Seasonal Work

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, which is exactly why we are trying to drive down costs for business, not least when it comes to red tape. If there is something in particular about your constituent’s business—I do not know if it is the hairdressers that you yourself frequent—perhaps I could pop along. I would be very happy to listen—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I do not wish to put on the public record which establishments I do and do not frequent, Minister.

[Blair McDougall]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Opposition Members raise the matter of business rates as well. It is exactly because we recognise the stress that retail, hospitality and leisure businesses face that the smallest of those properties will now have the lowest business rate since 1991, and those with values below £500,000 will have their lowest rate since 2011. That is a permanent tax cut worth nearly £1 billion a year, benefiting more than 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

No, I am coming to a close.

This is the most expensive time of year, and December is the most expensive month. Labour is proud to be acting to ensure that families can plan for the expense of Christmas and look forward to Christmas without worrying and having anxiety about whether they can make it to the end of the month. The criticisms and lack of understanding from the Conservatives about how important the cost of living and money in people’s pockets is to the success of businesses is, quite frankly, humbug.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

[Simon Hoare]

Over the next 10 years—another “wow” moment. Jam tomorrow—well, we don’t even know if it is jam tomorrow; it is a promise of something that might materialise, but these sectors need support now.

Let me conclude my remarks by highlighting what I fear will be a terrible downward-pulling spiral in confidence from investors, employers and consumers. I am not an economist, but it seems to me self-evident that if we increase the costs of employing people, we are likely to see fewer people employed. Someone might not expand their business; they might not create that new job.

General elections create a lack of confidence in the sector. This Government were returned with a massive majority, which should be giving stability and confidence to the marketplace. In fact—it is the greatest perversity that we have seen since July 2024—the complete reverse is taking place. Why is that? Last year, the Chancellor created in her own mind a black hole. She decided to fill it by additional taxes, and she assured the House and country that it was a one-off. Growth was going to do everything else, spending was going to be looked at, and everything would be hunky-dory. Well, that did not come to pass. The Government changed the environment, and we had the Budget just a few weeks ago—fabrication, being economical with the actualité. That is saying to potential investors and job creators, “Well we thought we might have believed them on year one, but year two transpired not to be the case.” How many more acts that would make the Artful Dodger blush will they be dipping into our pockets next time, next time, and the next time? We will have a rebellion on that, or on that, and that rebellion will have to be funded not by a recalibration of where Government spending is allocated, but by increasing the pot that the Government have to spend by increasing taxes.

I took the advice of our Clerks, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to whether I should conclude with a certain word or not. The advice was that I would be better to slightly spell it out, so I will take that advice. North Dorset is not a constituency of large firms. They are family businesses, most will be micro, some will be small, and precious few will be medium-sized. A small business owner in my constituency has a family business that he has grown and he was seeking to employ. He wanted his kids to get involved with it as well. He said to me, “Simon, you can tell that Rachel Reeves”—because he said “Rachel Reeves”, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the right hon. Lady— “to describe this Budget, in a few easy words for the media headline, as ‘The why the eff should I bother Budget’” Why the eff should he bother to invest, to create, and to provide opportunity for our young to then pay the taxes to deliver the public services that we require?

But if the Government do not give an eff, Opposition Members certainly do. There is an alternative Conservative vision for this, and I look forward with colleagues to presenting that to the country over the coming months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Griffiths]

I am delighted to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, because there is a very important difference. Right now in the UK, the tourist economy is being hammered by the increased minimum wage, the Employment Rights Bill and high energy costs—I could go on. Businesses on our high streets are suffering, in particular seasonal businesses, which are having to bear the brunt of the Employment Rights Bill. If you had met the hotel owner in Bognor Regis—a tourist town—I think you would really be questioning what you are saying.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I have no desire to meet your local businesses, Ms Griffiths. You are obviously directing your comment at the hon. Gentleman.

[Alison Griffiths]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that if it was one single tax instead of multiple taxes, it is quite possible that the tourist tax would be a good idea. However, in the current context of multiple taxes drowning our businesses into oblivion, it is not a good idea.

If the unemployment rights Bill passes, Ash and Catherine will have to offer guaranteed hours to their flexible seasonal workers even during off-season troughs. With increased employer national insurance contributions and the national minimum wage rising again, these fixed schedules will make hiring people unviable. Far from protecting people who work seasonably and flexibly, by forcing businesses to provide guaranteed hours throughout the year the Employment Rights Bill will threaten their jobs.

The Government should be supporting businesses such as Harbour Park and the Navigator Hotel, which give young people their first job and keep coastal towns like Bognor Regis and Littlehampton alive. Instead, the Government are putting them in a vice. Ministers must change course and withdraw the Employment Rights Bill, reverse the tax hikes and back the flexible seasonal jobs that our communities rely on—before more businesses close and more workers lose their jobs.

Employment Rights Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before we move to consideration of the Lords message, I can confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.

Clause 1

Right to guaranteed hours

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

I beg to move,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 1B but proposes amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of that amendment.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 23 and 106 to 120, does not insist on its amendments 120C, 120D and 120E, and proposes amendments (a) to (f) to the Bill in lieu of Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 23 and 106 to 120.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 48B but proposes amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of that amendment.

That this House does not insist on its amendment 72C in lieu of Lords amendments 61 and 72, but disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 72D to 72H in lieu and proposes further amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of the Lords amendments.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 62, but does not insist on its amendment 62C in lieu and proposes further amendment (a) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment.

[Kate Dearden]

I am pleased to return to the Employment Rights Bill for the consideration of Lords amendments for a third time.

The Government’s plan to make work pay, on which we were elected and in which we committed to deliver the Employment Rights Bill, will bring employment rights legislation into the 21st century, extending the protections that many British companies already offer to their staff to all. By doing so, we will endeavour to end the unfair market competition in which some firms seek to beat their competitors not by better quality or increased value, but by cutting the pay and conditions of their workforce. That is why this Bill is truly pro-business and pro-worker, pro-growth and pro-competition, and contributes to the creation of a fair and flexible labour market.

This Bill is a win-win for employers, employees and a more competitive British economy. By delivering this change together, we will back businesses that do the right thing while giving hard-working people the job security and opportunities that they deserve. That is why we must press ahead with delivery. Too many workers are waiting too long to feel the benefits of these reforms, and too many businesses face the uncertainty of when this Bill will become law and want clarity on its implementation. The Government are seeking the support of this House so that we can secure Royal Assent and finally be able to move towards implementing change.

First, I will speak to the Government amendments in lieu, which relate to unfair dismissal. In late November, I convened a series of constructive conversations between trade unions and business representatives, and I am extremely grateful for the positive and productive contribution of both sides of industry to that dialogue. It is a testimony to their leadership, and I thank them for it.

I am pleased to report that we have come to a workable agreement with trade unions and business representatives on the unfair dismissal provisions. The Government’s amendments in lieu will reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from 24 months to six months, while maintaining existing day one protections against discrimination and automatically unfair grounds for dismissal. The implementation road map sets out that the changes related to unfair dismissal will come into force in 2027. That is the timeline that businesses have been working towards.

It is also important to limit the time that employees must wait for their rights to be strengthened while implementing changes in a way that is manageable for business. That is why I am pleased to tell the House that the six-month qualifying period for unfair dismissal protections will be brought in from 1 January 2027.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Colleagues should note that the debate will have to conclude by 7.55 pm, so only a couple of Back-Bench Members will get in. A speaking limit of eight minutes will apply to Back Benchers. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

Two weeks ago, the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box and delivered a Budget that contained not a single measure to support growth. Today, in moving the motion to disagree, the Minister has signed the warrant for a war on jobs. She is at the Dispatch Box representing the Government, but everyone knows that it is the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who is calling the shots. We discovered this morning that Labour Together is already auditioning for the Prime Minister’s replacement. Perhaps the Minister has an outside chance at the job, but my money is probably more on the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. Perhaps the Labour party could have its first female Prime Minister just before the Conservatives have our fourth. Given all that job insecurity, it is no wonder that Labour Members seem so keen on employment rights.

This is not a Bill for employment rights; it is a charter for a jobless generation. Thanks to measures in the Bill, thousands of young people will struggle for opportunities because the rungs of the ladder have been sawn off. Since Labour entered office, 144,000 payrolled jobs have been wiped out. Manufacturing, the oil and gas sector, construction and hospitality are all unable to make ends meet due to high energy and employment costs. The unemployment rate has been higher every month of this Government. Half the jobs lost belong to the under-25s.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

To the shadow Secretary of State’s point, of course I declare an interest as a trade union member. Like millions of people who have been wanting this Bill for many years—as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) said, the Conservatives failed to deliver following promise after promise—I am really pleased that we have got to this point. I am frustrated by the delay we have had, so I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister said in her contribution, and I welcome her and the Secretary of State getting us this far. Hopefully, Conservative Members will no longer frustrate what was a key manifesto pledge for us.

We have seen the decline, and we can tell which side the shadow Secretary of State is on—it is clear. We have been really clear that we are pro-business and pro-worker, and there are many good businesses here in the UK who welcome the Bill and recognise the importance of giving people job security and fairness at work. If someone is on a zero-hours contract, they cannot plan for the future and do not know what is going to happen from one week to the next. That is not fair or reasonable for many workers in the UK. I say to the shadow Secretary of State that I met more businesses that absolutely understand that there has to be a fair balance. I think we have struck the right deal.

I welcome the changes that have been brought forward, especially to timescales. Of course, because of the complexities, the original deadline was October 2027. With the changes, which have been welcomed by trade unions and business, we can now bring that forward, so that, instead of the measures being frustrated, people can have the rights that they absolutely deserve and need.

In that context, on Lords reason 120F, Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu, which reduce the qualifying period for workers to gain protection from unfair dismissal for six months, I know that Ministers faced difficult decisions and difficult discussions with employers and worker representatives, but I strongly believe that the work that has been done has been necessary and that we should now be able to move forward. I thank the Minister for her work on that.

To those in the other place, I say that there is now no more time to waste. Vested interests worked with the Tories and the Lib Dems—cheered on by Reform and backed by the Greens—to resist the manifesto on which we were elected. Now there can be no excuses. We have a mandate for a new deal for working people, and we must and will deliver it. That includes replacing exploitative zero-hour contracts with an offer of guaranteed hours. For low-paid workers, the security of knowing what they will earn is not just a “nice to have”; it is the basis on which they can plan their lives. I know that the Minister will have them foremost in her mind when considering the low-hours threshold and definition of regular work.

Those rights will operate not just on paper, but in practice. That is why we need robust fines for employers who illegally deny unions the opportunity to meet with workers or lawfully seek recognition. We must ensure that they cannot simply defy the law and shrug off a paltry fine.

It has been a battle to pass this Bill, but progress is always a struggle that we fight for. Its passage will be a historic achievement for this Labour Government. It will benefit working people now and in the future. Now is not the time to blink or buckle. Let us not waste a minute more. It is time to deliver.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner).

