the trade union recognition process. These are not minor or trivial measures. They are substantial changes that will improve the working lives of millions of people. We should be proud that it is a Labour Government who are delivering them, and we should be determined to deliver them by April 2026.
Of course, that is just the beginning. Genuine flexible working, ending zero-hours contracts, banning fire and rehire—there is much more in this Bill that really matters to working people. And there is much more beyond the Bill: the reform of TUPE and parental leave and dealing with the epidemic of bogus self-employment are of huge importance. These are the sorts of things that a radical, reforming Labour Government need to tackle, because the world of work is changing. It is changing far faster than we can legislate for, but we can insulate our constituents against the worst excesses and unintended consequences of the tech revolution by putting security and fairness at the heart of every employment relationship, and we need to do that now. If we do not, we will have failed not only to deliver on the promises we made but to stand up for the very people we were elected to represent, so I call on the other place to agree with the will of the democratically elected Chamber and to deliver finally on our promise to make work pay.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Oral Answers to Questions
Justin Madders Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting Halifax and the brilliant pubs in my constituency that I have been delighted to work with since I was elected last year. I will continue to work with and listen to them. He highlights the difference in the agenda and priorities of our parties: we can provide businesses in our brilliant hospitality sector, especially our pubs, with support. He has heard from the Dispatch Box about my determination and commitment to work closely with the hospitality sector on the transitional rate relief and to provide the support that they need.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
Chris Bryant
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in the Department; he is much missed, particularly by many of the civil servants and those who worked with him. I am happy to sit down with him and discuss whether we can bring forward specific proposals that would redress that imbalance.
Employment Rights Bill
Justin Madders ExcerptsMonday 8th December 2025
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 View all Employment Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 8 December 2025 - large print - (8 Dec 2025)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The speaking limit is now five minutes.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
May I first declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the donation from USDAW trade union, as well as my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions? I declare an interest as someone who represented working people before I came into this place and as someone who wants to see this Bill come into law. I also declare an interest of someone who wants to see my constituents get some decent protections at work after so long.
This has to be it. This has to be the line in the sand. This Bill was introduced more than a year ago, and the delays have been so long—it was in the Lords for nine months—that even our modest statutory sick pay proposals are at risk of being delayed. The message to the Lords has to be, “This is enough.” This Bill was a clear manifesto commitment, and it pains me that we have had to jettison part of it to get it over the line. I understand why that had to happen, and I commend the Minister for finding a way through, because this legislation matters to my constituents. What she said about employment tribunals is important, too. We need to do an awful lot more work to ensure that people enjoy real justice.
The Lords cannot keep coming back because they do not like what is in this Bill. It is a promise we made to the British people, and we have to deliver on it. We have to let democracy win. If the Lords block the Bill again, let them explain to the 7 million people who still have to go into work when they are ill that they cannot get the day one SSP rights because the Bill has been delayed. Let the Lords explain it to the father whom they have denied day one rights to paternity leave, if he has a child after April, by blocking the Bill again. Let the Lords explain why we cannot have a fair work agency, which is something even the Tories used to promise they needed to deliver. Let us meet every day until Christmas, if the Lords block this Bill again. Let us keep going back. Let us show some steel. Let us show that we will not let this Bill lie in the sand for too much longer. If the Lords complain about having to work extra hours, let us advise them to join a trade union.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill is the foundation for good industrial relations in this country and the best uplift to workers’ rights in a generation? Does he therefore agree that it is surprising that not a single Scottish National party Member is in the Chamber to debate workers’ rights in this country?
Justin Madders
We can always have a dig at the SNP, but the real enemies have been the Greens, the Liberal Democrats, the Tories and the Reform Members who have voted against this Bill consistently. They are the ones who have brought us to this point.
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.
Critical Minerals Strategy
Justin Madders Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris McDonald
I thank the hon. Member for his comments and for pointing out the importance of Durham—sorry, Devon! Durham is slightly on my mind; it is my home county. I think we may come to Durham later session.
On his prime point about the environmental aspect of mining for these minerals in Devon, I mentioned in my statement that the UK project will be held to the highest environmental standards. I specifically wrote those words into the speech because we need to take into account, when assessing the sources of critical minerals, that great environmental harm is caused in many places in the world by their extraction and processing. The processing in particular presents an economic opportunity for the UK, but there is also an environmental responsibility that we need to face up to. It is incumbent on us to find a way to do this processing economically in the UK so that environmental harms are not caused anywhere else in the world.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from the Minister and refer him to the Select Committee’s report issued today on economic security, which touches on some of the issues that he has talked about. It also talks about the much wider threats to the resilience of the UK’s economy. On that point, I want to ask him about stockpiling. The statement refers to the potential for some stockpiling to take place in the defence industry, but having seen the many threats to our national security identified by the Select Committee, will he consider expanding the scope of stockpiling to other critical minerals? There is real potential for industries to be completely crippled if hostile actors wanted to take us down that route.
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his work as part of the ministerial team in the Department for Business and Trade prior to my appointment. On stockpiling, it is the Government’s view that we will work with the Ministry of Defence and with industry and, while not mandating stockpiling, use procurement to ensure that we can stockpile appropriately. I certainly think that the precise quantity and breadth of the minerals to be stockpiled is something the Ministry of Defence will want to look at much more carefully. I know that my hon. Friend has also been a great champion for Less Common Metals, a great British champion in this space in his constituency. I spoke to the chief executive of that business just last week, and it has been central to forming the strategy.
Employment Rights Bill
Justin Madders ExcerptsWednesday 5th November 2025
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 View all Employment Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 5 November 2025 - large print - (5 Nov 2025)
Andrew Griffith
I should give way to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who did so much service on this Bill.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. I am pleased that he has learned to count now; he must have improved his skills since his time under Liz Truss in the Treasury. He talked about the consensus over 30 years, but was it not his Government who introduced the Trade Union Act 2016, which did so much to damage trade union relations?
