Kate Dearden
MP for Halifax · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“As part of that, in the coming months we intend to launch a senior oversight board comprised of unions, businesses, scrutineers and cyber-security experts, who will share feedback on the operation of electronic balloting.”
“When determining the method or combination of methods to be used for a ballot, the responsible person must apply the criteria and consider the factors specified in the legislation and the code of practice. Of course, if the union is acting on that ballot, it is best placed to decide what the combination of methods must be.”
“As electronic ballots will require the use of personal email addresses or mobile numbers, unions will need to gather that information from their members before they commence.”
“It makes holding a ballot unduly expensive and time-consuming, and it can act as an unnecessary barrier to democratic participation in a union. The statutory instrument addresses that directly.”
“On the shadow Minister’s point about the chosen methods, electronic balloting has been a well-established option for businesses and political parties—including his own party—for many years. The Government will deliver modern and secure electronic workplace balloting, as we made clear in our manifesto and our wider Make Work Pay agenda.”
“The statutory instrument will introduce three additional methods of voting, alongside post. First, electronic voting will allow members to cast their votes online, using secure access credentials. That will be permitted only where a union member has provided a personal email or telephone number to their union.”
The complete record
Every one of 507 lines we hold for Kate Dearden, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 11.
“In the vast majority of cases, compliance should be achieved through engagement and support for businesses rather than recourse to criminal sanctions. However, it is essential that penalties are available in serious cases of non-compliance. The instrument also provides for the continued role of UK-notified bodies in certifying machinery for the Northern Ireland market using the UKNI marking, a conformity marking that must be displayed alongside the CE marking when used for goods placed on the Northern Ireland market. In Great Britain, the instrument continues CE recognition, allowing businesses to place on the GB market goods that meet certain updated EU requirements, avoiding costly duplicate conformity processes.”
“The EU has updated its machinery rules through a new regulation that will apply from 20 January 2027, when it will replace the existing directive. The SI will give full effect to the machinery regulation in Northern Ireland by establishing a robust enforcement framework. It designates enforcement bodies, including the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland and district councils, and makes it an offence to fail to comply with obligations under the regulation. The instrument also provides for appropriate penalties, including fines and custodial sentences. This ensures that effective enforcement action can be taken where products are non-compliant. I reassure Members that the Northern Ireland Department of Justice has confirmed that the measures will not have a detrimental impact on the criminal justice system.”
“Members will appreciate that machinery has adapted and advanced significantly in that time. As such, it is important that we review our legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose and accounts for potential risks from new and emerging technologies, as well as changes in supply chains and how they operate. I will now explain in more detail how the instrument meets its purpose. It has two functions: first, it ensures that updated EU machinery legislation can be fully enforced in Northern Ireland, as required under the Windsor framework; and secondly, it amends domestic legislation so that machinery that meets the updated EU requirements can continue to be placed on the market in Great Britain. The SI will introduce mechanisms to allow the EU’s new machinery regulation to be enforced effectively in Northern Ireland.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. This statutory instrument was laid before the House on 1 June 2026. I will begin by setting out the background. The instrument concerns machinery, which includes a wide range of workplace and consumer products such as cranes, excavators, leaf blowers and lawn mowers. The current framework for machinery safety is, like many other product regulations, based on EU rules that were assimilated into UK law following our departure from the European Union. The current EU directive and our UK regulations were first introduced in 2006 and 2008, respectively.”
“The Windsor framework is already given effect in legislation through the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement Act) 2020, which adds provisions and powers to the 2018 Act.”
“Member for North West Hampshire mentioned Northern Ireland businesses and dual labelling, and I thank him for raising that. The answer is no: they can continue to CE mark only, and UKNI marking is optional if the conformity assessment is in the UK. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, and a number of Members on the Opposition Benches, mentioned the impact assessment for this SI. As she knows, a de minimis assessment has been prepared for the provisions of this instrument relating to continuing CE recognition in Great Britain. These measures are considered to have a low impact per business from their introduction, and that is additionally the case for the Northern Ireland aspects of this instrument. The measures resulting from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are out of scope of the assessment.”