As this Bill has progressed through Parliament, the Liberal Democrats have welcomed many of the principles underpinning it, and we are keen to see it progress. We welcome the fact that the Bill increases support for carers, boosts statutory sick pay and gives workers on zero-hours contracts more certainty. There is a lot in the Bill that we support in principle and that moves us in the right direction. However, we are also clear that the changes must happen in a fair and practical way that truly benefits workers, small businesses and our economy as a whole. That is very much how we are approaching the amendments in today’s debate.

First and foremost, we are glad to see that the Government have finally agreed to set the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims at six months. That is a fair and sensible shift that will equally benefit workers and business. Employers have finally been given the necessary clarity to make hiring decisions with confidence, and we have avoided the danger of unnecessarily slowing down the labour market even further, which would have deprived so many people of vital employment opportunities. We are proud that Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords were instrumental in securing that crucial improvement to the Bill.

However, it is disappointing that the Government have effectively hijacked that breakthrough to abolish the cap on compensation for unfair dismissal at the last minute. The Minister will be well aware that abolishing the cap was not agreed in recent negotiations between employer groups, trade unions and the Government. Most businesses would have been happy for the cap to have been increased, but completely scrapping it, without any consultation or negotiation, has understandably left employers feeling deeply worried and facing yet another nasty surprise. There is real worry among businesses that doing away with the cap, which currently stands at £118,000, risks undoing much of the progress achieved by the six-month compromise, creating open-ended liabilities and encouraging litigious behaviour. I expect the Minister would agree that no one wants to see failed water company bosses jamming up the already-strained tribunal system, seeking eye-watering payouts.

More broadly, one has to reflect on how the Government’s approach to this last-minute change affects the relationship between Government, businesses and workers. Does the Minister not understand that springing the change on us at the 11th hour undermines business confidence and unnecessarily strains labour relations? The Liberal Democrats had hoped that today we could support the Government in setting the qualifying period at six months, but in the light of this abrupt change, it simply is not possible to support the motion in its current form. At the very least, will the Minister listen to concerned businesses and commit to setting a new, higher cap through secondary legislation following consultation with all relevant stakeholders?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I assume the intervention will be short. We have we only got 30 minutes left in the debate, so I assume that Ms Olney is coming to a conclusion soon.

[Chris Bloore]

I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for letting me intervene. She must realise that it is macroeconomic conditions, not improving employment rights, that affect a company. What is certain is that when people have zero-hours contracts, they cannot pay their mortgages when downturns and recessions happen, because they cannot get in the money that they need. She talks about the burdens on businesses, but what about the people who cannot even pay their basic bills because of the exploitative contracts they are on?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[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.

Critical Minerals Strategy

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s critical minerals strategy. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am particularly delighted that you are in the Chair, given your personal interest in critical minerals, having launched the UK’s first critical minerals strategy a number of years ago. I am also pleased to be joined on the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), for whose work I aim to take the credit this evening.

The story of man is the story of metals. From the discovery of the first alloy—bronze, a mixture of copper and tin—people have smelted, melted, forged and formed metals to their will. Knowledge of the art of blending alloys has been sought throughout history by kings and nations for defence and prosperity. The ancients recognised the noble metals of gold and silver, and the base metals of tin, lead, copper and iron. The industrial revolution led to the industrial metals of steel, aluminium and titanium, but our age is to be dominated by critical minerals—the basic materials that give function to everything from digital technology to fusion energy. That is why we have launched our new Vision 2035, the UK’s critical minerals strategy. It is part of our industrial strategy and supports the Government’s No. 1 mission—the mission for growth. Whether it is neodymium for permanent magnets, platinum for fuel cells or copper for infrastructure, our critical minerals strategy will ensure that the UK can access these vital materials, and that we all benefit from the security and economic opportunities they offer.

The UK is already home to one of the largest nickel refineries in Europe at Clydach, and a rare example of European cobalt refining at Widnes. We have titanium production in Swansea, aluminium at Fort William, chromium in Rotherham, platinum group metals and vanadium, all with the highest standards of environmental control. In Cornwall, we have Europe’s largest deposits of lithium, and in Devon, the world’s largest deposits of tungsten. The UK has the only western source of rare earth alloys for F-35 fighter jets.[Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 4WC.] (Correction) To quote my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

“where things are made…matters.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 979.]

We have world-leading academic institutions. The University of Birmingham is commercialising a process for pulverising magnets into a powder for remanufacturing. Queen’s University Belfast is developing magnet recycling technologies, using ionic liquids to recover rare earth metals. Camborne SCHOOL OF MINES has remained a leading British institution for over a century, and I am looking forward to visiting tomorrow.

Having spent much of my career in metals research, I know that as a country we underestimate the global standing of our institutions, but of course the point of research is to create value for the UK economy, which means commercialisation at home. In Britain, we understand the advantage that can be created by a global dominance in metals. For centuries, half of the world’s tin came from Cornwall and Devon. Britain dominated the graphite industry thanks to the Borrowdale deposits in Cumbria. Almost all the world’s copper was smelted in Swansea and the majority of global steel production came from Sheffield. As a nation, we confidently built a global competitive advantage from ingenuity alone, taking action to shape the world around us. Now, we have the opportunity to confidently do so again. By combining our natural mineral deposits, secondary resources from recycling, strength in midstream processing, innovation, and a role as the global centre for finance and trading, we will ensure that by 2035 at least 10% of annual UK demand is met from domestic production and 20% from recycling. This displacement of imports by the development of both primary and secondary recycling routes is driven by a need to enhance our economic security.

The deployment of this strategy will ensure that our capabilities are marshalled and supported appropriately, our supply chain opportunities are identified, and that resources, both public and private, are targeted at strengthening the UKs competitive position. Our industrial strategy is a deliberate partnership between Government and private investment, and this is also the case on critical minerals. Up to £50 million of new Government funding for domestic production will take total funding to over £200 million. The City of London is already a global centre for the listing of mining companies and mining finance. With the London Metal Exchange as the global hub for metals trading, and ICE Futures Europe expanding into critical minerals, our opportunity is to redirect our financial and investment strength into UK industrial development. 

Significant investment support is available from UK Export Finance and the National Wealth Fund. That will reduce the need for UK entrepreneurs to sell their companies to overseas investors at an early stage, and increase the opportunity for Britain to benefit from the growth of new UK-owned, UK-headquartered and UK-listed industrial champions. 

Our British industrial competitiveness scheme, the consultation on which was announced in a written statement laid before the House today, will improve the competitiveness of the business environment. It will reduce electricity costs by up to £40 per megawatt-hour from April 2027 for over 7,000 eligible manufacturing businesses, reducing their energy bills by 25%. 

Having identified our critical mineral needs and domestic capabilities, and as we now take action to secure investment, we must make sure that our policies on trade and international co-operation ensure diversity of supply and safeguard our nascent industries. As well as exploiting our natural primary and secondary sources of critical minerals, we will diversify international supply chains, so that by 2035, no more than 60% of any critical mineral will come from a single country. We will achieve this by ensuring that future trade agreements allow increased access to critical mineral supply chains, and by entering into bilaterial agreements that increase the breadth of our supply base. We will work through organisations such as the G20, G7, the World Trade Organisation, NATO and the International Energy Agency to improve supply chain resilience.

In June, the Prime Minister announced the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, and for the sake of national security, we are considering mandating that stockpiles be held by industry, using procurement to create diversity in the supply chain, and taking part in the NATO critical minerals stockpiling project. Our trade strategy includes a strengthened approach to trade defence, ensuring that we can safeguard UK businesses from an increasingly volatile international trading environment. That will involve us introducing new legislation to expand our powers to raise tariffs in response to unfair trading practices.

This Government are not agnostic on the fate of British industry and British manufacturing. Given a fair business environment, our industry and workers can out-compete others. The industrial capability of Britain should not be subject to the whims of the international market or foreign Governments. Our industrial strategy, and the place of critical minerals within it, is a marked departure from the hands-off approach of the past. The UK Government is now working in close partnership with UK industry to support private sector investment and growth, just as other developed economies have done and continue to do. The new critical minerals strategy is another step forward in that ambition, and gives business investors confidence that the materials, industry and jobs for Britain’s future are secured. Critical minerals are essential for building the modern world. Control and supply of these materials are the means by which nations will secure power and wealth in this century. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I will definitely be paying close attention. I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Critical minerals are vital to our national security. In submarines, missiles, jet fighters and radar, we need critical minerals for our national defence. Critical minerals in electric vehicles and wind turbines are also vital for clean energy generation.

It is striking, however, that the Government’s critical minerals strategy does not mention China once. That is despite that fact that China, which has built an almost global monopoly on processing, recently imposed export licence requirements on seven rare earth elements: samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium and yttrium. Can the Minister say whether the Department has made any assessment of China’s dominance in the critical minerals market and whether the Government consider it a threat?

The UK “Critical Minerals Strategy” document seems to have been written in a bit of a rush. It is sloppy, riddled with spelling mistakes and has inconsistent statistics and errors in geography. Why should industry trust a Government who cannot even proofread? For instance, according to the Cobalt Institute, current global demand is 200,000 tonnes and is set to grow by 14% a year, meaning that by 2030, the global demand for cobalt is forecast to be 438,000 tonnes. In the Government’s document, however, UK domestic demand will be 636,000 tonnes in 2030. Could the Minister kindly proofread the document and place a corrected version of the whole strategy in the Library?

The strategy recognises the impact that high energy prices have had on the critical minerals industry, but under Labour, our energy bills are up. Why do the Government not just adopt our cheap power plan to cut electricity bills by 20%? Oil and gas are key inputs in the production of critical minerals. What impact does the Minister believe this Government’s policy of closing down the North sea will have on domestic critical minerals production?

Under Labour, foreign direct investment into this country has fallen to an all-time low. How do the Government expect to build a critical minerals industry if no one is investing? Can the Minister therefore today rule out any tax rises heading towards this industry on Wednesday? The national insurance jobs tax and the unemployment Bill are set to cost the critical minerals industry £50 million, which is exactly the same figure as the funding pledged by the Government today—the Chancellor’s jobs tax and the 330-page job-killing Employment Rights Bill are costing businesses £1,000 per worker, and there are a total of 50,000 people employed in the critical minerals industry. Is this a recognition from the Minister that the Government’s tax rises are crippling British industry?

In summary, the first duty of any Government is to keep our country safe. Refreshing the critical minerals strategy is an essential part of that mission. Given the scale of global competition and the risks of supply chain disruption, does the Minister agree that there is still a great deal of work to do to ensure that Britain is secure in the critical minerals we need for our future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

Meur ras to my hon. Friend. He has been such a strong champion of critical minerals, so it is a pleasure to hear from him today, and it is no wonder that we have, given that Camborne and Redruth is already home to the Crofty tin mine and has great opportunities for lithium extraction as well, holding Europe’s largest deposit of lithium. I believe that this will mark the launch of a renaissance in the mining industry in Cornwall—an industry that has so much to bring to Cornwall and that the Cornish people love so well for the jobs it brings and the pride it gives to communities too. All the work in this strategy would simply not have been possible without the support of my hon. Friend and his fellow MPs from Cornwall. I look forward to finding out more about the opportunities in Cornwall when I visit tomorrow.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I also thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. Critical minerals are vital to national security, economic development, the green transition and regional prosperity. The Liberal Democrats believe that the UK must strengthen and regularly update its industrial strategy. The 2022 plan and the Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre are useful foundations, but they are insufficient.

