Rewiring the State
We will reduce the size of the central civil service, shift power and resources out of Whitehall and speed up decision making.
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point, which goes exactly to the issue that I raised about ensuring that non-elected bodies that are not accountable to politicians are not given free rein to make decisions. I will, of course, take away that issue.
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
The staffing of No. 10 North has been done on an interim basis to get it set up and running. We will recruit permanently and, of course, those roles will be based in Manchester.
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
My hon. Friend is right. Working with the charity and voluntary sector at local and regional level can be far better if we ensure they are properly funded and empowered to make decisions, procure and work in partnership. Through double devolution closest to the ground, we will ensure that the CVS is properly utilised and funded.
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely interesting point, and I appreciate its importance. I will take away the wider point and establish what work needs to be done to ensure that properly dealing with neurodiversity is embedded across the whole of Government.
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I encourage him to raise it with the Leader of the House so that we have proper time in the Chamber to debate the issue.
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
As the hon. Lady knows, the Prime Minister said yesterday that we will be hosting a National Economic Council with the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in order to discuss devolution at length, and the decisions around devolution that she has described will be made from there.
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to be clear about this issue. The Prime Minister made clear his intention around business rates very early in his premiership, including on cutting business rates for pubs and hospitality and businesses that really benefit our high streets. Where we are proposing devolution is for business rates retention, encouraging areas to grow their economy and then enjoy a share of that. They will not have any difference in altering the level of business rates, but they will be incentivised and be able to keep a share of them.
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
I am incredibly sorry to hear about the impact on the 60 families in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and about their displacement. Off the back of the summer and the preparations we are making for wildfires, we are now preparing for flooding, and we are making extensive preparations for a wide range of scenarios ahead of winter. I will ensure that the relevant Minister meets him to consider what response we can make to his community.
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
The hon. Lady is absolutely right and raises incredibly important points. I can assure her that these issues will be considered by the wildfire summit, which I agree will need a bigger room at this rate.
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I chose to address issues that I was directly responsible for. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that fire and rescue services are well and truly devolved in Scotland. As we have repeatedly said, we will be hosting a meeting of the National Economic Council with the First Minister. The Prime Minister has already met him and is committed to devolving power outside of Holyrood, which is as equally centralised a Government as the one that we are transferring power out of now.
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
We are incredibly conscious of the burdens that small businesses are facing, particularly ones like the Fat Badger in Harrogate. That is why the Prime Minister set as his priority reducing burdens and cutting taxes for businesses—hospitality businesses in particular—in the first days of his premiership. High street regeneration and breathing life into our villages, towns and cities is absolutely a priority of this regime.
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
I will ensure that the hon. Lady’s concerns are heard by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and I can confirm that the Communities Secretary will determine next steps on local government reform by the end of October 2026.
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
The Cabinet Office supports the wider civil service and still fulfils a number of incredibly important functions, including cross co-ordination of governmental priorities. The Cabinet Secretary’s role is to run the civil service as a whole, and that role will always be required.
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Member, who I have worked with over many years on a number of campaigns. As ever, she raises an incredibly important point. I cannot imagine there are many people in this House who have not been touched by suicide in one way or another. I certainly have, in my close family. It is an incredibly important point that she raises and one that should and could be easily fixed in terms of the specific problems that can lead to state failings. Of course I would be delighted to meet her to discuss how we can address this.
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
Health is absolutely part of the devolution agenda. We are already pursuing a number of reforms, including the abolition of NHS England, to ensure that decisions can be made democratically at the centre of Government and then pushed locally, and to ensure that they are resourced where possible. I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s specific issue and raise it with the Health Secretary.
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
We are incredibly conscious of the historical underfunding of fire services across the country. That is why the previous Administration committed an additional £100 million to local fire and rescue services. Future funding decisions will be for the Budget.
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
The Prime Minister has been clear that we do not want to impose anything centrally on areas that do not want to combine areas. I am sure that we can facilitate a meeting or discussion in No. 10 North to ensure that we get the right authority, powers and resources for the hon. Gentleman’s area.
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
As the Prime Minister said in Prime Minister’s questions earlier, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has opened a negotiation process with Stormont to look at funding and the funding pressures that have emerged. Fundamental to that negotiation will be reform of the decisions that Stormont makes and the way that the Executive have made decisions historically, which has repeatedly led to funding pressures. We need to ensure that these negotiations result in true reform, so we do not end up in this position again.