“As I have said before, we are prepared to align with EU regulation, but we will take a pragmatic, case-by-case approach, doing it where it clearly advances the national interests, supports long-term growth, promotes consumer interests, attracts investment and supports jobs. Where that is not the case, we will take a different approach to deliver the best outcomes for businesses and consumers in the UK. At the centre of any long-term plans for the alignment between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we will maintain the integrity of the UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s rightful place within it. My officials engage with the Northern Ireland Government and enforcement authorities on a regular basis to discuss any issues or concerns they might have, and that close relationship will remain ongoing. The right hon.”
“That is not a new concept, but the continuation of current Government policy and the policy of prior Governments. The UK and the EU are strategic partners, and it is in our mutual interest to maintain trade flows and avoid trade friction, while responding to emerging technologies and maintaining a commitment to product safety and consumer protection. Mutual transparency and regular discussions are an indispensable part of that. Informed by our engagement with industry, the Government have reviewed the changes introduced by the machinery regulation, and we believe that they are sensible and proportionate and will ensure that safer products are available to consumers and businesses alike. That is why we are continuing CE recognition and seeking to introduce similar measures in GB.”
“The arrangements under the Windsor framework are a settled and important part of UK law, agreed by Parliament to protect the UK internal market. We have made the sovereign decision that is right for the whole of the UK to improve safety and modernise in particular machinery legislation, which we are discussing today, to reduce duplicative and costly burdens on businesses and ensure that there is no friction with the UK internal market. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, our approach is supported by the overwhelming majority of stakeholders. This SI does not implement EU law in Great Britain; it does, however, continue CE recognition in Great Britain so that products that meet the new EU requirements can be placed on the GB market.”
“I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their consideration of the draft regulations and their contributions to the debate. They raised a significant number of issues that I will pick up on in my response. First, on our product regulation legislation, since getting into Government we have legislated for the flexibility to ensure that product regulation, now and in future, is tailored to the needs of the UK. There will be some instances where we will take our own approach and some instances where we will want to take a similar approach to the EU. However, we have done that, and will continue to do that, on a case-by-case basis, where it is absolutely in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers and in our national interests.”
“As explained previously, this draft instrument ensures the effective enforcement of the EU machinery regulation in Northern Ireland. It maintains access to the GB market for compliant products and supports high safety standards while minimising unnecessary burdens on business. This draft instrument also ensures our compliance with international law in relation to Northern Ireland’s continuing dual access. I am pleased to commend this draft instrument to the Committee.”
“When it comes to parliamentary scrutiny of CE recognition under the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025, we have consulted with stakeholders, and Northern Ireland provisions are done as part of the Windsor framework, which I touched on right at the start of my remarks. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the parliamentary process uses the affirmative procedure. To conclude, we are using the PRAM Act powers, as I have mentioned, for CE recognition, which requires consultation with stakeholders. UKNI marking will only be used by a UK notified body; otherwise, it will be a CE mark only. We have heard that from businesses in Northern Ireland through that stakeholder engagement, and that is what they have told us.”
“However, the Secretary of State has enforcement powers under legislation, as the Office for Product Safety and Standards has an active enforcement role on behalf of the Secretary of State, particularly where issues are nationally significant, complex, novel, high risk or large scale. For example, the OPSS can intervene where a product risk affects consumers nationally or where co-ordinated enforcement action is needed across multiple agencies. I hope the right hon. Gentleman understands that enforcement will remain as it is under the current regime and that nothing will change; I hope that reassures him and answers his question.”
“My officials have already begun actively developing a further SI to modernise GB machinery regulation, which will ensure that the UK framework remains proportionate and aligned with the technological developments raised numerous times throughout this debate. Announcements about implementing similar measures have already been made, to provide businesses with the certainty that the shadow Minister also asked about. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire referenced enforcement and parliamentary scrutiny. The day-to-day enforcement of product safety legislation is largely local. For machinery in Northern Ireland, it would generally be undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland or by district councils, for workplace and consumer products respectively.”
