Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces; Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026

Lee Barron Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 General Committees

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

I, too, refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud trade union member. That makes me the only legitimate trade union Barron in this place—[Interruption.] We are all up for a bit of that.

First and foremost, I think everyone welcomes the Employment Rights Act. It introduces new rights for unions to meet and have access to workers. I believe that as part of the consultation, we have to get this right. Opposition parties have already said that they will not support this legislation and, if they ever get in, they will probably reverse it, so we have to get it right in order to make sure that it sticks. That is crucial.

The Act modernises industrial relations, as far as we are concerned. It is obscene that trade unions are not allowed through the gates, but have to stand outside workplaces giving out leaflets, with scared workers walking past—probably too scared to take the leaflets, because they know about the hostility. It is time to end those hostilities, and it is time for people to know that they have the legal right and freedom to join a trade union.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a great point. I remember standing with the GMB outside Amazon in my constituency, and people were harassed by security and by Amazon itself not to join a trade union. Amazon has not come on board, despite promises that it would bring trade unions around the table. Does my hon. Friend agree that this kind of legislation is well past due, and that this is a brilliant time to start enacting it, so that people in my constituency who work for giants like Amazon can have the rights and protections that they absolutely deserve?

[Lee Barron]

I agree. I must say, I wish people would put as much energy into condemning those sorts of actions as they do into having a pop at trade unions—I really do. It is about time that we levelled that playing field, and that is what this legislation does.

My hon. Friend is right in what she says about giants like Amazon. I stood with GMB workers in Coventry when I was regional secretary of the TUC, trying to access that workplace, and it was basically forbidden. It was not allowed. Organisations like that will absolutely swallow half a million quid-worth of fine after fine; they will make that investment to keep trade unions out. That is why I think the cap is so wrong here. We need to reconsider it; unless these people see that the repercussions of what they are doing will cost them, they will just carry on doing what they are doing.

We have already raised P&O; P&O representatives sat there in front of a Committee in this place and said that they knew that what they were doing was illegal, and the reason they carried on doing it was because they could take the fines—P&O could swallow the fines and make sure that that kept unions out. That is how it derecognised trade unions in its workforce: by sacking its workforce. When you have things like that, there has to be some kind of fine that relates to turnover. It cannot be a cap, because those global giants will basically swallow it up.

The last point I would like to make to the Minister is about this exemption for workplaces with fewer than 21 employees. I have asked and asked, but no one has come up with any logic for that number. All it will do, in our opinion, is create incentives to restructure. This code has to be applied universally. Justice does not hide within numbers; it either exists or it does not. If it does, and people want a trade union to access their workplace, they should be allowed that regardless of the number of people working there.

As I said earlier, workers’ rights are crucial—but if the workers themselves are too scared to enforce them, those rights are not worth the paper they are written on. We must change the narrative as far as trade unions are concerned; we must accept them as part of our economy, accept them as part of what is good for working people, and accept them by making sure that they cannot be kept out on the cheap by global giants and that workers within any workplace can access them.

Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026

Lee Barron Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 General Committees

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

I, too, refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud trade union member. That makes me the only legitimate trade union Barron in this place—[Interruption.] We are all up for a bit of that.

First and foremost, I think everyone welcomes the Employment Rights Act. It introduces new rights for unions to meet and have access to workers. I believe that as part of the consultation, we have to get this right. Opposition parties have already said that they will not support this legislation and, if they ever get in, they will probably reverse it, so we have to get it right in order to make sure that it sticks. That is crucial.

The Act modernises industrial relations, as far as we are concerned. It is obscene that trade unions are not allowed through the gates, but have to stand outside workplaces giving out leaflets, with scared workers walking past—probably too scared to take the leaflets, because they know about the hostility. It is time to end those hostilities, and it is time for people to know that they have the legal right and freedom to join a trade union.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a great point. I remember standing with the GMB outside Amazon in my constituency, and people were harassed by security and by Amazon itself not to join a trade union. Amazon has not come on board, despite promises that it would bring trade unions around the table. Does my hon. Friend agree that this kind of legislation is well past due, and that this is a brilliant time to start enacting it, so that people in my constituency who work for giants like Amazon can have the rights and protections that they absolutely deserve?