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
As has already been mentioned, it is common knowledge that too many voters think that money talks louder than their ballot paper and that those with the deepest pockets have far too easy access to power. In short, the British public increasingly do not trust their elected politicians or their democratic institutions. If we truly are serious about rebuilding that trust, we must tackle this problem head on. That is why the Representation of the People Bill really matters. As the Minister rightly noted—I welcome her to her place—this landmark piece of legislation introduces some of the most ambitious changes to Britain’s democracy for a generation, including tougher rules to keep dirty money out of politics and to safeguard our democracy from interference and harm. Each of these measures is essential. They will help to rebuild trust in our politics, and each sends an unambiguous message that this Labour Government take the health of our democracy far more seriously than their predecessors. Many of the safeguards needed against corruption, undue influence, dirty money and foreign interference are already built into the Bill, and I welcome the changes that have been made already, but as we explored in some considerable detail in Committee, effectively defending our democracy requires addressing a number of remaining gaps. It is clear that closing these loopholes is fundamental, and building on those constructive conversations, I tabled new clause 61, which seeks to close one such loophole. Under existing rules, there is a complete absence of scrutiny of the funds that new parties hold upon registration. While new parties are required to submit a declaration of assets and liabilities when they register, there are no checks on the permissibility of these funds. Members will recall that when the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) launched a new political party, Restore Britain, no such checks were in place. Prior to the launch, Restore Britain was a political movement that may, or may not, have received substantial contributions from questionable sources before it was formally registered as a political party. As things stand, that is entirely legitimate. Parties do not need to demonstrate that funds or assets accumulated before registration originate from permissible donors. There is nothing in the Bill as it stands to prevent brand new political parties from sidestepping controls on donations by simply accepting as many donations and gifts as they please before registering. We should not wait until formal registration before asking questions about the true origin of major political donations. My amendment would mean that any new party would have to subject any funds it holds of over £250,000 to post-registration permissibility checks. Having already raised such proposals in Committee, I know that Ministers are keen to ensure that no loopholes of that kind remain in the Bill. I hope the Minister will consider introducing some level of vetting for any significant funds that parties hold on registration. That will help us to crack down on new parties accepting major donations but not facing full and meaningful scrutiny. As we look ahead, I hope that the Minister will hear not only enthusiastic support for the Bill, but the strength of feeling across the House that it must be ambitious enough to tackle the scale of the threat we currently face. We must rebuild trust in our democratic institutions and protect our democracy from corrupting influences, deep-pocketed individuals and unwanted foreign interference. This landmark Bill, with the right changes, is our opportunity to do just that.
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
The Representation of the People Bill makes much-needed changes that I am very pleased to support. The Bill, and the Government amendments we are discussing, show that this Government are taking protecting our democracy seriously. Government new clause 72 would introduce a ban on donations using cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is unregulated and untraceable money, and we are right to take it out of our democracy. The amendment would place a moratorium on those donations—a non-permanent ban—until regulation can be put in place, but I have heard some very compelling arguments today for introducing a complete ban. Any hostile foreign actors wishing to disrupt our democracy are able to fund that disruption through cryptocurrency donations. There is no way to trace them, and any political party that takes crypto donations should take a long, hard look at itself. There is clearly a risk that they are taking money from those bent on harming our country. Government new clause 116 would put a cap on donations from overseas electors, so that those who do not live in or contribute to this country cannot unduly sway our elections. Our democracy is not the business of individuals and organisations that are based abroad. British democracy should be in the hands of the people who live here and contribute, not those of rich individuals who choose to live elsewhere. That should be something that all parties can agree on, but sadly, it is not. I know that some parties have benefited from foreign donations a little more than others, and perhaps do not want to bite the hand that feeds them. I congratulate the newly elected hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not in his place again—because he is never here, is he? He never engages properly with legislation—not only on winning the most pointless by-election in history, but on the fact that his party broke the UK record for the single largest individual political donation by a living person. Some £9 million was donated by one person, a Thailand-based businessman, in one donation. With foreign friends like that, no wonder the hon. Member for Clacton has no need to spend time in his constituency. The new clauses I have spoken to will strengthen our democracy. Votes at 16 have also been discussed today. The Conservatives say that 16-year-olds are not mature or wise enough to vote. I disagree; I do not think there is a clear correlation between age and wisdom. All of us in this Chamber speak to people of all ages. Some of the best questions I have ever been asked and some of the best suggestions I have ever heard have come from the 16 and 17-year-olds at the local schools and colleges I have visited. I think the most compelling argument for votes at 16 is that it gets people in the habit of voting. Most 16 and 17-year-olds will still be at school, at college or in some sort of training. Voting is a way to show people how elections work. I know adults who have never voted simply because they did not understand how it worked. I have had to talk them through it, saying, “You go with your ID. You will have a list, and you will mark a box with a cross. No, you do not tick it. That would make too much sense.” If we get people involved in democracy at a younger age, they are more likely to be lifelong voters, and that is really important. However, this Bill does not address the most pressing issue for our democracy, which is the glaring problems with our current voting system. It is clear that first past the post simply does not work anymore. That is why I am calling for a national commission on electoral reform. I know that the new clause has been ruled out of scope today, so I will not speak any further on it, but if anyone would like to talk about the problems with first past the post and the potential for a new voting system, please do get in touch. It is one of my favourite subjects. I want to speak briefly against new clause 67, tabled by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). I am puzzled by the idea that leaflets in other languages are somehow detrimental to our democracy. I used to live in Spain, and I was in a minority among Brits, because I actually spoke Spanish. Some Brits are eligible to vote in local elections in Spain, and yes, they absolutely should be able to speak Spanish, but I know from experience the difference between being able to understand a language and being able to understand the political nuances, the history, and the code used in political text, which can be different. We want to expand participation in our democracy, so I think it is perfectly fine to have leaflets in different languages. I note that only 0.3% of people in Britain do not speak English. It is a tiny minority of people. Unfortunately, this place is yet again being used to whip up culture wars that have no basis in reality.
