Lee Barron MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I start by pointing out my proud membership of the Communication Workers Union, just so I can get that on the record. Before I get into the issues with the amendments, I want to say that enough is enough. Unelected Lords must not get in the way of the democratic will of the people and the manifesto commitment to deliver this Bill and make work pay. My constituents have waited long enough, worked long enough and put up with it for long enough. Every delay means someone going to work ill. Every delay means another zero-hours week. Every delay means that, once again, someone gets away with bad practice. The Lords amendments talk about a cap, but we have been here before. We have lifted caps before. Caps on compensation do not exist in cases of discrimination claims. There is no evidence to suggest that they have all of a sudden got out of control or gone absolutely mad —they have not, so we have been here before. We have lifted caps before to turn things around and send a clear message about what we want to build. On the proposal to cap the fine for denying access to trade unions at £75,000, what sort of a cap is that? What would that do to global giants? We saw what Amazon did to the GMB to frustrate its organising. Why should we allow big businesses to pay to break the law? Frankly, we should not. On guaranteed hours, there must be no loopholes and no cutting hours for a few weeks to dodge the law. We need a simple 12-week test, with a simple average of hours. That is fair, clear and enforceable. This Bill is about common sense at work. If someone is sick, they should not be dragged into poverty; if they work regular hours, they should get a proper contract; and if they are unfairly treated, there should be consequences. This Bill was promised and voted for at the election; this Bill should now pass.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay · Hansard source

  More

  I met Natalie from Raunds earlier this year, when she was seven months pregnant with her first child. She wants nothing more than to take time to care for her baby. When people are off work raising the next generation, the wages stop, but the rent and energy bills do not, and other costs go up. This is not just about Natalie. It is about warehouse workers, firefighters, nurses and shop staff—working people who pay in their whole lives but feel abandoned when they need support the most. We want a system that respects work, family and parenthood, and that means maternity and paternity pay being raised to at least the national living wage—proper, fully paid leave, as the Fire Brigades Union is fighting for in its Fight for 52 campaign. Parental leave is a day one right, not a privilege. I welcome the Government’s review of the parental leave system, and I welcome the fact that all current and upcoming parental leave and pay entitlements will be in scope. No parent should be pushed into debt for having a baby. No mum should feel guilty for taking time to heal. No dad should be told that two weeks is enough. Natalie had the courage to speak up, but the petition proves that she is not alone. We are not asking for luxury. We are asking for fairness, dignity and the basic right to raise a child without being pushed into poverty.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. Twelve-year-old Millie Blair from Oundle joins us today in the Gallery along with her mum, Gemma, her sister, Jessica, and her dad, Gordon. On Millie’s 11th birthday, she was diagnosed with a rare bone cancer, which led to her leg being amputated. Millie attends Prince William school, but she cannot access the lower playing field because the slope is too steep. Her parents, the school and I have asked the East Midlands academy trust to put in a ramp, but it has refused, claiming that it is not subject to certain parts of the Equality Act 2010. Does the Prime Minister agree that the trust has an absolute moral obligation to make those adjustments to give Millie full access to all the school, so that she can play and thrive with all her friends?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Educational Assessment System Reform · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. Ours is a one-size-fits-all system, and it should not be, because one size does not fit all. That was certainly the message I took loud and clear from the SEND roundtable that I hosted in Corby and East Northamptonshire when we brought parents, schools and others together. SATs measure a school’s performance; they do not measure a child’s potential. The numbers speak for themselves: 56% of 10 and 11-year-olds say that SATs were the first time that they really worried about their abilities, 35% said that SATs made them feel ill, and 28% said that SATs made them feel bad about themselves. Let us be honest: exams are damaging young people’s mental health. We are one of the most over-assessed countries in the world. In Finland they do not assess at all until 16, but their children still learn and their teachers are still trusted. If we are to have primary school assessment, there must be much lower stakes. High stakes exams are not the only way to see what a child can do. We need to put trust back into our teaching professionals. They know their pupils best—they see them learn, grow and shine every single day. I welcome the Government’s ambition to move from half of young people going to university to two-thirds going on to either university or an apprenticeship. That is the right direction. Not all are good at exams. I went down the apprenticeship route, and I know first hand that there are many routes to success. Too often, our system tells young people that they have failed—“How did you get on in that exam?”, “I failed”—but that is not the way we should be doing it. Children might struggle through SATs, GCSEs and endless English and maths resits, yet once they get to work they start to thrive. That is not their fault; that is the system we have built. Our system risks teachers teaching for the test not for the child, and the whole of year 6 gets wiped out because of SATs. I have heard children turning down opportunities for things like sport, or for time with their friends, because they say they need to study for their SATs. Clearly that is not right. Ten-year-olds should be outside playing, not losing sleep over league tables. I am looking forward to the full conclusion of the curriculum and assessment review, and I hope it is radical because tinkering at the edges will not do. We need an education system that lifts children up, not one that weighs them down, and one that measures potential, not pressure. It is time to build a system that helps every child to find their path, their purpose and, most importantly, their pride.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Educational Assessment System Reform · Hansard source

  More

  My point is that it is not the schools and the way in which the schools are applying exams; the schools are doing what they can to protect the children. The problem is that the children know they are coming. The children feel the pressure point of the exams coming up. That is why they start to feel how they feel. The reason I can say that is that my daughter is 10, and she is the one who turned down going to the football because she has to revise for her SATs. Parents are trying to manage that situation. But that is the reality. They know it is coming. They feel the pressure point. It is not the school.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Education Committee · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for the report—we agree with the recommendations that have been made. Does she agree that the Select Committee reached those recommendations by engaging with communities and local MPs, such as in Corby and East Northamptonshire, which brought together local SENCOs, parents and others to input directly into the Committee’s report? Will she thank them, as I do, and say well done to them for shaping that report and its outcomes? That is where it needs to come from—people who face these issues day in and day out making sure that this report belongs to them.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Baby Loss · Hansard source