[Lee Barron]

I agree. I must say, I wish people would put as much energy into condemning those sorts of actions as they do into having a pop at trade unions—I really do. It is about time that we levelled that playing field, and that is what this legislation does.

My hon. Friend is right in what she says about giants like Amazon. I stood with GMB workers in Coventry when I was regional secretary of the TUC, trying to access that workplace, and it was basically forbidden. It was not allowed. Organisations like that will absolutely swallow half a million quid-worth of fine after fine; they will make that investment to keep trade unions out. That is why I think the cap is so wrong here. We need to reconsider it; unless these people see that the repercussions of what they are doing will cost them, they will just carry on doing what they are doing.

We have already raised P&O; P&O representatives sat there in front of a Committee in this place and said that they knew that what they were doing was illegal, and the reason they carried on doing it was because they could take the fines—P&O could swallow the fines and make sure that that kept unions out. That is how it derecognised trade unions in its workforce: by sacking its workforce. When you have things like that, there has to be some kind of fine that relates to turnover. It cannot be a cap, because those global giants will basically swallow it up.

The last point I would like to make to the Minister is about this exemption for workplaces with fewer than 21 employees. I have asked and asked, but no one has come up with any logic for that number. All it will do, in our opinion, is create incentives to restructure. This code has to be applied universally. Justice does not hide within numbers; it either exists or it does not. If it does, and people want a trade union to access their workplace, they should be allowed that regardless of the number of people working there.

As I said earlier, workers’ rights are crucial—but if the workers themselves are too scared to enforce them, those rights are not worth the paper they are written on. We must change the narrative as far as trade unions are concerned; we must accept them as part of our economy, accept them as part of what is good for working people, and accept them by making sure that they cannot be kept out on the cheap by global giants and that workers within any workplace can access them.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Lee Barron Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman does not normally engage in the detail of legislation, but if he did, he would know that this is the Committee stage, where we look at the detail.

What the Government could perfectly properly do is pass the legislation, as amended by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire, and if they felt at the end of the sunset clause period that they needed further powers, they could come back to this House with further primary legislation and seek our consent to do that. The difficulty with what we have before us is that the Secretary of State has the power to extend the sunset clause indefinitely, by regulations, over and over again. That is what the wording of the Bill says, and that seems to me to be something we should not accept here. What we should do is reinstate the natural, ordinary meaning of a sunset clause, which is set out in clause (3)(1), by removing the rest of that clause. If, as the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) suggests, the Secretary of State wants to extend those powers, he should seek the authority to do so in primary, not secondary, legislation.

These deficiencies in the Bill are cumulative: the power to indefinitely extend the Secretary of State’s proposed powers is more pernicious because the powers are so broad, and the huge latitude that he would have to define the public interest matters more because the Bill may apply to many more companies than might have been thought when hearing the Government’s original intentions for the Bill. Plus, of course, the Secretary of State’s consequent powers, which are set out in the rest of the Bill—having decided to nationalise and make that initial transfer decision—are mostly constrained only by the scrutiny of secondary legislation, so the initial transfer decision is all the more important. It is my view that the Secretary of State’s powers, as defined in clauses 1, 2 and 3, are simply too wide and need to be constrained.

The Government make two substantive arguments in response to that view, and I want to address those arguments. The first, which the Minister put forward earlier, is that the Government are doing only what a previous Government did in the Banking Act 2009, and that the powers they seek to take here are no wider than those taken in that Act. I do not agree, for three reasons.

The first reason is that the powers in the Banking Act were premised on the existence of a special resolution regime, where the bank in question was already in financial trouble. As far as I can tell, this Bill does not require the relevant steel undertaking to be in any trouble at all for nationalisation to be an option. The second reason is that the Act provides for a temporary transfer to public ownership. This Bill does not use the word “temporary”, and again, I can find nothing in the Bill that prevents a nationalisation being permanent. The third reason is that the Banking Act requires the Treasury to consult before using its powers under that Act. There is no requirement in this Bill for the Secretary of State to consult anyone, so I am afraid it is just not like the Banking Act.

The Government’s second argument, which I discovered lurking in the memorandum from the Department for Business and Trade to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—I am sure we have all read it— is that broad powers such as the right to define the public interest are

“buttressed by administrative law, including the need for interferences with property rights to be proportionate”.