We have long been champions of industrial strategy, and we are proud of the strategy that we introduced in Government. I am glad that the Government are taking steps to address green growth, regional inequality and sustainable economic development, and we welcome the ambition shown in the strategy announced today. Increasing domestic production will boost our national resilience to supply chain changes. We support the commitment for at least 10% of annual UK demand to be met from domestic production by 2035. However, what further steps are the Government taking to reduce reliance on unreliable foreign sources of critical minerals? Furthermore, how will the Government ensure that the UK remains competitive with the US and the EU, both of which offer substantial incentives for critical minerals processing?

We welcome the launch of the consultation today on the British industrial competitiveness scheme. Energy-intensive industries are set to benefit from a 90% discount on their electricity network charges, but what support will be available to small businesses, including the many in the hospitality sector that were omitted from the industrial strategy and continue to struggle with energy bills?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I welcome the ambition and importance of this new strategy, and I congratulate the Minister on recognising that Devon is the source of more than just cream teas and tourism. The Devon minerals plan has more in it than the critical minerals: my constituency has an application for an extension to dig up Zitherixon ball clay, a substance found in the middle of the town of Kingsteignton and in the war zone in Ukraine.

May I have the Minister’s assurance that, although we have a justified urge to get these minerals out, we will not abandon the environmental and residential concerns of our constituents in the areas impacted? Does he also acknowledge that transport is important and that Devon needs the Dawlish rail line to support these minerals?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Please keep questions short. They are not speeches.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to clarify one point. He has formed the impression from my words, and I apologise if I was not clear, that we would supply only 10% from UK production. It is actually 10% from primary sources—that is, from mineral extraction—and a further 20% from recycling, so it is 30% in total from UK production. He talked about the green energy industries. Of course, these critical minerals are essential for many other industries, such as defence, space and artificial intelligence. In fact, I know how concerned he is about industries like oil and gas—they are essential for those industries, too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I ask colleagues to keep their questions short.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has heard evidence that we need these critical minerals for our energy future. That is absolutely true, so the 10% from production and the 20% from recycling are key steps along that road. Can I ask the Minister about no more than 60% coming from one country? He talked about some of the allies he will work with, but what will this Government do to ensure that production is increased from countries other than those such as China?

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—I promise I will not make a habit of this. I am a bit worried that the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House, because he said that in his earlier conversation with the chairman of ExxonMobil, Paul Greenwood, he had pointed to no policy decisions by this Government as reasons for closing the plant. I and other Members also had the opportunity to speak to Paul Greenwood today, and he did give four reasons for the closure. The first two—the market and the cost of running an old plant—were, he said, not policy decisions, but the third and fourth certainly were. The third was the carbon tax, which is costing that plant £20 million, and the fourth is the sharp decline in ethanol production in the North sea due to the accelerated downturn directly due to Government policy. Will you give me some advice on how the Minister might go about correcting the record?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The Chair is responsible for neither the content of Ministers’ answers, nor the quality—if only the Chair had such power—but the hon. Member has most definitely put his point on the record.

Employment Rights Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

We talk a lot about growth in this place, but as the results from New York overnight show, growth means nothing if ordinary people cannot see it, and if communities have nothing to show for it. The reforms we are making today will give people security and dignity that they can feel. They will mean something to the thousands of pregnant women and mothers who will benefit from new maternity protections; the tens of thousands of fathers and partners who will be brought into the scope of paternity leave; the 1.7 million who will benefit from new policies on flexible working; the 2 million who will receive a right to bereavement leave; the up to 9 million employees who will benefit from protection from unfair dismissal from day one; and the 15 million people in every corner of this country who will benefit from Labour’s plan. Across this country, people will benefit from secure work and a decent wage that they can raise a family on. This Bill is a once-in-a-generation chance to reshape the world of work—to drive a race to the top on standards, achieve real growth, and build an economy that works for everyone.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank]

I make the commitment to the people of Falkirk that the quality of their work, especially for younger people, will go massively through the roof. Younger people in my constituency who have been subject to insecure work, low pay and zero hours contracts have seen the quality of their work diminished, so my guarantee to the people of Falkirk is that the quality of work will go up. I think other Members referred to this, but it is a cheek for Tory Members to talk to post-industrial communities such as Falkirk, which were savaged by the Thatcherite Government. They will get absolutely no credence in my constituency.

I say to those on the Opposition Benches that they have time to change their mind. They can back the Government today, get the Bill passed without it being watered down and stop the attempts that are perceived, at least in my constituency, as an attempt to betray young British workers who are doing the right thing, going out and earning their way. For too long under the Tories, those workers have lost the belief in the quality and opportunity that work provided. They will see massive benefits from the Bill. Make work pay and get this done.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

For the final Back-Bench contribution, I call Anneliese Midgley.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my membership of and financial support from the trade union movement.

I stand here as a proud trade unionist, with a couple of decades of work behind me standing up for the working class. I pay the truest of tributes 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).

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about some hon. and right hon. Friends and the work that lots of people have done to bring this transformational Bill to the Commons. We also need to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for his tremendous work at the very beginning of this process. It is transformational and everybody deserves lots of credit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Success has many mothers.

[Anneliese Midgley]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I absolutely agree with him about the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East has done on this for over a decade.

This Bill brings changes that tip the scale in favour of working people and, taken together with the rest of the new deal for working people, it amounts to the greatest uplift in workers’ rights in our generation. That is down to the friends that I have just mentioned here today. It is their legacy and it is one that will change the lives of millions of working-class people for the better. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), will do a great job of completing the process.

This is personal for me, because it was my dad’s secure, well-paid, unionised job on the production line in Ford’s Halewood plant that gave me a better life than my mum and dad had. It lifted us out of poverty and provided us with enough money and stability for a decent home, and enough to live a life of dignity on. Everyone should have that, and that is why I will fight for work where people can flourish and thrive and for jobs to take pride in that can provide a good life. No way would I be here in this place, representing the place where I was born and raised, if it was not for my dad’s job.

The Tories, backed by the Lib Dems in the other place, are trying to water down the Bill. They are aided and abetted by Reform, who are never in this place to debate this and have consistently voted against the Bill. Some of the Lords amendments would rip out the heart of the Bill. I am going to speak briefly to amendments 23 and 106 to 120, which would delay protections from unfair dismissal until a worker had been in their job for six months. This would mean that a worker could be dismissed at whim, for no reason. How is this okay? How is it defensible? A day one right not to be unfairly dismissed is good for workers and good for businesses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) spoke about the research from the IPPR and the TUC, which found that 73% of employers supported giving employees protection from unfair dismissal from day one of employment. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), dismissed the TUC’s research from the Dispatch Box, but it represents 5 million workers and everyone else at work. Are they not stakeholders who should be listened to as well? We know that good employers up and down the country already live up to the standards that we are setting out in this Bill. Today, we need to stop these attempts to water down the Employment Rights Bill, deliver the protections from unfair dismissal that our constituents voted for and make sure we deliver the new deal for working people in full.

Decarbonisation of Cement

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister. I see he is very ably supported by Edmund Ward, whom I recall from my career history.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I associate myself with your statement, Mr Speaker, and with the comments of the hon. Lady.

I recognise that there is concern about this issue among cycle manufacturers. The hon. Lady may be aware that some anti-dumping measures have been extended until 2029, but some have been lifted as a result of the work of the Trade Remedies Authority. We are always happy to meet cycle manufacturers to discuss their concerns—whether it is with the hon. Lady or directly with industry, I am very happy to ensure that such a meeting takes place.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is not just cycle manufacturers that are having to pedal hard to survive under this Government. With business survey after business survey stating that tax is the biggest worry for business, will the Minister take this opportunity to assure businesses that the Chancellor will not be coming back to burden them with more in her Budget this autumn?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

When is a trade deal not a trade deal? It has been nine weeks since the Prime Minister announced a deal to protect steel from US tariffs, and 10 weeks since the Secretary of State said that the India deal was “signed, sealed and delivered.” Will the Secretary of State publish the details of these important deals without delay before recess, or will he apologise for misleading the House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We do not accuse other Members of misleading the House. A little word before that—“inadvertently”—would support that question. No doubt the hon. Member will wish to withdraw that.

[Bradley Thomas]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

One measure that the hon. Gentleman referenced was business rates. As I said in answer to previous questions, we are determined to introduce permanently lower business rates for the retail sector for businesses with properties under a value of £500,000. I hope that will make a difference to businesses not only in Leicester in his constituency, but more generally across the country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

At the heart of every high street are wonderful hospitality SMEs—pubs, cafés, restaurants, bars and coffee shops—yet the 2024 Budget was a hammer blow to them. With £3.4 billion of extra costs, one in 10 restaurants faces closure this year. Indeed, Labour’s Budget has already cost hospitality 69,000 jobs. For context, in the same period the previous year, hospitality created 18,000 new jobs. Can the Minister assure the House that businesses that are hanging on by a thread will not face a hard landing this winter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

I very much sympathise with my hon. Friend’s frustration about what both the SNP and the Conservatives have done to free parking in his constituency. I sympathise because the Tory-run council in my constituency has taken similar steps to curtail free parking, which has undoubtedly had an impact on the town centre. I hope that the concerns my hon. Friend has articulated today will be heard loud and clear in his constituency, and that action will be taken. Our SME strategy will set out a range of steps that we are determined to take to back small businesses and help entrepreneurs across Britain.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The value that hospitality businesses bring to their local communities goes far beyond their economic contributions: they also provide a vital social value and essential entry-level jobs. Flexible hours and conditions in the sector help those with other responsibilities, such as carers and new parents, to access work, while also offering many young people their first jobs. However, retail and hospitality businesses have been hit hard by tax changes in the October Budget, and they are reporting reduced hours, cancelled investment and closures; there have been nearly 70,000 hospitality job losses just since October. As economic strategies are rolled out, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that Department for Work and Pensions goals to get people back to work are not being undermined by policies that shrink job opportunities in these sectors?

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Murray]

In my constituency and across Scotland, small and medium-sized businesses have taken blow after blow. The Conservatives bungled Brexit, increasing import costs, and energy costs are soaring. Most recently, the hike in national insurance contributions is decimating job opportunities in small and medium-sized businesses. What are the Government doing to support SMEs, which are at the heart of our economic growth, and to get people off benefits and back into work?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Shorter answers please, Minister.

[Gareth Thomas]

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I gently say to the hon. Lady that in a recent survey almost three quarters of SME businesses were confident about the future. She is right to challenge us to go further in increasing support for SMEs. One of the ways that we are doing that is by increasing access to finance for SMEs, through the significant expansion in the capacity of the British Business Bank.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Bill Esterson to ask a short question.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

SME manufacturers are a key part of the planned renaissance in manufacturing in this country. Some of them are raising concerns about a lack of involvement in the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council. Will the Minister confirm that they are very much involved and have an important role to play in developing the SME strategy that he referred to?