- Hansard source
Disability Living Allowance: Qualifying Period for Children
I am delighted to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing this important debate. She has made a particularly valuable, thoughtful and passionate contribution this morning, and I join her in wishing Mabel, her mum Rachael and their whole family well. My hon. Friend called this debate to discuss the qualifying period for disability living allowance for children. As we have heard, DLA contributes to the extra costs that may arise as a result of a disability or health condition. For some, it can provide a total of just over £10,000 a year. It is usually paid to the child’s parent or guardian; it can help with the overall family finances and can be used as they see fit to meet their needs. It continues to be paid in full to children and young people under the age of 18 when they are in hospital. DLA is available if a child’s condition or illness is both of a long-term nature and one that gives rise to care or mobility needs. Payment begins once the three-month qualifying period has been satisfied. That helps to establish that the disability and resulting needs are of the long-standing nature for which this benefit is designed to offer support. The qualifying period provides a sensible division between short and long-term disability, but, importantly, it does not begin with the date of the claim; it starts with the beginning of the need for care and/or mobility that makes the child eligible for DLA. That period can start before the date of claim. The question as to when the need started will be taken into account by decision makers, meaning that consideration will always be given to whether the qualifying period has already been partly or fully completed prior to the date of claim.
- Hansard source
Disability Living Allowance: Qualifying Period for Children
It starts with the issue of need. The point at which the child became eligible for disability living allowance marks the start of the qualifying period, even if that precedes the point at which parents make a claim. Understandably, when parents are in very difficult circumstances, their first thought is probably not about applying for disability living allowance. For children who are severely disabled at birth, the qualifying period can start at birth. The date of claim is usually the date the request for a claim pack is received. Provided that the customer returns the claim form within six weeks, the date of claim will be treated as the date that the claim form was requested. The Secretary of State also has the discretion to extend that period beyond six weeks if the delay is considered reasonable. In the sort of circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest has described, we can understand how those issues can arise. If a child sadly has an end-of-life diagnosis, special rules are rightly in place. Those claims are always fast-tracked and the three-month qualifying period does not apply. The highest rate of the DLA care component will be paid from the date of the claim. My officials are currently exploring options to enhance bereavement support for parents through the social security system, and we will continue to engage with stakeholders as that work develops. Given that this debate stems from concerns about how quickly families get the support they need, it is worth highlighting that we have recently made significant improvements to waiting times for new child DLA claims. People are not waiting nearly as long as they did for their claim to be processed. My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the need to address long waits.
- Hansard source
Disability Living Allowance: Qualifying Period for Children
I will perhaps come later in my speech to what the Government are planning to do. I am pleased to tell colleagues that between October 2024 and March 2025, the Department recruited and redeployed in excess of 100 case managers to improve clearance times for child DLA new claims. Between 1 August 2025 and 31 March this year, the Department cleared around 185,900 child DLA new claims, of which 68.3% were cleared within 45 working days. In that time, the percentage of claims cleared within these planned timescales rose from 4.7% to 90.7%. I hope that colleagues will recognise that that is a significant and necessary improvement. The social security system exists to provide opportunity and security. It is there to help people to navigate the difficult circumstances that any of us can find ourselves in. There can, of course, be few circumstances more exceptionally difficult than those faced by seriously ill children and their parents. Along with the emotional strain, parents can understandably experience a significant impact upon work and household income, as well as facing extra costs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest very ably set out. It is understandable that many parents in this situation are likely to need additional support through the social security system. It is worth reiterating that beyond the support that DLA provides in and of itself, it can also passport to a range of additional support. That includes premiums in income-related benefits, carer’s allowance, the Motability scheme and exemption from the benefit cap. That is providing comprehensive help for families. For those who qualify, financial support is available through universal credit, including for those who are in work but on lower incomes. If needed, that support can be available on day one through an advance. Alongside the universal credit standard allowance, additional amounts such as child element, disabled child addition, carer element or housing costs are added as appropriate. Although universal credit is means tested and therefore not available to households that are better off financially, it is there as a safety net should those financial circumstances change. The social security system will always be a cornerstone of our support for unpaid carers and parents of disabled children, but it is not the only way we can help. Rightly, this is something that we have been thinking about across Government. Indeed, the Government have recognised precisely the issues that have been raised by both my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). As I am sure they are aware, only yesterday the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade closed its “Make Work Pay” consultation on employment rights for unpaid carers and parents of seriously ill children. That included seeking views on a possible new statutory entitlement to leave and pay for parents of seriously ill children, which is often referred to as Hugh’s law. That is in recognition of the campaigning undertaken by the family of Hugh Menai-Davis, who very sadly died aged six from cancer in 2021 but left this important legacy. I know that my colleagues will look carefully at the submissions to that consultation and will respond to it in the coming months, and I am sure that my hon. Friends present will look to colleagues in the Department and the work that they do. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest rightly highlighted the importance of parents being able to support their children at these incredibly distressing times. In April last year, the Government introduced a new entitlement of up to 12 weeks of neonatal care leave and pay for parents of babies in neonatal care to ensure that they have appropriate support during that time. The national cancer plan for England was published in February and was warmly received, not least for its introduction of a children and young people’s travel fund, backed by £10 million, and its recognition of the specialist approach that is needed for cancer in children and young people. Of course, our goal across Government remains to relentlessly work towards improving outcomes and experiences for children and young people with serious illnesses and supporting their families. I give that commitment to my colleagues today. Caring for a child who is seriously ill must be one of the most worrying and stressful situations that a parent can experience, which is why I am so glad that we have had the opportunity to discuss this issue today. Although there are no current plans to remove the three-month qualifying period from disability living allowance for children, my Department is already doing a significant amount of work and offering significant support. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to search for the right levers across Government to further strengthen support for parents in these terrible circumstances, and that we will always approach these issues with compassion. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on an important and sensitive subject and all Members who have contributed. Question put and agreed to.