Of course, that is so: the courts may intervene if the Secretary of State tries to use his powers irrationally or unreasonably, but Parliament should not be subcontracting our work to the courts.

If the legislative powers as drafted are too broad, it is up to the legislature—us—first and foremost to constrain them. The Secretary of State has consistently maintained, as has the Minister, that he wants only the powers needed to act where Government action is unavoidable, and only for the period needed, but the powers that he has in the Bill go well beyond that, and they could and should be restricted.

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

I want to start off by saying that I find it absolutely incredible when people turn around and say that our Government should not be intervening and running services, when they are happy to allow other countries’ Governments to run our services and utilities. To be honest, I get a bit tired of it, because it is essential that we do this if we are going to save industries, save sectors and save jobs. That is why we are right in doing this.

I want to speak on amendment 21, new clause 8 and new clause 5. It was a privilege to be recalled here on a Saturday last year to pass the emergency Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 to save the Scunthorpe works, and I am just as happy to be here today to see this Bill go through its first day of Committee. Since last year, it has become clear that public ownership is in the national interest. Corby is a town built on steel—steel that built this country. At one time, the Corby steelworks was the largest combined steelworks in Europe. I recognise that the Bill does not nationalise the steelworks in Corby, but it will make sure that the sector does well, and where that happens, that will ensure that the other aspects of steel do well.

In 1967, it was the Labour party that nationalised the steelworks and put British Steel in charge. It did so because it knew that home-made steel was essential for our national security, for our economy and for thousands of jobs. In 1980, a Government who failed to see those opportunities closed the steelworks, and with that, tens of thousands of jobs went and almost a third of people in my constituency became unemployed. That is why it is so important that British Steel should be allowed to continue.

This Bill marks a reversal in direction. It shows what can happen when we have a vision for our economy and the dedication to see that vision through. How could the last Government shape our economy and create jobs when they failed to even create an industrial strategy? This Government have a strategy. Their decade-long industrial strategy, and the steel strategy announced in March, show that.

The steel strategy provides £2.5 billion through the National Wealth Fund to help rebuild our steel sector so that we can move towards 50% of all British demand for steel being made in this country, ensuring our security in an unstable world with the capacity for our own virgin steel supply. That is what this Bill leads to, and that is what is going to happen as a result of it.

British steelworking powered the first industrial revolution, and it can do so again, building the renewables and technology for the future. We still have a steelworks in Corby, and we want to make sure that Corby and the towns like it across our country have a new and secure future. I believe that the passing of this Bill will ensure that that happens.

[Richard Tice]

It is a pleasure to stand up and support the Government and this Bill, because we all know that the ability to make primary steel is absolutely in the public interest, and it therefore automatically meets the public interest test. We cannot be the only G7 nation without the ability to make primary steel using a blast furnace, but that will be the consequence if this legislation does not go ahead.

The Conservatives’ line of thinking is to just rely on the private sector. Well, they tried that for some 14 years, but the reality is that the state of the blast furnaces means that they need investment for relining, renewing and rebuilding. The private sector has said that it is not there yet, but it could be, so we need a period of time when the industry has the commitment of the public sector to ensure that a thriving primary steelmaking capability can exist.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lee Barron Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kate Dearden]

Business confidence depends on economic stability, and that is exactly what this Government are delivering: a stable economy where businesses can invest in growth. The hon. Member will have heard my commitment to the hospitality sector—both my personal investment and my absolute determination to work closely with the sector so that we can build stronger local economies with stronger high streets and thriving businesses. Businesses will see that stronger demand, especially when working people have more money to spend, and we are focused on building that stability for our local communities and for businesses to benefit too.

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

15. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of postal delivery services.

[Mr Speaker]

We’ve made it!

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

It was worth waiting for. We are clear that Royal Mail’s service performance has not been good enough. I met the sector’s independent regulator Ofcom yesterday to stress the widespread concerns among hon. Members about service standards. My hon. Friend has deep experience in this area, and I welcome his engagement with the main delivery office in Corby, where Royal Mail tells me that it is recruiting nine new postal workers to support the timeliness and quality of its postal services.