[Gareth Thomas]

Absolutely. We want to hear from businesses up and down the UK, across different sectors, about the practical measures that we can take to support them and their plans to grow and develop. If my hon. Friend has particular examples of businesses that want to make representations, I am sure that we as a ministerial team would want to hear from them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome the plans in the recently announced industrial strategy to reduce some of the world’s highest industrial energy prices. However, businesses across the UK, especially in hospitality and on our high streets, are still struggling with unaffordable energy costs. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that small businesses can benefit from more sustainable pricing? Will he encourage his Cabinet colleagues to consider proposals set out by the Liberal Democrats yesterday to break the link between gas prices and energy costs, which would halve energy bills in a decade, so that people and businesses across the country can enjoy the true benefits of cheap, clean and renewable power?

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Government-backed invest in women taskforce is addressing many of these issues through its ecosystem working group, which promotes better access to networks, to support and to procurement opportunities. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, though, to say that we need to go further. The small business strategy will set out a range of further measures in that regard.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

May I start by paying tribute to Norman Tebbit? He was a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and a great reformer who did a great deal to unleash growth in this country.

The only thing growing under this Government are the unemployment queues. Today, the Office for National Statistics revealed that the number of payrolled employees has fallen by 180,000 over the last year and 40,000 in the last month alone. Unemployment has been higher in every month since the Chancellor has been in office. In the last hour, we have heard news of another 500 job losses at Jaguar Land Rover. This is a great country with great people. When the Secretary of State talks to businesses, what reason do they give to him for unemployment rising?

UK Modern Industrial Strategy

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Please be seated. The Secretary of State is very diligent, but could he let his officials know that if the opening statement is to go beyond 10 minutes, they should inform the Speaker’s Office? As the statement went a little bit longer, I will allow the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats to have an extra one minute each. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

So fuelled by optimism am I today that even the shadow Secretary of State cannot bring me down. Having been in opposition for some time, I can say that, “This document is all rubbish and I welcome most of it,” is quite an exciting take on a response. The Conservative party has managed to oppose almost everything that the Government have done in their first year, including, in my Department, the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which the previous Government were planning to introduce had they remained in office, and the India trade deal, which they were negotiating but could not get across the line, so I welcome the small bits of positivity in his response.

Everyone across the House should support the strategy. It is based on things that will not be secrets to hon. Members who spend time with businesses on constituency Fridays and at weekends. They will be told about skills, energy, access to finance and how local areas should have the powers to address the needs in their local economies. I hope that the shadow Secretary of State would recognise, in good spirit, that many of the problems that need to be addressed grew under the Conservative Government. For example, the fact that energy bills became so uncompetitive was a result of actions and decisions of the Conservative Government. We are fixing that problem, in order to make a difference.

On skills, one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training, while net immigration is at 1 million. That is not a policy success. It needed to be addressed. We needed to address, too, the failures on the funding of courses such as engineering. That was such an obvious need for our sectors. Finance is one of the longest-running problems; we are all familiar with it.

The shadow Secretary of State asked a number of questions, and I am more than happy to answer them. On small businesses, if he reads more of the detail when he has a bit more time, he will see that small and medium-sized enterprises play a vital role in the creative industries and defence sector plans. To anyone who asks, “What’s the message to businesses that are not in sectors covered by the industrial strategy?” I say that they will benefit from people having good jobs and high incomes. Whether they are in hospitality, retail or leisure, they will see a direct benefit from the strategy. The small business plan will come out in July, and it will deal with issues such as late payment, business support and access to the kinds of tools—rental auctions and so forth—that will make a difference on the high street.

The shadow Secretary of State attacked net zero. That is a mistake. Why would we turn our back on billions of pounds of investment and all the benefits it could bring? In particular, becoming a country that is not so reliant on volatile foreign gas prices is an obvious thing that we would not want to turn our back on. He seemed to announce a new Conservative position of opposing CBAMs, which deal with carbon leakage and create a level playing field. I am surprised by that, because the previous Conservative Government were strong advocates of them.

On the bioethanol industry, talks continue with the two plants most directly affected. Of course, they were in a challenging position before the US trade deal; the deal was not in itself the cause of that. They were losing money. If I intervene, I must have a route to profitability, and that is the basis of those conversations. We are committed to precision breeding. Businesses that moved to France would find a more restrictive environment there because of EU regulation, so I would not recommend that.

On OneWeb, there are some specific issues, about which I would be more than happy to talk to the shadow Secretary of State. On regulation, we have already taken decisive action, for example with a strategic steer to the Competition and Markets Authority, which has been warmly welcomed by businesspeople. They ask me for more of that, and that is exactly what we intend to bring forward.

Finally, let me say, because I know that this is so important to colleagues, that I am more than happy to offer a briefing to any Front-Bench spokesperson or group of colleagues across the House. There is so much in the strategy that will make a difference and so much detail worth sharing, and I would be more than happy to do so with colleagues. Let us all get behind the strategy and get behind British industry.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the biggest remaking of the relationship between the public and private sectors for a generation. The business community in this country will be stronger and better for the measures that he has announced today. Business will welcome in particular the huge investment in skills, access to research and development, and access to capital, but the game changer is the investment in energy that he has announced. Cutting industrial energy prices is a way to get rid of the albatross around the neck of British business. It is a big promise; can he assure the House that there is both the plan and the pound notes to deliver on it?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I warmly welcome those words from the Chair of the Select Committee. I absolutely agree with him. There is so much in the strategy, but we were so uncompetitive on energy that whether action could be taken had become a test of credibility from business. The kinds of changes we are talking about—a reduction of £35 to £40 per megawatt-hour by exempting eligible businesses from payments for the renewables obligation, feed-in tariffs and the capacity market—will make a real difference. We are talking about going from being the absolute outlier to, today, being cheaper than Italy and the Czech Republic and on a par with Germany. That is a game changer, and it has been welcomed. We will obviously have to consult; we can make the changes to the supercharger more quickly than we can introduce that support. Of course, we will have to set a threshold intensity test and make sure it goes to the sectors in most need of it, but we expect those to include the core foundational sectors as well as aerospace, automotive and all the areas where the competitive pressure is most acute. I am incredibly excited by that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats have long been champions of the industrial strategy. We are proud that the strategy we introduced in government set out the Green Investment Bank, the British Business Bank and the regional growth fund, and we strongly opposed the Conservative Government’s damaging decision to scrap our country’s industrial plan. We therefore welcome the re-establishment of the industrial strategy and the fact that it focuses on many of the sectors we prioritised in government, including life sciences, professional services and clean energy.

On energy, measures to bring down some of the highest industrial prices in the world will be welcome news for our manufacturers and energy-intensive firms, but we cannot forget that businesses across our entire economy struggle with high energy prices, not least our hospitality businesses and small and medium-sized enterprises. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that small businesses across sectors have access to better energy deals? Will he look to bring forward the industrial competitiveness scheme from its current two-year horizon?

On skills, while today’s announcement comes with a welcome funding boost, it stops well short of the fundamental reform that we need, so will the Secretary of State accelerate the reform of apprenticeships and empower Skills England to act as a properly independent body with employers at its heart? One key omission from the strategy is our world-leading agrifood industry, which has been relegated from being a priority sector to receiving only a handful of mentions in the entire document. I hope that the Secretary of State will admit that our farmers and rural communities deserve far better. On trade, if the Government are truly serious about backing British business and going for growth, will they show more ambition on trade with Europe and look to negotiate a new UK-EU customs union, which could put rocket boosters under UK plc?

In the extra time that you have kindly granted me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to ask the Secretary of State about access to finance and about addressing inequalities in particular. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on ethnic minority business owners, I have seen for myself the data on how much more difficult it is for those businesses to access finance, and similar data exists for women entrepreneurs. Addressing those inequalities would add a great deal to growth. Finally, when will we see more details about the National Wealth Fund?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

There is the true voice of Scotland—it is fantastic to hear that optimism and pride for the future.

My hon. Friend is right that there are huge advantages for her constituents in this strategy, which commits the kind of quantum of funding on a long-term, committed basis on R&D, which cuts industrial energy prices and does things across the board. There is so much that is part of the strategy. If I were to break down each of those sectors, I could be here for hours. You would probably get upset with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I read out each of the measures that are part of the strategy.

As I said in answer to the previous question, when we are doing a national industrial strategy, we—entirely rightly—have to respect the devolution settlement, and there are some supply-side areas of industrial strategy that I as the UK Secretary of State do not have control over. It is right to reflect that, to build on that where we can and to work in partnership where we can. There are things I would like of the Scottish Government. If we think of Scotland’s tremendous pedigree in civil nuclear power, all that investment is denied to Scotland because of the policies of the Scottish Government. I have my frustrations, but I will work together where we are able to do so to produce the best outcome for Scotland.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Select Committee Member Charlie Maynard.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

The Secretary of State said,

“The UK has long been and will remain a champion of free trade”

—if only! It is not on the big stuff or the important stuff. Leaving the EU’s customs union and single market has reduced UK GDP by between 2% and 4%. The deal with India is good news, but according to the UK Government’s own estimate, it adds 0.1% in the long term—that is, 20 to 40 times smaller. UK exports are down 13% since the trading co-operation agreement took effect. That impacts people in my constituency and all hon. Members’ constituencies. When will the Government move faster to repair the enormous economic damage of a hard Brexit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question, which speaks directly to the challenges we are facing. As well as the action on energy bills, we will make sure there is a priority service for businesses to get the grid connections they need—one of the biggest barriers to investment—along with investment in skills. Something that I am particularly excited about is that we are going to spend £41 million to make sure that there is decent wi-fi on every mainline train service by using the latest satellite technology. If I was coming to Parliament just to announce that, I would be quite happy, if I am being honest.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Hopefully the rail line that takes me into my constituency will be the first on the list.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

There is much to like in the statement. I particularly like the reduction in energy costs of between 20% and 25%, but I would like to push the Secretary of State a little on that; so that industry can plan, when does he think those 25% reductions are going to happen?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Business and Trade Committee member, Rosie Wrighting.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s ambition to double business investment by 2035, but on the Business and Trade Committee we have heard time and again from businesses that they face barriers in unlocking the investment they need to scale up. Can the Minister set out how the Government intend to support access to scale-up finance so that our economy benefits from our innovation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thoroughly agree. It is an exciting day and the challenge is long-term consistency and reliability—which, frankly, this Parliament and previous Governments have not supplied. There is a key voice from business to us that we need to address. Digital and tech skills are one of the prominent features of the skills interventions in the industrial strategy in order to do what the hon. Lady says. It is a significant funding package and a significant partnership with businesses, who are telling us they want to work with Government and with young people and that they want to reskill people. I think there is more we can do, but this is the start. I am keen to work with the hon. Lady and any colleague who sees the urgency of this work and the benefits it could bring.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Questions are far too long and the Secretary of State is far too generous with his responses. Let’s try to nip that in the bud.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

York Central, our biggest brownfield site, will release 12,500 new jobs in advanced and digital rail and the digital creative sector, as well as in the bio-economy mentioned in my right hon. Friend’s brilliant industrial strategy. Will he, however, ensure that innovation hubs at the centre of these cluster developments are able to come on-stream and get the funding they need to unlock these sites?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. It is brilliant to see her in Parliament as she has been a trailblazer on these issues, and I recognise the case that she has put forward extremely well. I recognise that this is a core economic priority for the United Kingdom, and it is great to see her as an advocate for that on the Government Benches.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Tom Hayes.