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I offer my warmest congratulations to her on her appointment to the role; she will be a brilliant Minister. She will know that many in this House welcome the update to the legislation proposed by Ministers to ban cryptoassets, but she will also know that the measures that have been proposed by His Majesty’s Government do not go far enough. In particular, they still permit money to be routed through crypto exchanges, turned into fiat and then donated on. Secondly, they still permit donations through things like memecoins. Will she look at the measures in new clause 34, which is supported by 51 Members of this House, so that over the passage of this Bill through this House and the other place, we can ensure that it is as tight and as tough as possible?
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
Let me start with a word of thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who is not in her place, who said quite rightly that an awful lot has changed since the Bill was first introduced to this House. Indeed, a lot has been revealed over the course of the summer. In fact, reporting in The Times, The Sunday Times, the Financial Times, The Guardian and Byline Times has now revealed 37 different questions around the finances of the Reform party, but no doubt we will find there is an innocent explanation for all of it. No doubt there is an innocent explanation for why Mr George Cottrell passed $2 million through US-based crypto exchanges just a day or two before he moved the money to his mother, who then went on to make big donations to Reform. No doubt we will learn that Mr Cottrell was in fact on the electoral register when that money was passed. No doubt we will discover that his mother, Fiona Cottrell, declared and did not disguise the fact that the money had ultimately come from her son. No doubt there will be an innocent explanation for why loans to Reform through Britain Means Business were reclassified as donations, even though the party treasurer was not told about that. No doubt there will be an innocent explanation for why the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who—surprise, surprise—is not in his place, did not declare a £5 million donation before he was elected to this place and went off to lobby the Governor of the Bank of England on behalf of his cryptocurrency allies. No doubt it is a complete coincidence that the man who has given Reform half of its fortune—more than £25 million—made his fortune in the crypto industry. No doubt there is an innocent explanation for all of that. I very much hope that absolutely no offences have been committed. No doubt there is an innocent explanation for all of it—and no doubt it will stink to high heaven to the British public. I very much hope that all of that has been above the law, but that is not the test for political finance regulation in this country. It is not enough to be above the law; conduct must be above suspicion. And right now, the conduct of political finance in this country is not above suspicion. That is why the measures in this Bill are needed, and that is why it will be madness if we do not use this Bill to once and for all eliminate not just cryptocurrency donations, but the cryptocurrency system from British politics. I welcome the moves that the Minister has made and the commitment she has made at the Dispatch Box this afternoon to continue to listen to the debate and ensure that the rules under the Bill are as tight as possible. However, the revelations in the newspapers over the summer underline why we must be as hard and as tough as possible. The truth is that right now, the amendments that the Government have tabled to the Bill are full of holes. Under those rules, it would still be possible to move money through digital tokens; it would still be possible to move money through memecoins like the $BRITAIN token; and it would still be possible to aggregate it, convert it into conventional currency and then donate it, for example, to Restore Britain. We know that this is not some speculative feature of the system. We know that donations that have gone to Reform have been routed through cryptocurrency exchanges like Radom. Now, I have nothing against Radom; it is clearly wholly committed to transparency, which is why it has moved its domicile from Poland to the Cook Islands—that beacon of transparency. With risks like that multiplying, why on earth would we leave loopholes open? The effect of new clause 34 would be to ban off-ramping, ban new forms of digital currency transactions and ban memecoins, which are exactly the kind of measures that Ministers now need to bring forward. If we want to take the crypto system out of political finance, this is what we need to do. The final point I want to make is about a larger hole in the Bill, which I hope we will square up to over the course of this debate. There are now Members of this House who are making more out of ad share revenue than they are from their salary. If Elon Musk decided to write a cheque to a political party, under the terms of this Bill it would be outlawed. If he decided to retweet something and generate tens of thousands of pounds in ad share revenue, it would be allowed. We have got to recognise that over the last five years £200 million has been assembled to build a media political complex on behalf of a party that thinks there is a problem with foreigners but not with foreign money. Frankly, it is time that we eliminated that kind of politics, argument and system from our country.
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
I begin by welcoming my right hon. Friend to her place and wish her every success in her new role. I thank her for this statement and for this Government’s renewed focus on reindustrialisation in the UK, bringing opportunity and economic growth to every corner of the UK. With everything pushing towards increased manufacturing and construction, personal protective equipment is more important than ever as the last line of defence between workers and hazardous materials and incidents. The state has a role to play here; it can lead by example and ensure that every worker gets the protection they need to do their job safely. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss public sector procurement specifications and BS 30417 on inclusive PPE?
- Hansard source
Engagements
Q9. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and welcome back. I also welcome the Prime Minister to his role. We have many shared passions—sport, music, and a deep sense of community. I know we both have a strong desire to ensure that everyone in our country has a sense of pride, identity and belonging—that everyone feels safe and no one feels lonely—but sadly, that is not always the case. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to support people in communities such as Spen Valley who may feel isolated or are dealing with antisocial behaviour such as speeding and dangerous driving, inappropriate use of e-scooters and offroad bikes, and fireworks, to give residents confidence that their concerns are being taken seriously?