[Lee Barron]

Quality of service in the Royal Mail has been at shocking levels over recent years. Considering that Royal Mail is legally obliged to deliver a universal service and keep our communities connected, will the Minister join me in calling on Royal Mail’s owners to honour their agreement, end the two-tier workforce, and bring new entrants’ terms and conditions up to the same standard as those of substantive Royal Mail employees? Fifty per cent of new entrants are leaving the service within a year, which is leading to a decimation in the quality of service.

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend is correct to highlight that the service quality issues are linked directly to workers’ terms and conditions. It is precisely because we take that connection so seriously that the Secretary of State convened the meeting between the unions and the owners of Royal Mail. Ofcom made it clear in our meeting yesterday that it expects the plan for improvements in quality of service to be in place within days of an agreement being reached with the unions, and we will certainly hold Royal Mail to that.

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Lee Barron Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

I hope that the hon. Member can tell from my body language and tone that I share the anger and frustration of Members across the House. As I mentioned, I am meeting Ofcom later today to raise the very issues she mentions. I slightly take issue with the year zero approach she took. There are very long-standing issues with Royal Mail driven—in fairness—by the changes in consumer habits and the things we are sending and not sending any more. She mentions the new ownership. As part of that deed of undertaking, this Government got the assurance from the new owners that they could not take value out of the company until service improved. That shows that we take this matter seriously.

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It is not just the customers who are rightly angry; it is postal workers as well, because they take pride in their job and the service they give. The last time I was in Corby delivery office, six deliveries never went out that day. The time before that, a postal worker volunteered to cover his own delivery on his day off. He was told that he could not, and when he went back in the day after, the work was still there; the delivery had not gone out. We now have a two-tier workforce, which is leading to a recruitment and retention crisis, and it is a standing joke in the job that the quickest way to get a letter delivered is to put it inside a parcel. Does the Minister agree that instead of Royal Mail imposing top-down changes by people who have never done the job before, it should listen to its workforce, sit down with the union and sort this mess out?

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to do what I have not done so far, which is to say that whatever criticisms hon. Members across the House have, they are in no way a critique of the work of our heroic posties up and down the country. I mentioned earlier that the Secretary of State brought together management and unions; Royal Mail is a private company, and we are not seeking to insert ourselves and become mediators, but that was a signal of how seriously we take this matter and how seriously we take the need for management and the unions to come together and address, through mutual understanding, exactly the issues he raises.

Postal Services: Rural Areas

Lee Barron Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be part of this debate, Mr Stringer. I will begin by declaring my interest. I started at Royal Mail in 1986 on an apprenticeship. I have walked the rounds, sorted the frames and stood up for postal workers, prior to coming to Parliament, but I have never seen postal services in such a crisis as today. Some of that is structural, but apart from that, it is to do with the workforce. I have been to see them on many occasions and morale is down. They want to deliver the service that the customer demands, but they are being prevented due to cost-cutting exercises throughout Royal Mail. That is what needs to stop.

Last week, nationally, Royal Mail delivered just 76% of first-class quality and 86% of second-class quality. Those are not abstract numbers, as has been said. They are missed hospital appointments, missed legal deadlines and missed chances to pay bills on time. Workers are telling me that they will have a scheduled day off during the week, say a Wednesday, but when they walk back into work on Thursday, all their Wednesday work is still there and they now have to deliver it with their Thursday work. They are then told, “You’re not getting any extra time to do it.” That leads to delay after delay, which is impacting our communities.

I have had representations from Oundle, Thrapston, Raunds, Stanwick and Corby telling me about the problems that people are having. I have to say: the quickest way to get a letter delivered is to put it inside a parcel. That is the fact of the matter, because Royal Mail is prioritising parcels for delivery, which also has to stop. People deserve a service. This is a service—a unique service. It keeps our communities connected, and it has a legal obligation, under the universal service obligation, to make sure that is done.

Another problem is cherry-picking from the competition. Final-mile delivery is the most expensive part. Competitors will go in, pick up the bulk mail, spread it and sort it, and then give it back to Royal Mail and say, “You deliver it, because we can’t afford to do that—there ain’t no money in it.” In addition, they take parcels, give them to Royal Mail and say, “You deliver the final mile,” because they cannot afford to do that in rural areas. Either that has to stop, or those private companies can start paying towards the universal service obligation, so that we can protect services for people and make sure that all those accessing that service do so on the basis that they are paying towards it.