[Jim Shannon]

My bronchitis is starting to get to me a little, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am more than happy to tell my hon. Friend. We have breakdowns for every region going to every colleague; there is so much for each part of the UK that I could not possibly do it justice from the Dispatch Box. On his point about clean energy, there is so much money coming into the UK—and more in future—that it would be crazy to turn our backs on that. This is a major economic opportunity, as well as being about a safe, reliable, clean supply of energy for the UK, which is the basis of all economic activity. We can provide that while reducing energy bills for industry, so that is exactly the kind of consistent approach that this country has needed for some time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With my apologies for not calling him earlier, I now call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon]

You are very kind, Madam Deputy Speaker—we got there in the end.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which is full of positivity. Everyone here welcomes it deep down, and if they do not, then they should: well done, Minister, and well done this Government. While I welcome the news that more than 7,000 British businesses are set to see their electricity bills slashed by up to 25% by 2027, it is clear that much more support is needed, such as a reduction in corporation tax, especially for businesses in Northern Ireland, which borders the Republic of Ireland where the corporation tax rate is half of our rate at 12.5%. Will the Secretary of State discuss that with his Cabinet colleagues in order to provide greater support for our industries in Northern Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She has already heard me outline the eligibility, and the foundational role that ceramics plays in the strategy and the support it can receive. She is also right that we have committed to the energy-intensive industries compensation scheme review that the industry wanted. We should all recognise that the ceramics sector faces more challenges with decarbonisation than some other sectors, and we have to be a supportive partner in that, particularly by recognising some of the technological limitations that currently exist. As I said in answer to a previous question, we have to look at where we are—perhaps we have higher emissions from a sector, but where is that sector internationally? Would it be in our interest to see those emissions exported abroad and emissions as a whole go up? I do not think it would. That is the approach I will always take to the ceramics sector or any other sector to ensure that we are doing the right thing, both for the climate and for British jobs and British industry.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Jacob Collier. [Interruption.] I call Scott Arthur.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member and I must look alike.

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Not that long ago, we had a Scottish Government in which some Cabinet members did not even believe in economic growth, so the contrast with what we have heard today could not be starker. There are 16 mentions of Scotland’s capital city in the industrial strategy, and a key one for Edinburgh South West is Heriot-Watt University’s national robotarium—the birthplace of robotics, as far as I am concerned—but it would be interesting to understand where the Secretary of State thinks universities fit into the industrial strategy, given the pressures that they face in England and the many universities in crisis in Scotland.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Requirement to inform customers about changes to prepackaged products—

“(1) A supermarket must inform customers if—

(a) there has been an increase in price per unit of measurement in any prepackaged product sold by the supermarket; and

(b) this increase has resulted from a decrease in the quantity of the goods included within the package.

(2) The requirement to inform customers must include a statement attached to the product, or placed alongside the product.

(3) The statement must—

(a) include the amount the quantity has decreased by and the amount the price per unit of measure has increased by;

(b) be the same font size as the unit price of the product and must be visible and legible; and

(c) be in place from the date of the change in unit quantity and remain in place for the following 60 days.

(4) In this section—

‘prepackaged product’ is a product that has been wrapped or placed in a container before being made available for retail;

‘quantity of goods’ includes, but is not limited to—

(a) weight of goods;

(b) volume of goods;

(c) number of units;

‘supermarket’ is a store with a sales area greater than 400m² of which 50% or more of the products sold are food products.”

This new clause would place a requirement on supermarkets to inform customers when the quantity of goods within the product had decreased resulting in a price increase per unit of measurement.

New clause 3—Reviews of potential country of origin labelling for meat products—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review into the feasibility, benefits, and potential impacts of requiring food service businesses employing over 250 people to display the country of origin of beef products sourced from the United States on menus.

(2) The review must consider—

(a) the potential public health, environmental, and animal welfare concerns related to beef production standards in the United States compared to those in the United Kingdom;

(b) the practicality of creating regulations for the labelling of beef for food service businesses equivalent to the Beef and Veal Labelling (England) Regulations 2010;

(c) consumer demand for country of origin information in relation to beef products; and

(d) the practicality and cost implications for the hospitality sector.

(3) The Secretary of State must, in undertaking the review, consult with representatives of the food and hospitality sectors, the National Farmers Union, food safety bodies, animal welfare groups, and any other stakeholders deemed relevant.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before Parliament within 6 months of the passing of this Act.

(5) Within 6 months of laying the report under subsection (5) the Government must undertake a further review into the feasibility, benefits, and potential impacts of requiring food service businesses employing over 250 people to display the country of origin labelling for any meat product from any country with reference to the outcomes of the report under subsection (5).

(6) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review under subsection (6) before Parliament within 6 months of the launch of that review.”

This new clause requires the Government to undertake reviews into the feasibility of requiring food businesses to disclose the country of origin of meat products on menus.

New clause 4—Labelling for UK-produced or manufactured products—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a voluntary labelling system to indicate when a product has been produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom.

(2) The label must be—

(a) displayed clearly on the front-facing packaging of applicable goods;

(b) standardised in appearance, including a nationally recognised symbol or wording indicating UK origin; and

(c) legible, visible and no smaller in font size than the unit price display or equivalent information on the product.

(3) A product qualifies for the label if—

(a) it is wholly or substantially produced, manufactured, grown or reared in the United Kingdom; and

(b) it meets any additional criteria as set out by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) The Secretary of State must consult food producers, retailers, consumer groups and relevant trade associations before setting the criteria for qualifying products and the design of the label.

(5) The Secretary of State must undertake a promotional campaign to ensure consumers are aware of the new labelling system.

(6) Regulations under this section must be made within 2 months of the passing of this Act.

(7) In this section—

‘product’ includes food, drink and manufactured goods available for retail sale;

‘produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom’ includes goods where the final significant production process occurred in the UK.”

This new clause would require the Government to introduce a voluntary labelling system, clearly marking goods produced or manufactured in the UK, helping consumers make informed choices and supporting domestic producers.

New clause 5—Support and Guidance for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises—

“(1) The Secretary of State must produce and maintain guidance for small and medium-sized enterprises on how to comply with any provisions made by regulations under this Act.

(2) The guidance must include—

(a) a summary of the key provisions of the Act relevant to SMEs;

(b) practical advice on compliance requirements;

(c) information on any available financial, technical, or advisory support; and

(d) contact details for further enquiries or assistance.

(3) The first version of the guidance must be published on the day this Act is passed.

(4) Each time regulations are made under this Act, a revised version of the guidance must be published on the day the regulations are made.”

This new clause would ensure that guidance and support for SMEs on the impact of the Bill should be available 60 days before implementation.

New clause 6—Review of access to testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)—

(1) The relevant Minister must undertake a review into the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in relation to the requirements of this Act.

(2) The review must include consideration of—

(a) the typical costs incurred by SMEs in meeting relevant testing and certification requirements;

(b) the availability and capacity of accredited testing providers serving SMEs;

(c) any barriers to market access arising from testing and certification obligations; and

(d) potential non-financial measures to support SMEs in meeting compliance requirements.

(3) The Minister must publish a report on the findings of the review, including any recommendations, within 12 months of the commencement of this section.”

This new clause would require the Government to undertake a review into the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in relation to the requirements of this Act.

New clause 7—Liability and redress for unsafe or defective products—

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for—

(a) the extension of liability for unsafe or defective products to online marketplaces and any other persons within the scope of section 2(3);

(b) the disclosure of evidence in relation to claims for compensation or other rights of action in law for harm caused by unsafe or defective products and presumptions of liability that may arise accordingly;

(c) proceedings, including collective proceedings, to ensure redress for consumers or other individuals suffering harm as a result of unsafe or defective products made available in breach of requirements imposed under powers given by this Act.”

This new clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for liability of online marketplaces for defective and unsafe products, and to ensure that those suffering harm from unsafe or defective products can obtain redress.

New clause 8—Alignment with EU law—

“(1) Where equivalent or similar EU law exists in relation to relevant product regulations, the Secretary of State must, when making provision under section 1, update Parliament on whether the Government proposes to vary the regulations from alignment with EU law.

(2) If the Secretary of State believes divergence from relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this divergence, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament.

(3) If the Secretary of State believes alignment with the relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this alignment, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament.

(4) The statement under subsection (2) or (3) must include the date by which any such regulations will be reviewed, which can be no later than 36 months after implementation.”

This new clause provides greater regulatory certainty for UK businesses by requiring scrutiny of all decisions to diverge or align with EU regulations and a process for Parliamentary scrutiny and review, whether Ministers determine that divergence or alignment from such regulations would be in the best interests of the UK.

New clause 9—Inclusion of lithium-ion batteries as a priority product category—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make regulations under this Act to include lithium-ion batteries as a specified product category subject to relevant safety, performance, labelling, environmental, and end-of-life requirements.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must include—

(a) provisions for minimum safety and performance standards for lithium-ion batteries placed on the UK market;

(b) requirements for clear labelling, including information on capacity, cycle life, and safe handling;

(c) obligations for manufacturers and importers relating to fire safety, product recalls, and end-of-life disposal or recycling;

(d) powers for market surveillance authorities to take enforcement action in relation to non-compliant lithium-ion batteries.

(3) In this section, a ‘lithium-ion battery’ means any rechargeable battery containing lithium compounds as a primary component of the electrochemical cell.[KM1]

(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the following stakeholders—

(a) representatives of the battery industry,

(b) environmental groups,

(c) consumer safety organisations,

(d) fire services, and

(e) any other person whom the Secretary of State considers to be relevant.”

This new clause would ensure that Lithium-ion batteries are included in the Bill.

New clause 10—Duties of online marketplaces—

“(1) Without prejudice to the generality of any other powers or duties conferred by this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about requirements that must be met by a person mentioned in section 2(3)(e), including regarding duties—

(a) to operate an online marketplace using effective systems and processes designed to monitor for, and identify, products presenting risks to consumers or other individuals and prevent such products being made available on or through the online marketplace;

(b) to cooperate with relevant authorities, with other persons mentioned in subsection 2(3) or any other relevant persons, to facilitate any action taken to eliminate or, if that is not possible, to mitigate the risks presented by a product that is or was made available on or through their online marketplace;

(c) to ensure that information regarding the identity and activities of persons marketing products on or through online marketplaces to consumers or other individuals is obtained and verified;

(d) to remove products presenting risks to consumers or other individuals from availability on or through an online marketplace as quickly as possible if alerted to their presence or becomes aware of it in any other way.

(2) Within 3 months from the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a statement that sets out how the Secretary of State is exercising, or expects to exercise, the powers under subsection (1) regarding the proposed duties that must be met by a person mentioned in section 2(3)(e).”