“We estimate that around 230 businesses in Northern Ireland and 5,380 in Great Britain are in scope of the machinery legislation. She also referenced the £16.6 million of funding that I mentioned in my opening remarks. Funding was allocated in the Budget to deliver an enhanced “one-stop shop” advice service for small businesses beyond what is available on gov.uk, along with the new funding for Intertrade UK, and that commitment will be delivered in the course of the next financial year. The project has moved into a phase of more active engagement, with robust interest from stakeholders. Formal co-design workshops are ongoing to refine the service specification and ensure that the delivery model meets business needs. I have briefly touched on the implementation of similar measures in Great Britain.”
“We have extensively engaged with stakeholders in Northern Ireland, and SMEs in particular have indicated that it significantly helps in terms of resources—that is from our direct engagement with those businesses and the feedback we have received. It is a key consideration for businesses that they will be able to continue to benefit from dual access to both EU and UK markets. As we work towards introducing similar measures in Great Britain, continuing CE recognition and ensuring that the same machinery products can be placed on the market across the whole of the UK without unnecessary duplication of testing and administrative process will be absolutely vital. The shadow Minister asked about the numbers of businesses involved.”
“The right hon. Gentleman rightly raises AI and cyber-security as part of our considerations. That is why it is so important that we keep up to date with technological developments and the impact on machinery. The EU’s machinery regulations, as he says, include provisions on software and AI to ensure that those new technologies do not affect the safe functioning of machinery. We are also working with the EU to ensure that the changes in Northern Ireland are compatible with wider product safety and regulatory reforms, including cross-cutting legislation on AI and cyber-security. Overall, we expect the instrument to benefit Northern Ireland.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026.”
“By creating a more realistic timeframe, improving consistency and supporting better-prepared claims, they help deliver a fairer and more workable system for all. I commend the regulations and the order to the Committee.”
“The instrument applies to claims of this nature in England and Wales only and does not extend to Scotland, as the power to change the parallel Scottish legislation, the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994, lies with Scottish Ministers and not the UK Government. We are working closely with the Scottish Government so that the change will also be made in the parallel Scottish legislation. However, in relation to Scotland, the change is expected to take effect in mid-November. We will provide clear guidance to ensure that those based in Scotland are aware of this temporary discrepancy in the time limit for breach of employment contract claims. Taken together, these instruments represent a sensible step forward by aligning with the changes to employment tribunal time limits in the Employment Rights Act.”
“That approach provides clarity and avoids disruption for cases already in progress. The draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 extends the time limit for bringing breach of employment contract claims by employees from three months to six months in England and Wales. The new time limit will apply only where the relevant employment contract is terminated on or after 1 October 2026. Claims relating to contracts terminating on earlier dates will continue under the current three-month time limit. The change ensures consistency by aligning breach of employment contract claims with the extended employment tribunal time limits introduced by the Employment Rights Act.”
“In practical terms, the regulations do this by updating a series of existing regulations so that the six-month time limit applies across a range of workplace rights that were not already amended by the ERA, including those relating to part-time workers, fixed-term employees, zero-hours workers, information and consultation and negotiating representatives, trade union blacklists and certain NHS-related protections. By bringing those time limits into line with a single six-month timeframe, the regulations support a clear and straightforward process. The commencement date for the change is 1 October 2026. The new six-month limit will apply only to claims where the problem at work occurred on or after 1 October 2026. Any claims based on earlier events will continue under the current three-month time limit.”
“By moving to a six-month time limit, the regulations create a more realistic and fairer system that better reflects the realities people face, provides more time for disputes to be resolved without needing to go to an employment tribunal and supports fair access to justice. They give employees and employers more opportunity to engage with concerns early and, where possible, resolve disputes before they reach tribunal. The additional time, alongside the consistent approach to time limits across jurisdictions, will support employees to consider the merits of bringing a case to the employment tribunal, particularly in complex cases, as well as time to consider the legal costs and funding that may be required.”
“We will have further opportunities to discuss that work, but I will now turn to the two instruments on employment tribunal time limits. The draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 are important because they ensure consistency with changes made by the Employment Rights Act and the current six-month time limit for statutory redundancy and equal pay claims. For many people, three months has proved to be a difficult window, and the short timeframe has led to rushed claims or, in some cases, people missing the opportunity to bring a claim altogether.”