Postal workers want to deliver the service that customers want. They want to serve their neighbours and their communities. But they can do that only with fair and honest discussion and with harmonised conditions, working together as one organisation, and with workers treated with dignity. That is how we are going to deliver and take Royal Mail into the future.

Employment Rights Bill

Lee Barron Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

I start by pointing out my proud membership of the Communication Workers Union, just so I can get that on the record. Before I get into the issues with the amendments, I want to say that enough is enough. Unelected Lords must not get in the way of the democratic will of the people and the manifesto commitment to deliver this Bill and make work pay. My constituents have waited long enough, worked long enough and put up with it for long enough. Every delay means someone going to work ill. Every delay means another zero-hours week. Every delay means that, once again, someone gets away with bad practice.

The Lords amendments talk about a cap, but we have been here before. We have lifted caps before. Caps on compensation do not exist in cases of discrimination claims. There is no evidence to suggest that they have all of a sudden got out of control or gone absolutely mad —they have not, so we have been here before. We have lifted caps before to turn things around and send a clear message about what we want to build.

On the proposal to cap the fine for denying access to trade unions at £75,000, what sort of a cap is that? What would that do to global giants? We saw what Amazon did to the GMB to frustrate its organising. Why should we allow big businesses to pay to break the law? Frankly, we should not.

On guaranteed hours, there must be no loopholes and no cutting hours for a few weeks to dodge the law. We need a simple 12-week test, with a simple average of hours. That is fair, clear and enforceable.

This Bill is about common sense at work. If someone is sick, they should not be dragged into poverty; if they work regular hours, they should get a proper contract; and if they are unfairly treated, there should be consequences. This Bill was promised and voted for at the election; this Bill should now pass.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

We are addressing the specific issue of the removal of a limit on the cap. Of course, while this will have a big impact on businesses, it will also have a huge impact on our public sector. Large organisations that employ significant numbers of high-paid professionals, such as the NHS, will see their insurance costs driven up significantly by this measure, so it is all the more surprising that no consultation or impact assessment is before the House when we are asked to make the decision this evening.

We must reflect on the real-world impact of this measure, alongside the package of measures in a Bill that worthily deserves to be scrapped in its entirety. One of the proudest achievements of the last Conservative Government was that when we left office, youth unemployment was half what we inherited from the previous Labour Government. A huge share of those 4 million new jobs went to younger people. Today, the number of young people not in education, employment or training has hit over 1 million. The Resolution Foundation said, on this issue specifically, that

“young people are bearing the brunt of Britain’s jobs downturn”.

Most of us will have heard from businesses in our constituencies that all the measures in the Bill are significantly raising the barriers to entry for new workers into the market at a time when there is a double whammy. Our demographics as a country make it much harder to recruit them compared with older, more experienced workers, simply because there are fewer young people in our population. Imposing new measures like this that make it more expensive and harder for young people to get their first foot on the ladder is a dereliction of our duty to our economy. We must not forget that for our young people, many of whom we hope will end up as those high-paid professionals, getting and keeping a job is the thing that is most important in their lives—to their health, their mental wellbeing, their wealth and their long-term life prospects. In addition, it is our economy that pays not just for those people’s wellbeing, but for the public services on which so many other people depend.

In conclusion, while the whole Bill deserves to be scrapped—it is shocking to see the craven capitulation of the Liberal Democrats, rather than fighting the corner of British workers—let us at least vote to support this small change that has come from the other place. Let us show that somebody in this Chamber is on the side of jobseekers, wealth creators and those who will create future opportunities for our economy, our country and our people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lee Barron Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

First, let me say that, as someone who used to spend their family holidays in Cornwall, I must protest: I have had two questions from Cornish colleagues and not a single invite to visit Cornwall over the summer holidays. I really think that is unacceptable.

The economic history of Cornwall is particularly interesting—I have had this discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon)—and I recognise some of the specific issues that the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) has identified there. Of course, I am always willing to meet him, either in Cornwall or here in Parliament, to have that discussion. I believe there are key parts of the industrial strategy that will deliver the opportunities and the tools required to unleash what both colleagues are trying to achieve.