This new clause provides a list of duties that must be imposed upon online marketplaces by regulations, and for a statement by the Secretary of State to be made to Parliament within 3 months of Royal Assent regarding the exercise of the duties conferred by this section.

New clause 11—Product recall—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make regulations on product recall processes.

(2) The regulations must include provision to ensure—

(a) the creation and maintenance of a publicly accessible, government-hosted online database of all active product recalls affecting the UK market;

(b) clear obligations on manufacturers, importers, and distributors to notify the appropriate enforcement authority and upload recall notices to the database promptly upon identification of a safety risk;

(c) that recall notices include details of the affected product, risks identified, corrective action to be taken, and information on how consumers can claim a refund, replacement, or repair; and

(d) minimum standards for direct communication to affected consumers, including by email, SMS, or postal notice where reasonably practicable.

(3) The regulations must establish consumer rights entitling individuals to—

(a) a full refund, suitable replacement, or repair of a recalled product within a reasonable timeframe;

(b) access to support and guidance through the recall process, including where a product is no longer in production.

(4) The Secretary of State must consult with consumer protection organisations, trading standards bodies, manufacturers, and other relevant stakeholders before making regulations under this section.”

This new clause would ensure that a centralised Product Recall Mechanism is established to protect consumers.

New clause 12—Local weights and measures authorities: review—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a review of the funding and capabilities of local weights and measures authorities to carry out in an effective way their enforcement responsibilities under the regulatory framework provided by this Act and other trading standards and consumer protection laws.

(2) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult regulators and other persons likely to be affected by the review, including such representatives of consumer and business organisations as they consider appropriate.”

This new clause provides for the Secretary of State to carry out a review of how the funding and capabilities of Trading Standards authorities affects their enforcement activities, to consult appropriate bodies and stakeholders and to lay the review before Parliament.

New clause 13—International agreements—

“(1) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under section (1)(2) or section (2)(7) that will disadvantage the United Kingdom or its trade under—

(a) the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership,

(b) the Japan Economic Comprehensive Partnership Agreement,

(c) the UK-Canada Continuity Trade Agreement,

(d) The UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement,

(e) the UK-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, or

(f) any other trade treaties to which the United Kingdom is, or becomes, a signatory, including any free trade agreement with the United States of America and India.”

This new clause would prevent the Secretary of State making regulations to align with EU standards which would damage the UK’s current or future trade agreements.

New clause 14—Review Panel—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish an independent review panel (“the Panel”) no later than 2 years after the day on which this Act comes into force.

(2) The Panel must—

(a) carry out a review of all regulations under this Act corresponding to, similar to, or making references to, the requirements of relevant foreign laws under section 2(7), with a view to establishing—

(i) their effect on economic growth;

(ii) their effect on trade in the product concerned on a global basis;

(iii) their effect on the relevant industry or industries within the United Kingdom;

(b) prepare a report of the review, and

(c) lay a copy of the report before Parliament, no later than 12 months from the date of the Panel’s creation.

(3) The Panel must consist of—

(a) at least one person with expertise in economics;

(b) at least one person with expertise in trade policy;

(c) at least one person with expertise in domestic regulation of business.”

This new clause would ensure a review and report to Parliament of any regulations aligning UK regulations with those of other countries or territories.

New clause 15—Consultation on committee to examine changes to product regulations—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, commission a consultation on the creation of a committee on changes to product regulations.

(2) A consultation under subsection (1) must consider the suitability of current scrutiny mechanisms for assessing regulations created through the powers created or amended by the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025.

(3) A consultation under subsection (1) must consult—

(a) the Chair of the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee,

(b) the Chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee,

(c) the Chair of the House of Commons Liaison Committee,

(d) the Chair of the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and

(e) the House of Commons Commission.

(4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable after receiving a report of a consultation under subsection (1), lay before both Houses of Parliament—

(a) a copy of the report of the consultation, and

(b) a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to that consultation.”

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on the establishment of a House of Commons committee that would examine all changes to product regulations which are made by the powers granted by this legislation.

New clause 16—Regulations: requirement for certification—

“When laying regulations to be made using the regulation making powers in this Act, the Secretary of State must certify that their effect is not to undermine the resolve of our constitutional arrangements to honour the choice of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union by means of subjecting the United Kingdom to the same law as the European Union so it could subsequently be argued that the United Kingdom should rejoin so it has a voice in making the legislation rather than adopting legislation that has already been made by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers.”

New clause 17—Brexit good faith statement—

“When laying regulations to be made using the regulation making powers in this Act, the Secretary of State must provide a statement (a “Brexit good faith statement”) setting out how in the development of the regulations it has sought to honour the decision of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union by developing, through the regulations, a legislative framework that intentionally seeks to exploit the opportunities afforded by Brexit to develop competitive and other advantages for the United Kingdom compared with the European Union in the global marketplace.”

Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsection (1).

This amendment seeks to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State under product regulations, when defining and regulating risks and determining what constitutes efficient or effective product operation.

Amendment 10, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations about the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom which corresponds, or is similar to, a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products.

Amendment 11, page 1, line 9, leave out “also”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.

Amendment 32, page 1, line 10, leave out “the United Kingdom” and insert “Great Britain”.

Amendment 25, page 1, line 11, leave out “EU” and insert “foreign”.

Amendment 12, page 1, line 13, leave out “(1) or”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.

Amendment 7, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

“(3A) Further, the Secretary of State may only make regulations under subsections (1) or (2) if satisfied that making the regulations will not result in reducing the necessary levels of consumer protection and regulatory standards in relation to products, with reference where applicable to equivalent product regulations or standards in force at the time.”

This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from making regulations unless satisfied that the regulations will not reduce consumer protection and regulatory standards in relation to products.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 21, at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State must also by regulations make provision aimed at promoting investment, fostering innovation, and encouraging economic growth in relation to the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom.

(4B) Regulations under subsection (4A) must support—

(a) the creation of economic incentives for businesses that contribute to economic growth, and

(b) the alignment of product regulations with the strategic aim of positioning the United Kingdom as a global leader in innovation.”

This amendment ensures that the regulations in the Bill prioritise economic growth and the United Kingdom’s role in innovation and economic expansion.

Amendment 26, page 2, leave out lines 12 to 18 and insert—

“‘relevant foreign law’ means law of one or more of the United States of America, Canada, Japan, the European Union, Switzerland, Australia, or New Zealand relating to standards, the marketing, or use of products in those markets, which are in force on a specific date and only that date, as specified in regulations;”

Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, at end insert—

“(2A) Product regulations must include requirements in relation to an environmental impact assessment, and provisions related to the right to repair and the circular economy.”

This amendment guarantees that future regulations under the Act will include provisions which relate to the circular economy and granting consumers the right to repair products.

Amendment 3, page 3, line 21, at end insert—

“(fa) a person involved on behalf of a person mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f), in product marketing or the use of products, including storage, transportation, packaging, labelling or disposal;”.

This amendment closes a potential loophole in the Secretary of State’s powers to ensure that, whatever their legal status or location, all relevant organisations in the supply chain, including fulfilment houses, can be held accountable by regulations to protect consumers from non-compliant goods.

Amendment 16, page 3, line 39, leave out subsections (7) and (8).

This amendment removes the ability for product regulations to provide that product requirements are met if the requirements of relevant EU law are met.

Amendment 27, page 3, line 41, leave out “EU” and insert “foreign”.

Amendment 14, page 4, line 2, at end insert—

“(7A) Any regulations under subsection (7) which specify a relevant foreign law must specify that the foreign law referred to is that which is in application on a particular date, which must be specified.”

This amendment prevents the Bill enabling ambulatory references or dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws, and only enables alignment with laws as they stand on a particular defined date.

Amendment 15, page 4, line 2, at end insert—

“(7A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (7)(a), a product requirement of relevant EU law must not be treated as met unless regulations are made by the Secretary of State to incorporate them into United Kingdom law.”

Amendment 28, page 4, line 5, at end insert—

“(8A) Before making provision described in subsection (7), the Secretary of State must make a statement in Parliament if the provision relates to relevant foreign law of only one of the markets listed in the definition of ‘relevant foreign law’ in section 1(7).”

This amendment, and Amendments 25, 26 and 27, open up the possibility of defining product regulations by relation to the laws of countries other than the European Union, and require the justification of decisions to limit any such reference to the laws of one territory only.

Amendment 29, page 4, line 5, at end insert—

“(8B) The final meaning or interpretation of any provision of relevant foreign law under this Act shall be made exclusively by the Secretary of State or by a court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, as appropriate, and must not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.

(8C) The enforcement of any provision of relevant foreign law under this Act must be undertaken exclusively by the authorities of the United Kingdom Government and must not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.”

This amendment would prevent the interpretation or enforcement of any regulations referring to foreign law, notably that of the EU, from being undertaken by any authorities other than those based in the UK (for example the European Commission or the CJEU).

Amendment 13, page 4, line 6, at end insert—

“(10) The provision described in subsection (7) may only be made if—

(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement explaining the necessity of aligning with relevant EU law, and

(b) the updated provision had been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament when aligning with EU law, and for Parliament to approve that provision before aligning with EU law.

Amendment 17, page 4, line 6, at end insert—

“(10) The final meaning or interpretation of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be made exclusively by the Secretary of State or by a court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, as appropriate, and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.

(11) The enforcement of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be undertaken exclusively by the authorities of the United Kingdom Government and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.”

This amendment would prevent the interpretation or enforcement of any regulations referring to EU law from being undertaken by any authorities other than those based in the UK (for example the European Commission or CJEU).

Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out subsections (1) and (2).

Amendment 22, page 4, line 11, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment 23, page 4, line 17, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment 24, page 5, line 16, leave out subsections (9) to (11).

Amendment 6, in clause 12, page 11, line 37, at end insert—

“‘circular economy’ means that products are manufactured to minimise waste and maximise the use, reuse, and recyclability of products;”.

This amendment clarifies the meaning of “circular economy” and is consequential on Amendment 5.

Amendment 4, page 12, line 21, at end insert—

“(e) provision described in section [Product recall].”

Amendment 1, in clause 13, page 13, line 4, leave out from “Act” to “may” in line 5.

This amendment would make all regulations under this act subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

Amendment 2, page 13, line 8, leave out subsections (4) and (5)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.

Amendment 30, page 13, line 8, at end insert—

“(za) provision described in section 2(7);”

This amendment would ensure that the affirmative parliamentary procedure will apply to regulations under Clause 2(7), that is, any regulations which include referenced to relevant foreign law.

Amendment 31, page 13, line 19, at end insert—

“(4A) Any regulations made under section 1(1) or (2) which correspond to, are similar to, or make a reference to the requirement of relevant foreign laws under section 2(7), expire at the end of four years from the date on which they come into force.”

Amendment 18, page 13, line 24, at end insert—

“(6A) Regulations that amend or replace primary legislation must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

(6B) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must—

(a) conduct a consultation for a period of no less than six weeks;

(b) publish a statement outlining the purpose and necessity of the proposed regulations, the expected impact on businesses, consumers, and enforcement bodies, and the outcome of the consultation.