“However, I make it clear that we fully understand the challenges and are already working on reforms focusing on making the system more effective, efficient and resilient. The dispute resolution system taskforce was set up by the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice last year. It comprises representatives from business, trade unions, legal organisations and third sector organisations. The taskforce is helping to inform our work to develop reform measures, which include short-term, targeted measures to reduce pressure on the system as well as forward-looking measures intended to increase the efficiency, effectiveness and resilience of the system. Those will follow a phased approach, with work on some measures currently under way.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. These two instruments, alongside the amendments made by the Employment Rights Act 2025, extend the time limit for presenting claims to the employment tribunal from three months to six months across the majority of employment rights. The draft regulations apply to Great Britain, while the draft order applies to England and Wales. The changes will help to create a framework that is more consistent and accessible, and better aligned with the realities faced by workers and employers. I recognise that Members will be rightly concerned about the capacity of the employment tribunal and the wider dispute resolution system to adapt to this change, given the growing caseload.”
“Just as importantly, the instruments will bring greater consistency across the system, aligning time limits and making the process clearer and easier to navigate for everyone involved. These are measured reforms. They will ensure that the system works better in practice by being clearer, fairer and more effective. I therefore commend the statutory instruments to the Committee. Question put.”
“That creates an opportunity for disputes to be resolved before they even reach the employment tribunal, potentially reducing pressure on the employment tribunal system in turn. The shadow Minister knows that we published an impact assessment setting out the impacts on both employers and employees. Although we expect that more claims could be brought to the employment tribunal, as he alluded to, he unfortunately missed out that the six-month time limit will give employers and employees longer to resolve disputes without needing to go to tribunal. We expect that the additional time to submit a claim will result in fewer claims being submitted late, thereby saving judicial time by reducing the resource spent on considering time limit extensions. It would have been good of the shadow Minister to reflect on that latter part, too.”
“Recruitment for up to 150 non-legal members will also conclude this year, which I am sure the shadow Minister will welcome. The Government are also actively improving efficiency and productivity, including through virtual hearings to enable judges to hear cases remotely. Where local shortages arise, we are deploying legal officers to optimise limited judicial resource and centralised telephone support so that litigants get a consistently good service and so that tribunal staff can focus on case progression. We are also rolling out digital systems and piloting AI transcription to support employment tribunal performance. We have talked about the impact of this legislation and why it is so important. Businesses will benefit from the increased time in which workplace procedures and conciliation can be completed.”
“I am sure he will welcome this update. He heard me refer to the dispute resolution system taskforce, which actually met this afternoon to progress that work at pace. I thank all members of the taskforce for their commitment and engagement so far to consider that longer-term reform. We are considering reform measures, from early resolution to enforcement, to ensure that the system is more efficient and resilient, and to make up for the lack of resource we saw under the previous Government. In the shorter term, we are continuing to invest in recruitment to build employment tribunal capacity. New salaried employment judges will be sitting from this summer, and recruitment is under way for up to 55 employment judges, who will add capacity from 2027.”
“If we look at the stats published in 2023, employment tribunal delays had increased by 60% since 2010 due to resource shortages. I certainly do not want to go back to those targets, nor commit to them here today. These measures are absolutely necessary because they recognise the reality that many people need more time to understand what has happened to them, seek advice and prepare their claim properly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton outlined. By creating a more realistic timeframe, they will reduce the risk of a rushed or missed claim and support fair access to justice. At the same time, they will give employers greater opportunity to engage early to resolve concerns and avoid unnecessary employment tribunal claims. The shadow Minister also asked what other work the Government have planned.”
“I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton for a brilliant and well-made speech about why this legislation is so important. Unfortunately, the shadow Minister conveniently missed out a couple of statistics in his opening remarks. I will start with the first one. Going back to historical statistics on the previous Government’s inability to fix and appropriately resource our employment tribunal, if we look at 2017 and 2018, the percentage increase year on year of the number of outstanding single cases reached a shocking 89%. From 2008 to 2018, the average time from receipt of a claim to the first hearing was stable at around 30 weeks. That increased to 49 weeks by early 2021.”