- Hansard source
Draft Protection Against Detriment (Industrial Action) Regulations 2026
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Protection Against Detriment (Industrial Action) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. This draft instrument was laid before the House on 24 June 2026 and relates to protection against detriment for workers taking protected industrial action under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It is being introduced to provide essential protection to workers, ensuring that they can take industrial action without being treated unfairly by their employer as a result. The 2024 Supreme Court judgment in Secretary of State for Business and Trade v. Mercer ruled that the current protections from detriment for trade union activity under section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act do not extend to protected industrial action. As a result, the Supreme Court made a declaration of incompatibility between UK legislation and article 11 of the European convention on human rights, the right to free association. This means that there is a gap in the law that could enable bad faith employers to unfairly penalise workers taking industrial action. While it should always be treated as a last resort, this Government believe that industrial action is an integral and vital part of a worker’s right to express their collective voice if they choose to. If a worker does choose to take industrial action, it is essential that employers treat them fairly and with respect, as the vast majority of employers have always done. This draft instrument remedies the existing gap in the law, enabling workers to take industrial action without being at risk of suffering detriment as a result. It also ensures that UK law regarding detriments will be compatible with the European convention on human rights. The draft protection against detriment regulations are made under section 236A of the 1992 Act, which was introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025. The draft regulations, taken together with section 236A of the 1992 Act, prohibit all detriments to which an employer can subject a worker for the sole or main purpose of penalising, preventing or deterring protected industrial action. This Government are committed to protecting workers who take industrial action while ensuring that employers are not unduly affected. The vast majority of employers already act responsibly and do not impose detriments on workers for taking industrial action. The draft legislation therefore targets the rare cases where such treatment may occur, without disrupting the day-to-day running of responsible businesses. That is why this legislation prohibits only detriments for the sole or main purpose of penalising, preventing or deterring industrial action. That means that during a period of industrial action, ordinary business practices will not be banned as long as they are not used for the sole or main purpose of preventing, penalising or deterring a worker from taking industrial action. For example, disciplinary action may still be taken against a worker who has committed misconduct unrelated to strike action during an ongoing period of strike action. Employers will still be able to manage industrial action in ways that do not involve imposing a legal detriment. Examples of that include proactive negotiation prior to industrial action commencing and contingency planning to mitigate the impact. Turning to the issue of deduction of pay following industrial action, in common law the principle of “No work, no pay” applies. This means that if a worker does not attend work for a day due to taking industrial action, the employer is under no obligation to pay them for that day. The draft regulations state that they do not affect that common law position. The rules enabling the deduction of pay on account of a worker having taken part in protected industrial action will remain as they are. The draft statutory instrument also adds section 236A of the 1992 Act to the list of claims in schedule A2 to that Act. Detriments claims will therefore be added to the list of claims in schedule A2. For claims in this list, an employment tribunal is able to increase or decrease compensation awards by 25%, depending on whether the employer or worker has failed to follow the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. This will encourage fairness and co-operation by both employers and workers and will help timely resolution of disputes to allow employers to return to usual business as quickly as possible. This statutory instrument is essential to provide workers with sufficient protection when exercising their fundamental right to take industrial action, and to make UK legislation compatible with the European convention on human rights. It prevents the door being left open for the very small number of bad faith employers who might exploit the gap in legislation that was highlighted by that Supreme Court judgment, while still allowing good faith employers to deal with industrial action in a non-punitive manner and enabling them to continue to use normal business practices during industrial action. I therefore commend this instrument to the House, and I trust that Members will support it.
- Hansard source
Draft Protection Against Detriment (Industrial Action) Regulations 2026
I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks; it has been a pleasure to debate him in numerous secondary legislation Committees. He is always diligent with his questions and his scrutiny, and I appreciate that and wish him well in his new role. Taking the shadow Minister’s questions in turn, he mentioned the impact on businesses of understanding the guidance that will be in place and ensuring that they feel prepared to address and adapt if necessary. We of course consulted business representatives, as we did at length throughout every stage of the Employment Rights Act, to gain their views on this guidance in particular. We will move at pace to ensure that employers get that support with the guidance so that they can comply as necessary. I would add, however, that at the moment employers very rarely have to impose detriments, so we do not believe that there will be a significant amount of work for employers to do. I referred in my opening remarks to the frequency of employers imposing detriments on workers taking industrial action and how rare it is. Given the scale of employers having to understand the guidance, we do not really see the risk as significant, but of course we will work to publish as soon as possible and work closely with businesses, as we always do. The shadow Minister mentioned the frequency of strike action, and I gently remind him of the unfortunate highs under the previous Government: 2.5 million days were lost to strike action under the previous Government. That figure has increasingly come down. We want to ensure that, alongside all these measures, we have good industrial relations and that employers, businesses, trade unions and Government can get around the table to discuss the challenges we face across this country as well as those we face in workplaces. We recognise that trade unions, their representatives, business and employers will not agree on everything all the time, but fostering good industrial relations across workplaces across the country is my ambition and this Government’s ambition. We know that strike action is often the last resort, and it is an important right for workers to use if necessary, but we want to foster good industrial relations. That is a key part, not just of this draft instrument, but of our wider approach. I have been working on consistently with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice on the issue of employment tribunals, recognising that backlog—it was not helped by the previous Government’s cuts, unfortunately, where we saw significant decreases to the employment tribunal system. It suits no one when they do