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.
Justin Madders
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson has just said that it is not right that employers should pay for a mistake they made in hiring someone. Why should the employee pay for that mistake, if it was not theirs?
Sarah Olney
There is a balance between the employer and the employee. If the fit is not right, it is better for both sides that the employment is brought to an end, and that the employee is free to seek more appropriate employment.
There are very significant concerns. The lack of clarity about probation periods, which the Minister mentioned, and exactly what they mean, risks piling undue worry on to business managers who are struggling to find the right skills. We can compare that with the provisions in the amendment tabled on unfair dismissal.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I, both here and in the other place, have been clear in our support for an amendment that would change the obligation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request guaranteed hours. Amendment 1B would allow an employee to notify their employer if they no longer wished to receive guaranteed hours offers, but they would be able to opt back into receiving guaranteed hours offers at any time. That 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, while ensuring that those who wished to receive such offers could continue to do so.
The Liberal Democrats strongly believe in giving zero-hours workers security about their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many workers are struggling 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 those balancing caring responsibilities or their studies alongside work. It is therefore important to strike a balance that ensures that 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 employer national insurance contributions and the fallout from the previous Government’s damaging Brexit deal. The Liberal Democrat amendment that was debated in the Lords is in line with our long-standing policy that zero-hours and agency workers should have the right to request fixed-hours contracts—a request that employers could not unreasonably refuse. We believe that measure would maintain valuable flexibility and benefit both parties when the obligation to keep offering guaranteed hours, even to workers who clearly are not interested in them, imposes a significant burden that does not 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. The unified fair work agency being set up by the Government, which we welcome, could help ensure that employees received that protection and support. This approach would still give workers the vital security that they deserve, while avoiding unnecessary burdens for employers.
Last time the Bill was debated in the Commons, I spoke in favour of measures that would improve the clarity of the legislation on seasonal work, so I will once again speak in favour of Lords amendment 48B. The sustainability of so many companies, such as farming businesses, depends on getting the right people into the right place at the right time. Any obstacles to actioning that can have a huge impact on company operations, potentially throwing the entire business into jeopardy. Hospitality firms such as pubs, cafés and restaurants also rely on seasonal workers and are particularly vulnerable.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Justin Madders. After his speech, there will be a five-minute speaking limit for Back Benchers.
Justin Madders
Let me first draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which refers to an election donation from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and to my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions.
It is nearly nine months since the Bill completed its Commons stages and over a year since it was first introduced, so it is disappointing to see yet another delay. I know that many of my constituents would want these vital manifesto commitments to be enacted as soon as possible, but recent proceedings in the other place have demonstrated the intention of the Opposition parties to elongate the process and attempt to water down important protections that the Bill offers to workers. It is as simple as this: Labour Members were elected on a manifesto that committed us to making work pay, and the Employment Rights Bill is central to delivering that. It will be the biggest upgrade of workers’ rights in a generation. It is long overdue, and we will all be unashamed of our commitment to improving the lives of working people.
This Bill will have a transformative impact on the world of work, and particularly on people who lack job security and dignity. Make no mistake: at every single stage the Conservatives and Reform have voted to water the Bill down or weaken its protections, and now it seems that the Liberal Democrats have joined in. Our constituents will no doubt conclude that those on the Opposition Benches are siding with the bad bosses, and I urge them to reconsider and choose the side of working people. That is not an exaggeration, because the Lords amendments under consideration will gut the Bill of important protections for the millions of people currently in insecure work.
We do not have much time, so I will focus on Lords amendments 1B and 62 and Lords reason 120B, which I consider to be the most damaging amendments. Lords amendment 1B represents a continued attempt to undermine our commitment to banning exploitative zero-hours contracts. The Government, and Labour Members, have always been clear that the only way to tackle the most pernicious elements of such 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 and often depend on the vagaries of their bosses, and they are more likely to be younger and working in the lowest-paid sectors of the economy. Shifting this commitment to a “right to request” model, as the Liberal Democrat amendment suggests, would completely fail to recognise the power imbalance in the working relationship, and the real risk that assertion of rights would have negative consequences for those who just want some basic security and dignity at work. I am therefore pleased that we are rejecting those amendments.
Of course, that is not the only form of insecurity that those on the Opposition Benches want to keep on the table, as they support Lords reason 120B, which seeks to allow workers to be unfairly dismissed in the first six months of their employment. Maybe those in the other place, who have jobs for life, do not understand what it feels like to be tossed aside without any explanation. Maybe they do not appreciate how debilitating it can be for someone to go into work every day with the sword of Damocles hanging over their head, knowing that, if the chop comes, there will be absolutely nothing that they can do about it, but those bills will still need paying and their dependants will still depend on them. We need to drive out the insecurity that eats away at so many hard-working people in this country.
Laurence Turner
Is it not also the case that, within that graph, a number of the nations that the Resolution Foundation says have weaker protections actually have higher unemployment rates than our own? There is clearly not the relationship between the two that some in the Opposition have tried to suggest.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, that is something that the Resolution Foundation said when giving evidence to the Bill Committee. I will quote that directly:
“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. You have some countries with very high employment and very high levels of regulation, and some countries with lower employment and high regulation”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 116, Q119.]
So there is no clear relationship with the employment levels across countries. That is confirmed by the OECD, which has done lots of detailed work. That is what the Resolution Foundation said in its evidence to the Bill Committee last year.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Would the hon. Member like to put his money 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, having passed this Bill, unemployment goes up, he will resign his seat?
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.