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

11. What steps he is taking to support independent retailers.

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

We have frozen the small business multiplier for 2025-26, protecting over 1 million ratepayers from bill increases, and we are creating a fairer business rates system that protects the high street and supports investment. Our forthcoming SME strategy will set out further plans to help businesses on the high street and beyond.

[Lee Barron]

In Corby and East Northamptonshire, retail and wholesale jobs account for the largest share of employment, supporting thousands of jobs. Will the Minister confirm that, unlike the last Tory Government, which promised to reform business rates but did absolutely nothing, this Labour Government are committed to delivering a fairer business rates system to support the vibrant high streets that our communities deserve?

[Gareth Thomas]

I know that Northamptonshire has a thriving retail and wholesale sector, and I commend my hon. Friend for championing the jobs and businesses in his constituency. He rightly says that the Conservatives promised to reform business rates. What he did not say was that they promised many times to reform business rates and never did so. We have committed to permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. The Government are committed to publishing soon an interim report that sets out further details on the direction of travel, and confirmation of our plans will come at the autumn Budget.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Lee Barron Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

Frankly, some of the contribution that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) should have been made when the decisions were taking place—they should not have had to wait until today.

I commend the Secretary of State for how he has dealt with this issue and for getting us together for today’s debate. The idea that somehow we could have debated the negotiations as we were having them is for the birds, frankly, because all we would have done is tell our negotiating partners what we were going to the negotiating table for. Negotiations are not done like that, and nor should they be. And to those who have been moaning about us having been recalled on a Saturday, I say that you can recall me on any Saturday, at any time, and twice on a Sunday, if it means we can save industries and thousands of jobs. I will be here every time.

Some of us know what it is like. The town of Corby was built on steel. The people of Corby and East Northamptonshire know only too well what it is like to have the steelworks closed down and devastation befall local communities. When the Corby steelworks closed, 14,000 people lost their jobs and unemployment rose to 30%. Corby and East Northamptonshire was once home to the largest steelworks in Europe. Today, it employs just shy of 500 people, and it still manufactures 250,000 tonnes of steel tubing per year. We would not be the place that we are without the steelworks that Corby once had, and we know the devastation that the job losses would cause for the community of Scunthorpe. That is why this is the right thing to do.

We must maintain steelmaking capacity in the UK. In these increasingly uncertain times, we must maintain national security by having the ability to produce our own virgin steel. All options should be open, but the blast furnaces must not be switched off, because once that happens, they are gone. That is the problem in other parts of the country, and it should have been raised at the time. In any modern economy with a central mission for growth, production of our own steel is crucial. That will be at the heart of any future industrial strategy.

I am proud to be here today to support the Bill and to secure a future for steelmaking in the UK.

“Chapter 4A

Lee Barron Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Lee Barron.

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have said it before, and I will say it again: due to the virtue of my last name, I am the only legitimate union Barron in this place, and I am absolutely proud of it.

It is an honour to speak on this Bill again, and I commend this Government for bringing it forward. We made a commitment to working people before the election, and we are following that through. I welcome the Government’s new clause on agency workers. In Corby we have more employment agencies than any other town in Northamptonshire. We now see that those who work in agency jobs will receive fair treatment in pay, working hours and job security, which is to be welcomed as we aim to create a better local economy for the people of Corby and East Northants.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He and I are constituency neighbours. As he will know, there has been a lot of growth in Northamptonshire and increased distribution in the area, so the Government new clause will make a massive difference to our constituents.

[Lee Barron]

It will indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point so well.

This Bill has been a huge move in terms of sick pay, as far as the Government are concerned. It will bring 1.3 million people into getting sick pay for the first time, and we need to welcome that. We might need to have a look at some point in the future to see if there has been a drag downwards in terms of the people around the lower earnings limit, but we should certainly welcome this as a step in the right direction.

This is not just about legislation: we must change the jobs market and the perception of work that some people have in modern Britain. There are still some people who do not recognise the value that working people bring. I had a meeting last week with the parcel delivery company Evri, which operates in all our constituencies. It described the employer-employee relationship as a “master-servant” relationship. I turn around and say that that kind of view of working people is absolutely dated. Evri said that if it changed the status of its workers, it would want its “pound of flesh”—its words, not mine.