not have access to justice—neither workers nor employers. People want a system that works for them and can work through cases, and to have that support and that ultimate access to justice. It is really important that we get those backlogs down. We have set up a taskforce with union representatives, businesses, employers, myself and my colleague in the Ministry of Justice, and we have been working at pace since October last year on how to fundamentally fix the system, recognising the pressures and the backlog we already face. As I have said, on the particular instrument we are debating here, there have been two cases in recent years relating to detriments for participation in industrial action. We do not have the frequency of employers imposing detriments on workers taking industrial available to us, because it is so rare—but of course we are conscious of the point about employment tribunals. On industrial action, the shadow Minister mentioned all the regulations that are already in place. Trade union activities and strike action are already highly regulated already. We have talked a lot about that throughout the passage of the Employment Rights Act, as he referred to. We want to ensure that workers abide by the regulations and the law in place, just as we want employers to do; that is why this debate is so important. That conduct is important for the good industrial relations that I mentioned earlier. Finally, the shadow Minister mentioned pay and the impact on common law. Of course we want to ensure that we can enable that process of lessons being learned, so that we can understand and hear what is developing in common law and feed it into our work on this issue. I mentioned in my opening remarks what this instrument will and will not do, so hopefully our intentions in making this change have been understood. We will of course review common law as we always would. On the response the shadow Minister is waiting for, I can only apologise; I will chase that and ensure he gets it in due course. I hope I have answered many of the questions from this debate and that all hon. Members can support this important principle of protecting workers from unfair treatment for taking industrial action. If any of our constituents were put in that position, we would want them to have the law behind them and to have that support, so I hope that colleagues across the House will support this statutory instrument. Question put and agreed to.
- Hansard source
National Highways: M49 Severnside Junction
May I echo the many happy returns to you for yesterday, Madam Deputy Speaker? I recall that in a previous life you gave many happy returns to me across the Dispatch Box on a very special birthday, of which we do not need to remind ourselves. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) on securing this debate and on highlighting an issue of real importance to her constituents and the wider Avonmouth and Severnside area. I welcome this opportunity to update the House on junction 1 of the M49. I apologise for the Department wrongly describing the junction in previous correspondence. It is correct to say that we are talking about junction 1 of the M49. I recognise the strength of local feeling articulated by the hon. Member. Residents, businesses, local representatives and road users understandably want the junction brought into use as soon as possible. The Government share that ambition. The purpose of the junction has always been clear: to improve access between the Avonmouth and Severnside enterprise area and the motorway network to support economic growth and reduce pressure on local roads. The Government want local communities, businesses and road users to realise the full benefits of this infrastructure. The Severnside enterprise area is one of the most significant employment and logistics locations in the south-west region. It is home to major industrial, warehousing, distribution, energy and port-related activity. Better access to the strategic road network has long been recognised as important for the area’s continued growth and for reducing the impact of traffic on surrounding local communities, as the hon. Member has mentioned. While I understand the frustration that the junction is not yet operational, the House should be clear about the complexity of the position. It reflects complex issues involving strategic road infrastructure, a local road connection needed to make the junction operational, developer arrangements and technical matters requiring further investigation and remediation before the junction can safely open to traffic. It is worth recalling that this scheme was delivered as part of a wider programme intended to unlock economic development in the Severnside area through direct connection with the junction at the Western Approach distribution park. That is essential if the benefits of the junction are to be realised. The strategic road junction and local link road to connect to the existing network were being progressed through different delivery arrangements. The link road connecting the junction to the existing road network was originally the responsibility of a private developer, but with planning permission sought by South Gloucestershire council. National Highways was consulted as a statutory consultee, but had no legal power to compel the developer to deliver the link road. Despite continued engagement, the developer was not willing to meet its commitment. When it became clear that the original developer arrangements for the link road would not deliver the necessary local connection, the Department, National Highways and South Gloucestershire council worked together to identify an alternative way forward. That work led to the current link road scheme being progressed by South Gloucestershire council. Rather than allowing the project to stall indefinitely, the Government have therefore engaged with our partners to enable the local link road to be constructed and to establish a practical, long-term solution that will bring the junction into use. That has included £10 million of Government funding. Of course, as we heard and the House will appreciate, completing the local road link road is not the only issue that must now be resolved. As part of monitoring and, more recently, detailed engineering investigations, National Highways has identified technical issues at the junction that require further assessment and remedial work before the junction can be safely opened to traffic. I recognise that that is disappointing for local communities and businesses. A junction visible from the motorway but not yet available for use is, of course, understandably frustrating. Local representatives, as the hon. Member has done, are right to seek clear answers about what has happened, what is being done and when the junction will open. Some may argue that the junction should simply be opened and any problems dealt with later, but that is not an approach the Government are prepared to take. Where technical concerns have been identified, they must be understood, addressed and assured, and the public would rightly expect Ministers and National Highways to act prudently and responsibly where engineering concerns have been raised. The House would expect no less in any constituency in the country. However, the hon. Member raises important questions, and I would like to take each in turn. First, she asks whether National Highways will publish a clear timetable for the repairs. I will continue to press National Highways for a clear remediation plan, including the technical solution, delivery route and a clear timetable. However, the technical matters do require careful assessment. Engagement is taking place with the contractor, and an appropriate solution is dependent on the shared understanding of the engineering evidence, and clarity on where responsibility and liability lie. Therefore, we can only confirm timescales once the ongoing technical and commercial discussions have