“Members stress the need for urgency today, and I reassure them that we will update Parliament on the review in due course. I thank Members for raising that pressing issue, and we will of course work closely with all those at the debate today.”
“It is an evidence-based review of our policy framework and alternative measures to enhance it, including mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence measures and forced labour bans. It naturally also considers the approaches of our international trading partners and the best way to promote a co-ordinated approach that minimises costs, consistent with the Government’s commitment to reduce the administrative costs of complying with regulation by 25% over the course of this Parliament. So far, we have engaged with more than 200 organisations through the review, including businesses, investors, civil society, trade unions and academic institutions. We have learnt from international partners and met communities affected by supply chain harms. I heard many hon.”
“Last week, we talked a lot about the work we are proudly doing in Government on the Employment Rights Act and the domestic agenda, and I thank Members for raising that today. We are clear that a collaborative, holistic and cross-border approach is the only way to drive the change that exploited workers and environments need, alongside our recognition of other international transitions from voluntary to mandatory measures, such as human rights and environmental due diligence laws. In the trade strategy, the Government underlined how responsible business conduct is a positive part of our mission to grow the economy, and we launched a review of our approach to responsible business, focusing on the global supply chains of businesses operating in the UK.”
“That is why we must take a more strategic approach by working with our global allies and trading partners to secure forced labour provisions in our free trade agreements, and by using the developing countries trading scheme to suspend preferential trading arrangements on the ground of serious violation of labour rights. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green noted, I travelled last week to the 114th International Labour Conference in Geneva, where I met trade union delegations and labour and employment Ministers from across the world, alongside some of the most significant manufacturers, extractors and business hubs. This issue is close to my heart, and I worked closely on it before I was elected to this place.”
“However, as Members have rightly said, although the Modern Slavery Act was world leading at the time, it is now more than a decade old and in need of review if we are to tackle the many violations that still occur globally. Although many UK businesses respect human rights and the environment throughout their supply chains, unethical international violations undercut the vast majority of UK businesses that support fair international supply chains. That will only increase as geopolitical, industrial and technological shocks continue to transform how and where goods are produced and extracted.”
“There is also clear evidence of severe environmental harm in our global supply chains, as we lose the equivalent of 11 football pitches of tropical rainforest every minute, and threaten nearly 1 million animal and plant species with extinction. As we have heard, the UK has a proud record of pioneering global advances to support human and workers’ rights. We put this issue on the international stage with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) spoke about. That legislation was world leading and crucial in solidifying our place as a global leader on this issue. For the first time, businesses were made to report how they tackled the modern slavery that might be present in their supply chains.”
“In 2026, more than 27 million people remain in the shackles of modern slavery across all six inhabited continents, often enduring imprisonment, abuse and coercion, and being exploited for profit. As we approach the 200th anniversary of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which abolished slavery in much of the British empire, it is right that I reaffirm this Government’s commitment to tackling this vile practice, which continues to generate nearly £176 billion in illegal profits each year, in all its forms, including non-payment or underpayment of wages, excessive working hours and unsafe working conditions.”
“Infractions cannot be ignored or dismissed simply because they occurred far enough back in a supply chain for us to feel insulated and not responsible for supporting exploitative practices. Never has this issue been more important now that more than 70% of global trade runs through complex global supply chains. Although globalisation has driven productivity, innovation and technological advances that have lifted billions out of poverty and created the life that we depend on, it has also made supply chains more complex and opaque and has reduced the transparency and accountability that consumers, retailers and the Government need to protect workers and the natural world from exploitation. Members have rightly drawn attention to the egregious human rights abuses that come with forced labour.”
“It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I join hon. Members in thanking you for chairing today’s debate at short notice. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing a debate on this deeply important subject. He made some excellent points, particularly about how fundamental supply chain resilience is to our economic security, and the importance of the public sector procurement regime to ensuring that public bodies do not inadvertently support international labour and humanitarian abuses. He and the other Members here today continue to be excellent and thoughtful advocates on these matters, and I thank all colleagues for their important contributions. Human rights are just that: they are fundamental, and they exist to protect us all.”