While we have those who treat and describe working people in such a way, we must bring in legislation to ensure that they cannot treat people like that. Working people are not servants, and they should be treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve. That is a fundamentally wrong, crass and outdated way to view employment in modern Britain, and as long as there are still those who think like that, we need to ensure that we change things for the better, and this Bill goes a long way towards doing that.

The question I often ask myself is this: why do those who want economic growth think that we make growth happen through insecure work, minimal wage rates and zero-hours contracts, under which people do not know what they will earn in order to support their family from one week to the next? Work should not mean a lifetime trapped in poverty; it should be the route out of poverty, and this Bill is a step in the right direction to ensure that is what it becomes once again.

I chair the all-party parliamentary group on modernising employment, and at our last meeting we heard from Zelda Perkins, of the Can’t Buy My Silence campaign, about non-disclosure agreements. Her testimony makes it absolutely clear that more needs to be done in that space, and if there is room to do so through this Bill, I urge the Government to accept the amendments that were described earlier. The APPG looks to the future of work and what good employment looks like. At the end of the month, the APPG is going to look at good work, the new deal and this Bill. We will look at the full effects of this Bill to see how we can take forward its benefits and transfer them into the modern world of work. In the 21st century, modern employment should look like security of work, well-paid and with progression opportunities, in order to keep families out of poverty. This Bill goes some way towards doing that.

In conclusion, I urge all Members to support this Bill, which bans exploitative zero-hours contracts. Saying that this will somehow stop flexible working is for the birds—it is not the case. We had flexible working long before we had zero-hours contracts. We survived then, we can survive now, and we will survive into the future.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Lee Barron]

No.

Zero-hours contracts are banned in Spain and in the Republic of Ireland—employers cannot use them. Do not tell me that those countries do not have flexibility; they have. We will survive in the future, as we survived in the past, without exploiting working people, because countries do not grow their economy by exploiting working people. This Bill goes some way towards stopping that.

The Bill bans exploitative zero-hours contracts, increases protection from sexual harassment, introduces equality menopause action plans, strengthens rights for pregnant workers, makes flexible working the default, strengthens bereavement leave, improves pay and conditions through fair pay agreements, provides day one protections against unfair dismissal, and establishes the Fair Work Agency to make sure all employers are playing by the same rules. The Bill will deliver the jobs for the future that will benefit working people in Corby and East Northamptonshire, and I am proud to support it.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I will focus first on new clause 83, tabled by the Opposition.

The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker)—who I think I am just catching before she leaves the Chamber—said that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay. The right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) also said that we all agree that an honest day’s work deserves an honest day’s pay. A lot of today’s speeches have been focused on banning zero-hours contracts, and the argument has been made that people deserve to know what their contracts are, what they are going to be paid, and that they are going to be treated properly. One of the reasons I think this Bill is rushed and is falling down goes back to a question I put to the Secretary of State when this Bill began its passage through the House: why does it not cover unpaid internships?

Looking at this Bill, and with today’s debate having focused so much on zero-hours contracts, I find it difficult to understand why we would leave a whole section of society out of the Bill—people who can work for up to 12 months without any pay. Banning unpaid internships has been in Labour manifesto after Labour manifesto. In every Parliament I have been a Member of, I have tabled a Bill to ban those internships. My Government did not want to do it, despite Prime Ministers making promises at the Dispatch Box when I first raised the issue, but there are Members on the Government Benches who stood on manifestos that said they would ban unpaid internships. Now we have this great Bill, which was trailed in the general election and is being promoted by the Labour party, yet there is nothing in it about unpaid internships. When the Bill goes to the other place, that has to be looked at, because such internships are wrong.

We have heard a great deal today about opportunities for people, but what opportunities are there for people such as my sister and me, who had to work and earn a living to be able to do what we have gone on to do? We could not have spent 12 months working in London unpaid. The fact that a whole section of society can go unpaid is still not being addressed, and that fundamentally undermines what I am hearing from Labour Members about what the Bill will do to create equality. I think that is wrong. The review of the impact on employment tribunals that is proposed in new clause 83 needs to be wider, and it needs to be understood that if the aim is to create equality, it is not in fact being created.