concluded. It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge those discussions from the Dispatch Box, but I have asked National Highways to update key stakeholders monthly and to publish the plans as soon as possible. Secondly, the hon. Member asks what the defects are and when they were first identified. Defects were visible on the junction in 2021, including loss of topsoil and surface cracking. Those came to light as part of the standard inspections that take place across the network. At that stage, they were not deemed significant and so National Highways put standard operating arrangements in place to monitor the structure. However, that ongoing monitoring identified the need to undertake detailed investigations, which were commissioned in 2025, resulting in the identification of geotechnical issues. The later investigations will allow the root cause of the defects to be better understood. This is ongoing and can only be confirmed once the engagement with the contractor has concluded. I have now discussed the matter with National Highways, and I have formed the view that the hon. Member should have been informed when the decision was taken to undertake detailed investigations, rather than have to wait for the outcome of the work. Thirdly, the hon. Member inquires whether I will commit to a firm date by which the junction will finally open to traffic. As she will probably appreciate from what I have said so far, it is not possible to provide a definitive timeline for remedial works. Responsibility, liability and funding matters remain subject to ongoing technical and commercial discussions. Once those are concluded, National Highways will be able to develop detailed designs for the necessary remedial works and establish a delivery programme. It would not be possible or appropriate to announce arbitrary dates before those assessments are complete or before a deliverable programme has been confirmed. However, I recognise it is particularly frustrating that, after a long wait, the junction still sits empty. That is why I have emphasised to National Highways the importance of it looking at options to open the junction as soon as possible. Safety is of the utmost importance, but I also recognise that given the remediation will take some time, we need clarity on whether the junction can be opened in any capacity in the interim. I expect National Highways to provide a timely update on that review.
- Hansard source
National Highways: M49 Severnside Junction
I am grateful for the intervention, and I absolutely will take that point. All stakeholders ought to be informed at the appropriate point, particularly when there are, as I say, connected works to do with that particular junction. The hon. Member asked how a newly built junction came to need structural repair before carrying a single vehicle, and whether the same fault affects other National Highways structures. I have been assured that National Highways is undertaking a significant quality incident investigation process to look at lessons learnt, and, once it has concluded, will embed those lessons to ensure that the same thing does not happen on other structures. I should emphasise that such occurrences are not frequent, and I believe that this is not a systemic issue, but of course we need to look into it to be assured of that, so I have asked National Highways to update the hon. Member and other key stakeholders on the outcomes of the lessons-learnt process as part of their regular ongoing engagement. The hon. Member’s fifth question was: who is responsible? Will the Government do what is right, and launch an investigation so that the public can scrutinise those responsible? Questions have understandably been raised about responsibility, liability and the funding of remedial works, and National Highways is continuing confidential commercial discussions with its principal contractor. As I have said, I will not prejudge the outcome of these discussions from the Dispatch Box, but I want to reassure the hon. Member that National Highways is pursuing the matter with the seriousness it requires. I know that as soon as these processes conclude, National Highways will provide a clear remediation plan setting out the technical solution, delivery route and programme, as well as, I hope, a clear answer on where responsibility lies. As I have said, National Highways is conducting a significant quality incident investigation to establish what went wrong, to identify lessons and to prevent recurrence, and I have asked it to share the lessons learnt following the conclusion of the investigation. Finally, there was the question of funding. As I have explained, the Government have already provided about £10 million to support the development of the link road, recognising its importance. I am sure the hon. Member will understand that there are limits to the funding we can provide, but we will commit ourselves to prioritising the technical issues that have been discussed this evening. The Government’s approach is clear. National Highways must identify the right engineering solution, agree an appropriate delivery route, protect taxpayers’ interests, and provide stakeholders with realistic, deliverable timescales. The public deserve certainty, but that certainty must be grounded in technical evidence, not speculation. Stakeholder engagement, which we have touched on this evening, is also important. Local communities and businesses need to understand why the junction has not opened, what is being done to resolve the issue, and how progress will be communicated. As I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate, there will of course be limits to what I can say publicly while commercial discussions are ongoing, but commercial sensitivity must not become a reason for avoidable silence. I have asked National Highways to keep the hon. Member and key local representatives informed monthly, and updates should be provided when there is reliable information to share. If the hon. Member does not feel that she is being kept up to date, I ask her to let me know. There are also wider lessons to learn. The public do not distinguish between a motorway junction, a local link road, a developer obligation, a council-led connection, and a National Highways asset; they see one road, one promise, and one delayed outcome. We as a Government, and delivery bodies, must be clear about the need to manage infrastructure coherently, with clear accountabilities, dependencies and communications. The Department will therefore continue to work with National Highways and South Gloucestershire Council as a delivery partnership. South Gloucestershire Council is progressing the local link road, National Highways is responsible for the strategic road asset, and the Department’s role is to support the overall objective of bringing the infrastructure into beneficial use, while of course ensuring safety, value for money and effective governance. Let me return to the central point. Everyone involved in this matter wants the same outcome. Local communities want the junction open, businesses want better access to the strategic road network, local authorities want the economic and transport benefits to be realised, and, of course, the Government want all those things to happen. We remain committed to seeing the junction brought into operation and to ensuring that its benefits are realised for local communities, businesses and the wider regional economy, but we will do so in a way that protects road users, maintains public confidence, and reflects proper stewardship of public investment. Let me again thank the hon. Member for securing the debate, for the important points that she has raised, and for her continued campaign on behalf of her constituents. I assure her that I will continue to engage with her as we work to ensure that the junction is opened safely, and that the intended benefits are delivered for the communities and businesses that it was designed to serve. Question put and agreed to.