(6C) Within six months of any regulations made under this section which amend or repeal primary legislation, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effect of that regulation and lay it before Parliament.”

This amendment requires that any regulations made under the Act that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Amendment 33, page 13, line 24, at end insert—

“(6A) Where the regulations are for the purpose of applying to Great Britain regulations already applied to Northern Ireland by the European Union, Northern Ireland must also be involved in the said consultation on an equal basis with the rest of the United Kingdom.”

[Gareth Snell]

I wish to speak briefly to new clause 1, which is a probing amendment that seeks to establish a couple of facts. I will start, however, by thanking the Minister for his time yesterday and for engaging with me on the matter. I know that he takes the matter of how we protect ceramics in the UK, and indeed how we can enhance that protection, as seriously as I do.

New clause 1 is a short amendment that simply asks the Government to explore and consider how we can better protect ceramics from counterfeit production, ensuring that when we buy something that purports to have been made in the UK, that is in fact the case. Most ceramics have something called a backstamp. If we turn over any piece of tableware or giftware in the UK, we normally see a stamp showing the company that made it and the country of origin. Most notably, for most pieces it states either “Made in England” or, even better, “Made in Stoke-on-Trent”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

Absolutely. The Government tell us, “When we make trade deals, we may be able to ensure the requisite alignment,” but this Bill provides for alignment only with the EU, which rather lets the cat out of the bag. The Bill is not about facilitating international trade, so that we could, in the relevant circumstances, align with the United States, Japan or whoever we are making deals with, because it is exclusively and singularly focused on alignment with the EU. I suspect that is because the purpose of the Bill is to advance, at the speed of the Government’s choosing, and without the restraint of this House, down the road of dynamic alignment. To me, new clause 15 is very important.

Amendment 16 is key, because it will pull the teeth of clause 2(7) and protect us from the intended course of action. I strongly support amendment 16, because it would rein in powers that need to be reined in, and would remove the threat—indeed, the allegation—that the Bill is about realignment with the EU. A couple of weeks ago, we had the so-called reset with the EU, but the reset is as nothing compared with this Bill. This Bill is the legislative vehicle whereby Brexit can be sabotaged. That is why it is important to address the core issue in clause 2(7).

If the Bill were not about securing dynamic alignment with the EU, there would be Government support for amendment 25, which would make a reference to “foreign” law and not “EU” law. That amendment would put to bed the concerns of those of us who believe that the Bill is a subterfuge to secure realignment with the EU. However, I fear that the Government will not support that amendment.

The legislation is a Trojan Bill. It has a very clear direction of travel, which is to be secured by ignoring the question of what powers of scrutiny this House should have, and by affording to the Executive alone the right to realign dynamically with the EU at a pace and time, and on the content, that they alone approve of. The Bill needs these radical amendments, including the surgery that amendment 16 would do. At the very least, it requires the semblance of oversight that new clause 15 would provide.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It gives me huge pleasure to call our resident metrology expert, Adam Thompson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Despite what everyone was thinking, I am not going to suggest that I am perfection, but as a mathematician, may I ask my hon. Friend to accept that the reason perfection is not achievable in that instance is to do with the infinite—the infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 1.1, for instance, or the infinite amount of numbers between 1.1 and 1.11?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I accept that we have some experts in the Chamber, but I remind Members that speeches and interventions must relate to the business at hand and the amendments.

[Adam Thompson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—it was perfect. He is absolutely right, and I will leave the perfection to the mathematicians. To illustrate my point, I hear people in engineering asking for products to be made perfectly—for the angle of the corner of the table to be exactly 90° or the surface of the microscope to be infinitely smooth. To study metrology is to understand the concepts of imperfection and uncertainty and apply those to everything. If one zooms in close enough, the angle is never exactly right, and the surface is never perfectly smooth.

On Second Reading, I made reference to the optical mirrors used in the James Webb space telescope. They are incredibly smooth, yes, but to examine them at the atomic scale, one would find deviations from the nominal plane that mirror those in the Grand Canyon. Being an engineer involves accepting these deviations within the context of the work we undertake towards our goal of constant improvement—be that in the creation of, say, aerospace engines or, indeed, national legislation.

My expertise within surface metrology was in the development of X-ray computed tomography for measuring surfaces. Alongside my good friend Dr Andy Townsend at the University of Huddersfield, who made similar discoveries at the same point in history—a phenomenon that is common across science—I was among the first to be able to use X-rays to measure the interior surface of parts that were otherwise hidden to both the eye and the machine. X-ray computed tomography had never previously been good enough to measure surfaces, with the imaging resolutions achievable lagging significantly behind those required to separate measurements from noise. Previously, such measurements were not really needed, as to manufacture a surface, one generally had to access that surface with a machine tool, so one could similarly access it with a measurement tool.

However, with the birth of industrial additive manufacturing—often called 3D printing—we could suddenly make things with hidden internal geometries that did not need tool access and could not be measured. Without measurement, though, we cannot verify that the parts we make will function as we require them to. As such, new technology was required to allow us to create additively manufactured parts, be they novel, much lighter aeroplane parts or new joint replacements finely customised to suit the individual. Alongside our colleagues, Andy and I solved this problem by demonstrating that X-ray computed tomography had become good enough to measure those surfaces.

This Bill mirrors that “good enough” paradigm. Current legislation places us at risk of falling out of alignment with the rest of the world, which in turn risks our ability as the British to maintain our position at the forefront of international science. In its current, unamended form, the Bill grants the Secretary of State the necessary authority to keep pace with the guidance of relevant experts. The amendments proposed by the Opposition would only hinder our ability to stay aligned with the continuous advancement of progress.

[Adam Thompson]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for his intervention, but I disagree with his assessment. This Bill is about providing the Secretary of State with the powers necessary to ensure that we remain at the forefront of science. Opposition Members have incorrectly claimed that the Bill hands over authority to foreign powers, or overly centralises it in the hands of the Secretary of State. This is not a matter of ceding control to external entities; rather, it is about maintaining the United Kingdom’s position at the forefront of scientific and regulatory innovation. It is about ensuring that the British scientists who follow in the footsteps of Newton, Franklin and Hawking can continue to lead the world in their fields.

These Opposition amendments appear to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding—or perhaps a complete lack of understanding—of what metrology and standards frameworks entail and why they are vital. I urge all Members to vote against them and support this Bill through its Third Reading.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I remind Members that they are speaking to the amendments. There are 33 to choose from, so please keep your contributions appropriate.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I rise today in support of new clause 1, which deals with a country of origin marking for ceramic products and which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) so eloquently introduced. My constituency is home to “The Great Pottery Throw Down”, based in the wonderful Gladstone Pottery Museum in Longton, and I am so proud to have many great pottery firms in my constituency. Those include Wedgwood, which is famed for its iconic blue jasperware, and Duchess China, which has factories in Longton and Newstead that I was honoured to visit recently. There, I met Jason Simms, who is a 100-mph visionary for the future of ceramics in Stoke-on-Trent and the world. It was a really interesting visit.

Duchess, founded in 1888, produces the tableware used in the House of Commons. It is proud of the fact that its products are made in the UK, from clay to table. People buying products produced by Duchess, for example, will see that they say on the bottom, “Fine bone china made in Staffordshire”. The phrasing is deliberate; it clearly informs the purchaser not only of the product’s country of origin, but the precise part of the country that it comes from. Most of our ceramic products contain these backstamps to mark authenticity, and many include a reference to Stoke and Staffordshire. As I have before, I invite all colleagues to join the “turnover club” and check the backstamp on the chinaware here. They will probably find it was made in Stoke.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince]

I will pre-empt the point of order: businesses in Epping Forest and in Harlow are equally very good and very successful. I will now move on.

I disagree slightly with the hon. Gentleman on the reasons for the economic challenges. When I have spoken to businesses in Harlow, it is clear that we need to break down the barriers to trade with the EU that have been created. However, as I also said in a recent debate, I do not intend to rehash the same old arguments we have had over Brexit. It is about how we work with where we are at the moment, and I think the trade deal that the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary have secured on that is really positive. This is part of that alignment, and I think it is very positive.

Just to finish, I will welcome the response from the Minister on some of the points that have been raised today. I have absolute confidence in the Secretary of State to ensure that he gets the best for British businesses—businesses in Epping Forest and in Harlow.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a real pleasure to take part in this debate on product regulation and metrology, not least because it gives me the opportunity to highlight the work done by my former colleagues at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington, which is the UK’s home of metrology. I would like to set the mind of the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) at rest. He is still, as far as I know, the only metrologist with whom I have worked in a finance department, but, nevertheless, as a non-scientist, it gave me a real admiration for the work of scientists in this particular area. In Teddington they are setting the standards. They are developing and maintaining the primary measurement standards for the UK and across the world.

What I would like to say to the Chamber this afternoon and to my constituents in the neighbouring constituency of Richmond Park is that if they have been inspired by the hon. Member for Erewash and have had a fire ignited in them for the science of metrology, the National Physical Laboratory is having its open day this Friday, 6 June, and everyone should go along.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that further information about the ceramics industry, which I now feel so much better informed about. He makes a valuable point. When we talk about things being “made in the UK”, what exactly does that mean? How can we use that valuable designation to best support our domestic industries? I thank him for that further clarification.

Liberal Democrats support the need to update the regulatory framework for the UK marketplace to reduce trade friction and give businesses and consumers confidence in their products. We are glad that many of the measures in the Bill will have that effect, but we remain concerned about the excessive ministerial discretion in this legislation, and the reliance on secondary legislation. We will continue to push the Government to strengthen scrutiny mechanisms, and for fairer regulation for online marketplaces. Crucially, I hope the Government will take this opportunity to support British businesses by supporting new clause 4, giving consumers greater transparency and British businesses the boost that they need.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

May I say what an interesting debate this has been? I have a huge amount of sympathy for the case that has been put for new clause 1, which was made in a very coherent way. I also have great sympathy for the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and her proposed new clause 15. I will explain how our amendments would address some of the issues she has spoken about. The Liberal Democrat amendments, and new clause 4 in particular, make a great deal of sense. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) tabled a range of amendments that cover points made in His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s amendments, which I will come to.

We should ask ourselves why this relatively small and technical Bill has attracted nearly 50 amendments on Report. It is because, as was said, it is a Trojan horse Bill. We tabled our amendments because the Bill does a lot more behind the scenes than appears on the surface. When, in 2016, the voters of Britain—on an 80% turnout—voted to leave the European Union, it created an opportunity for the country to tailor our regulatory regime to best fit British industry, and to set a global standard, so that it is easier to do business. The UK’s product regulation and metrology, as we heard from our resident metrologist, the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), once set the standard for the world, and indeed has the chance to do so again. When in government, the Conservatives started the work of capitalising on that opportunity. We see the Bill as a terrible step back and a Trojan horse, because it will tie us to EU red tape on which we have no say.