“As Members have outlined, this action cannot be singular or a patchwork of separate policy decisions. Only co-ordinated, root-and-branch decisions will enable our constituents to know that they can trust that the T-shirt they are wearing, the bag they are carrying and the food they are eating did not arrive in our country at the expense of exploited people and areas thousands of miles away. Delivering that confidence for British people is good for business and good for growth, and re-cements our position as a world leader on these matters. I again thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. We look forward to working closely with them on the review and more widely to ensure that we continue to focus on this issue, which is a priority for our Government.”
“As a publicly owned energy company, GB Energy is of course expected to demonstrate leading practice in complying with the UK modern slavery legislation and aligning with the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. We have established an ethical supply chain advisory group to review and inform GBE’s approach to ethical supply chains in its investments and operations; its chair is Baroness O’Grady. Representatives of my Department will serve on that group, and it meets for the first time next week, which I am sure the right hon. Member will welcome. We must continue working with our international counterparts, and key stakeholders across the international trade union movement and business community to take action against those who illegally destroy families, communities and our natural world for profit.”
“I hope they know that we raise these concerns with China at the highest levels. That was done recently by the Prime Minister himself and the former Foreign Secretary. We continue to co-ordinate efforts with our international partners to hold China to account—for example, by joining a UN statement in October 2024 and co-signing a joint statement with the US and others in November 2025. I respect the work done by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and thank him for his consistency in raising this issue today and outside the House. He also spoke about GB Energy, as did the shadow Minister.”
“Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), for his contribution today, his work in the Joint Committee on Human Rights and his engagement in and focus on this vital issue. I mentioned our work and relationship with the US. I hope that he is reassured by those comments and by our continued and regular engagement with the US Administration as part of our negotiations. As a proudly internationalist and pro-worker Government, we have a responsibility to remain a world leader in tackling modern slavery, clearances and human rights abuses wherever they rear their ugly head. The Government stand firm on human rights, including in Xinjiang, where China continues to persecute and arbitrarily detain Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities. Lots of Members raised that, and I thank them for it.”
“We took another key step in the trade strategy by launching the Office for Responsible Business Conduct to provide UK businesses, trade unions and charities with a simpler route to compliance, supporting the integration of responsible business practices and helping victims of corporate malpractice by providing a non-judicial grievance mechanism. Alongside the broader RBC review, we are considering how to strengthen the section 54 transparency regime, which lots of Members mentioned today—I thank them for it—including mandatory reporting requirements that extend to the public sector and penalties for non-compliance. We published updated statutory guidance on transparency in supply chains in March 2025, calling on businesses to go further and faster. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon.”
“I thank the right hon. Member for that and his contributions today. I reassure him that we are working closely with the US on the review, updating the Americans on all the work we are doing and understanding their practices too. I will turn soon to the other important points he raised throughout the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) highlighted our work with the Treasury as part of this review, and I thank him for that. We are doing the review economy-wide, and as well as working with the Treasury, we have engaged with investors. We will of course keep him updated, as I know he is interested in—indeed, passionate about—this subject.”
“That is especially important when many coastal communities are entirely dependent on hospitality and leisure businesses to provide the vast majority of employment and opportunity for local people. They prop up the vital local government services that residents rely on, too. These businesses are not simply part of the local economy; they are the local economy.”
“They support wider social objectives, creating vibrant places where people want to visit, work, live and invest. Creating the economic and social environment that hospitality and leisure businesses need to thrive cuts right across Government. Members have raised so many issues that cut across the responsibilities of many Departments, and I thank them for that. Co-ordinated action from the Department for Businesses and Trade and myself, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Home Office and His Majesty’s Treasury is required to ensure that the great British seaside has a secure and prosperous future.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this important debate on Government support for seasonal hospitality and leisure businesses in coastal areas. I thank all hon. Members for talking about businesses in their communities and constituencies. I could really hear their passion as they championed their local areas and businesses. The debate is important because the sectors are important. They provide accessible jobs, drive tourism and generate significant economic activity. They support local economies, particularly in coastal and seaside communities, where tourism, hospitality and leisure form the backbone of economic activity.”