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
Order. I remind Members that discussion of an amendment that is not in scope and has not been selected, is not in scope.
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
Order. Will the hon. Member please remember to keep her speech within the scope of what is currently before us?
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
Order. I ask the hon. Member please to take my comments as they were made, and stick to the scope of the Bill.
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
I very much welcome what the First Secretary of State had to say about using No. 10 North to drive a pro-business culture, empower communities and deliver growth in every postcode. In Mid Derbyshire, we have one of the best projects to help her and the Government meet that aspiration in the regeneration of the Belper mills. That will bring 130 new homes to the Derwent valley and a visitor centre, where we have a UNESCO world heritage site. We are so close to securing investment from the East Midlands combined county authority to make this happen. Can she help me by offering a meeting at No. 10 North with its staff to ensure that we get that investment over the line to build the homes we need and deliver growth in Mid Derbyshire?
- Hansard source
Engagements
In my constituency and across the country, we suffered devastating wildfires this summer. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for the action that he took, including the temporary ban on disposable barbecues, but we must face the fact that our climate is changing and communities such as mine are suffering the consequences. What more will the Prime Minister do to ensure that we are better prepared to prevent and tackle wildfires next summer, and will that include making the ban on disposable barbecues permanent?
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
I welcome the First Secretary of State to her place and support her determination to rewire the state. In her statement, she spoke about an underpowered centre of Government and how Ministers often lack agency. In my view, Members of this House—MPs—also often lack agency and are underpowered. In the light of the welcome devolution of greater powers to unitary authorities and metro mayors, does she agree that it is important that we discuss and debate, in this place and elsewhere, the role of MPs? In fact, I have applied for debates on the subject. As we look to rewire the state, we need to enhance the status, powers and authority of Members of this place.
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
Listening to the debate, I think part of the problem is that the Bill is being brought forward in an enormous transitional period. Some of its original objectives might be being met within the legislation that we are proposing, but the debate has moved on since then. We also have to admit that the debate has moved on within the Labour party because the change of leadership. So in some instances, we might not be talking to this Bill; we might be debating what we want to see in the next Bill, which needs to be brought forward with some urgency, particularly because the general tenor of the debate is a recognition that we are in a dangerous political moment in our country and that we must address the threats that are creating that moment. I can understand the Government not being willing to accept several of today’s amendments, and there might not be time enough when the Bill goes to the other place to ensure that those amendments are shaped in such a way that they can be legislated for quickly. However, I would urge a rethink about the next Bill, which should certainly be brought forward before the end of the year to take into account this whole range of measures, particularly those that have been excluded from the debate overall because of the title of the Bill, which is, to be frank, a bit shaming for the House’s political debate. I have tabled two very straightforward new clauses. I thought they were in the tenor of the original Bill, and I was surprised when they were not included. In fact, the current Lord Chancellor moved similar amendments in 2022. They relate to the Bill’s aims to bring England and Northern Ireland into line with the reforms taking place in Scotland around the age limit of 16. Also, I thought that we were going to ensure that the franchise was the same. As people know, Scotland and Wales lowered the voting age, but they also extended the franchise to all residents. At the moment, because we base voting on citizenship, 4.4 million residents cannot vote in a general election in our country, and 1.2 million in England and Northern Ireland cannot vote in any election. That means that 16,300 people in my constituency have no vote whatsoever—people who live here and work here. Most pay their taxes, and fund our public services, but they are locked out of the democratic system. My new clauses argue that, as in Scotland and Wales, voting should be based on residence rather than citizenship. Some may argue that there should be some investment of time, and other countries designate a timescale for residency. In New Zealand, for example, 12 months’ residency allows someone to vote. New clause 36 deals with local elections, and would permit those who have permission to enter or stay in the UK to vote in elections. New clause 35 would extend that to general elections for those with settled status—that is an accepted term in many of our pieces of legislation—and indefinite leave to remain. It is an amendment that we have supported in the past. It would mean a simpler system of registration, and it would increase voter participation. Above all else, it would bring about a greater sense of social cohesion: people who live in our society yet have no say in our society would be brought into the political system. We have had the debate about different languages and all the rest—to be honest, I wish we had never got rid of the Latin mass, but that is another thing, and might offend the other side on that issue—but all my new clauses try to do is recognise the reality of our society. The reality is that our society is a diverse community. This legislation could recognise that diversity, and ensure that everyone has a stake in our society and a democratic right to vote.
- Hansard source
Rewiring the State
I, too, welcome the First Secretary of State to her place and welcome today’s statement as well as the one in July. The first English devolution settlement was, of course, for London, and despite some incremental improvements since 1999, our capital’s mayor, the Greater London Authority and the 32 London boroughs are not currently set up to deliver on the capital’s full potential, whether on productivity and growth or in dealing with our housing crisis and the massive increase in temporary accommodation spending to combat homelessness. Will revisiting London’s devolution settlement will be on her and her team’s agenda?