The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) spoke about his hopes for businesses in Harlow. Through this Trojan horse Bill, Labour will restrict Britain’s innovators with over-burdensome regulations, meaning that British industry will fall behind international competitors. As we heard the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), say when speaking to her amendments, it is a prime example of a skeleton Bill. There are two major areas of concern for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition: the use of sweeping Henry VIII powers; and the ability to dynamically align by the back door with the European Union. I will speak to the amendments we have tabled to address those concerns.

When the Bill started its passage, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place found that the powers in the Bill, particularly in clause 1, were excessive, and it recommended that they be removed. Many of our amendments address those elements of clause 1. In the other place, the Government watered down the Bill following those criticisms, but afterwards the Bill was still described as a skeleton Bill that shifted powers “to an unacceptable extent”. As recently as 21 February, the Committee in the other place said that the amendments made in the other place were

“limited changes that do not address the fundamental concern we have about the skeletal nature of this Bill…The Government has not taken the opportunity to add flesh to the bones of this skeleton Bill. It remains the case that the Bill provides for almost all of the substance of the regulatory regimes for product safety and metrology to be provided for by Ministers in regulations.”

While we acknowledge that the current Secretary of State may act responsibly, we do not want to put things on the statute book that future Ministers might treat differently.

We all agree that strong, consistent product safety rules are needed, and we acknowledge the risks from online marketplaces and unsafe imports, but we do not think that the Bill is the right way to deal with that. We also think that Parliament must retain proper oversight, so amendments 9, 11 and 12 seek to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State in clause 1.

Clause 3 is of equal concern, because it grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to create new criminal offences, creating new complexities in our criminal justice system. It also allow Ministers to create civil sanctions for non-compliance with product and metrology regulations through secondary legislation, reducing parliamentary scrutiny of an issue that is incredibly important for our constituents’ freedoms. The clause also allows the Government to introduce new penalties, and even prison sentences; new powers of entry; and new fines on businesses, which will drive up the cost of doing business. Our amendments seek to change those elements. We believe that such serious offences should be subject to considerably more parliamentary scrutiny. That is why amendment 24 seeks to ensure that new criminal offences that could have consequences for the Ministry of Justice and the criminal justice system are not created through new product regulations under the Bill.

Business and the Economy

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. May I point out, to prevent any further errors, that the term “you” is not used in the Chamber, because it refers to me, in the Chair? Hopefully no one else will make the same mistake.

[Andrew Griffith]

No one would believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you would implement such terrible measures without a proper impact assessment. More significant, however, is the fact that we have heard not just the voice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), representing those important seasonal industries, but the voice of employers across the country, who have pointed out that it will no longer be possible for seasonable and flexible work to deliver the economy that we need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

In that spirit of listening and learning, I have been speaking to businesses in my constituency this week, and the chambers of commerce have signalled that the trade deal is a new start for British business because it is reducing red tape, giving certainty to businesses and allowing them to trade and do well, in my constituency and elsewhere. Do you think they are wrong?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. “Do you think they are wrong?” We have a long afternoon ahead of us—even longer for me in the Chair.

[Andrew Griffith]

One has to celebrate small mercies, and I am delighted by the hon. Gentleman’s conversion to the cause of free trade. Free trade is what has lifted billions of people in the world out of poverty. It has made us the great country that we are today. The business in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency that has formed such a clear view has obviously benefited from considerably more detail than the House, so perhaps he will share its name. We would be very happy to hear about the details of the trade agreement that has been reached.

Perhaps, in having that conversation with his local business, the hon. Gentleman would like to engage in a discussion about its views on the Employment Rights Bill. Despite legion opportunities that I, and others, have given Ministers to name a single business that is in favour of all the measures in the Bill, answer still comes there none.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

May I tell my hon. Friend why I think the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) is wrong? Since the very inception of our negotiations to join what was then the common market—now the European Union—it has attached huge importance to fishing. We have just handed over the enormous leverage of an annual negotiation, and for what? Absolutely nothing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Andrew Griffith, match that passion!

[Andrew Griffith]

I hesitate to stray into the matter of fishing, which I suspect we will debate many times in the future, but I note that those on the other Government Benches next to us tabled an amendment, which has not been selected for debate but which seeks to shackle our small businesses further by having us reverse across a much broader range of topics than the pass that the Government already sold earlier this week, so that we become a taker of rules from Brussels, and our small businesses, entrepreneurs and founders are crushed by the red tape that would originate there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank my right hon. Friend and predecessor in the role of City Minister. This is an important point: where we can, we will support the Government in continuing the work, which he and I started, of trying improve the investment outcomes for our economy. We want to increase equity investment to mobilise pension funds and, most importantly, deliver good returns for our investors: the constituents who send us here, and who want the best possible outcome for their pension. It is really important that the Treasury leans into that, and that we have abundant capital markets that are well regulated but not over-regulated. We must create the right culture when it comes to the advice guidance boundary, our tolerance of risk, and our financial literacy and education in our schools. That is a really big point. I hope we continue to work collaboratively and supportively with the Government, along with the excellent Select Committee of which my right hon. Friend is a Member.

None of that helps if wealth creators and global investors have left these shores due to vindictive measures that simply will not raise anything like the money needed. It is perfectly okay to admit when one makes a mistake, and in this case Treasury Ministers have made a mistake. The amount raised will be nothing like the amount expected. The Centre for Economics and Business Research has done important research on that, and found that the cost will be significant. Far from raising money for the Treasury, the country will, I am afraid, lose money.

It is a truism—one that we Conservative Members have to continually teach Labour Members, I regret to say—that we do not make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. Like all socialists, Labour Members are attracted to superficial measures that will ultimately make all of us poorer. Those of us who are left behind will have to pay more, or endure less well-funded public services, as a result of this Government shepherding the golden geese into a pen and then exiling them.

The Deputy Prime Minister was right in her memo, which we saw today: this Government are indeed coming for your job, your business, your pension and your savings. It is all very clear in black and white. Whether Members are Team Rayner or Team Reeves, when it comes to decisions on the economy, it is all bad for business. When the Minister responds, perhaps he will share with us whether he believes that the tax measures advocated by the Deputy Prime Minister, which will have a chilling effect on business, are the right way to proceed.

Whether they are stabbed by employment red tape or shot by higher taxes, the outcome for businesses is the same. The Government duck the difficult questions while the Chancellor fiddles the fiscal rules, making it up as she goes along. Families know that the cost of living is getting higher under Labour. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is so animated that I feel I should keep going, rather than disappoint him. He should listen, rather than chunter.

The Conservative party has a clear vision. It understands business from first principles—[Interruption.] Conservative Members could usefully listen and learn. This could be an exercise in understanding what a proper strategy that is on the side of business looks like. We back the millions of entrepreneurs and businesses who create wealth and jobs across this country. We are unafraid to talk about the need for business, and celebrate private capital, international investors and risk taking.

It was the Conservatives who delivered the single biggest tax cut for business in modern history through the move to full expensing, and the Conservatives who slashed business rates when we introduced retail, hospitality and leisure relief, and during that terrible covid pandemic, it was the Conservatives who provided billions in finance to keep business and the economy going. That is what leadership looks like. That is what a party that is truly on the side of business looks like. I urge Government Members to do a little less talking and a little more listening. They should think of every business owner and employee whom they told, during the election campaign, that the Government would have their back, and ask themselves whether their actions, rather than their words, have proved that to be anything like the case. With employment falling, wealth creators leaving this country at a rate never before seen, businesses closing, investment crashing and inflation rising today, the Conservatives certainly do not believe so. I commend this motion to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

A substantial opening speech there. I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

With due respect to the hon. Lady, it is not one or the other: a pro-worker economy is a pro-business economy. That sentiment has been echoed by experts such as Simon Deakin, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge. He says that, on average, strengthening employment laws in this country has had pro-employment effects. He said that the consensus on the economic impacts of labour laws is that, far from being harmful to growth, they contribute positively to productivity. Right now, it is worth noting that optimism among business leaders is rising, with improved expectations for investment, hiring and costs. Employment has risen by nearly 200,000, as I have said, since we took office. Payroll employment remains near record highs at around 30.3 million, and wage growth has been consistently outpacing inflation. These indicators suggest a labour market that remains robust and responsive, not one being held back, as the Opposition contend.

Let there be no doubt: this Government are delivering on our plan for change with investment and reform to deliver growth, put more money in people’s pockets, rebuild Britain and realise a decade of national renewal. We are the party of entrepreneurs and wealth creation. We are the party of workers, the party for economic growth and the party of social justice. The Conservative party has no ideas, no imagination, just a dismal record that it does not have the courage to face up to. We are delivering for British workers and for British businesses, so I urge the House to reject the motion before us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is right: there is no doubt that the Government have a really difficult job to clear up the mess left by the Conservative Government, but there have been far too many erroneous decisions and policy disasters already. For example, Matthew from North Brewham has run his small business for the last 28 years and is facing difficulties—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. An intervention cannot have examples; it is short and to the point. What is the question?

[Sarah Dyke]

Excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a fundamental overhaul of the harmful business rates system so that small businesses in rural areas can survive and succeed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point—her constituency is more rural than mine, I admit. She is right that we would also like to see the Government urgently U-turn on the family farm tax, because it is creating such difficulty in our rural communities.

We are calling for bolder, more ambitious and fairer measures. We want the Government to replace business rates with a fair new system to boost high streets and town centres, and to negotiate a new customs union with the EU, which would cut red tape for small business and boost our economy as a whole.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We now have the pleasure of hearing from Chris Vince.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yuan Yang]

Yes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Just to help Members, let me say that those looking to intervene have to both stand and make a sound; otherwise, the Member who has the floor may not be aware. If requests for interventions are not taken, those looking to intervene must sit down. They may then stand up and try again.

[Yuan Yang]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and apologise for not being louder. I wonder if he has a source of data on the so-called exodus that does not come from a firm that gives advice to the very wealthy to migrate abroad, and which therefore has a great economic interest in propagating such figures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Sandher]

You brought in a temporary reduction of business rates during covid, but as with so much else, you did not fund that beyond those years, so you made a permanent reduction of 40% for the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. It is good etiquette to speak through the Chair, and to not use the word “you”; it just dampens the tone of the debate a little bit.

[Damian Hinds]

I shall suitably dampen. At a time when the Government are changing the relief from 75% to 40%, try telling those businesses already facing the national insurance contributions increase and all the other cost increases that their bill is being reduced. Clearly, it is going up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. It is known that the hon. Lady is not giving way, and is about to conclude.

[Yuan Yang]

I hope that this Government will continue to make progress on living standards, and on growth that benefits all parts of our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Has the hon. Member just arrived in the Chamber?

[Rosie Wrighting]

indicated dissent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

You cannot waft into the Chamber and make an intervention; you have to listen to the contributions. What time did you arrive in the Chamber?

[Rosie Wrighting]

About twenty-five minutes ago.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Marvellous—we will check the record. You may continue.

[Rosie Wrighting]

The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) is talking about the feedback that we heard on the Business and Trade Committee. Does he recognise that businesses also fed back about the political uncertainty under the previous Government and how that made it very difficult to create an environment in which they could expand?