  More

  Almost 15 years ago, my constituent Lauren Trevillyan lost her son Olly. She told me how the support just was not there—not for the families, not for the parents, not for the children. There is just not enough aftercare for people after such a loss, not physically and not mentally. To this day, Lauren is still waiting for a response to her request for counselling. Lauren struggled through those dark months, but now she is fighting for others. Lauren has been the driving force behind the baby loss awareness drop-in at Corby library over the past week, which is absolutely something we should all be behind. We need to talk about this openly and honestly. We have to break the taboo, because sadly it is far more common than people think. As has already been said, in this country 13 babies a day die close to birth. When I talk about baby loss, I cannot do so without raising the courage and determination of numerous families in Corby who continue to campaign and fight for answers: answers on rare childhood cancers, on multiple miscarriages and on those born with limb deficiencies. Toxic waste was dumped in Corby and we need answers. These families have questions that the local authority is not prepared to answer. In a response to the families’ solicitor, the council said, when it was asked where the toxic waste was dumped: “The Council understands its obligation of transparency…but considers the weight of public interest…falls in favour of non-disclosure.” Families are concerned that those with rare childhood cancers or multiple miscarriages are in certain places in Corby where whistleblowers have come forward to say that toxic waste was dumped. It is not good enough. Families are entitled to answers. If the local authority continues to refuse to be transparent and honest, and to answer the families’ questions, then I will lead their calls for a public inquiry. We have to end the defensiveness of our public bodies, either through their own integrity—as it should be—or by the Hillsborough law or, if needed, by public inquiry. Enough of the defensiveness. It is time for answers. We are determined to get them and the people of Corby deserve to hear them.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. At the start of this Parliament, I was glad to hear that the Government promised a Hillsborough law, which would place a duty on public workers to act in the public interest. We know from Hillsborough, Grenfell, infected blood and Horizon that too often public bodies treat inquiries as reputational risks. In Corby and East Northamptonshire, many constituents feel let down. Zena and Nicola Stanton spent years campaigning for Jorgie, Nicola’s daughter and Zena’s granddaughter, who died in Kettering general hospital in 2016. A coroner later found that hospital staff failed on five separate occasions in Jorgie’s care. That led to dehydration, sepsis, multiple organ failure and ultimately her death. Zena and Nicola never gave up. They exposed the unhealthy culture in the ward, later confirmed in a report. Senior staff have now admitted mistakes. I believe that without that family’s fight, the truth may never have come out. I am glad that we finally secured meetings and apologies for them, but victims should not have to fight for years and rely on their MP simply to be heard. Families like Jorgie’s are fighting for every other family who will come to rely on that same ward. We need reporting systems that reveal failures quickly. Hospitals and other public services should have transparency. I also believe that this is about culture. We need to end defensiveness in public services. It is wrong that public bodies spend unlimited taxpayer money fighting victims. Staff must also feel free to speak up and speak out. For Jorgie’s, Zena’s and Nicola’s sake, let us deliver a Hillsborough law worthy of its name, which makes candour a duty, gives families fair representation and ensures that yesterday’s injustices never become tomorrow’s.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Primary School Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  1. What assessment she has made of the potential merits of introducing alternative methods of primary school assessment.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Primary School Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  A recent survey by Young Minds found that over a third of year 6 pupils felt ill due to standard assessment tests, and over a quarter said they made them feel bad about themselves. Ninety-six per cent of headteachers say that SATs harm wellbeing, and 95% doubt their accuracy. Our children and teachers are telling us that SATs are broken. Will the Department consider a more holistic assessment approach that ensures the wellbeing of our children at such a young age?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Independent Retailers · Hansard source

  More

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

• 17 Jul 2025 · Independent Retailers · Hansard source

  More

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

• 17 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On Monday, I hosted the second Corby and East Northamptonshire special educational needs roundtable, and on Tuesday we had SENDS 4 Dad in Parliament. Parents and professionals keep telling me how important early years support and intervention is for children with special educational needs. With the Government rightly rolling out Best Start family hubs across the country, including one in Corby and one in East Northamptonshire, will the Leader of the House back those calls to make sure the hubs give real early intervention and support for families with special educational needs?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. I set up the Corby and east Northants SEND roundtable to help seek solutions to fix the broken system. One of the outcomes of the discussions was the need to improve SEND provision in our mainstream schools. What is the Minister doing to engage with teachers to make schools more inclusive and maximise the potential of every child?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Rooftop Solar Power · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps he is taking to support rooftop solar power projects.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Rooftop Solar Power · Hansard source

  More

  Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Only 20% of schools currently have solar panels. Brigstock Latham’s primary in my constituency does not. That is why its year 5 pupils have written to me asking for panels on their roof. They tell me that this would cut their carbon footprint, reduce bills and help improve their education. One pupil wrote: “We may be a small school, but we can be big sometimes.” Will my right hon. Friend support their inspiring campaign and perhaps visit these young community activists in my constituency?

• 24 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In Corby, residents of Hooke Close were denied the chance to object to plans for a huge warehouse to be built immediately next to their homes, and they now live under its shadow. This was due to admitted failures by North Northamptonshire council, including consulting the wrong streets. Residents took the matter to court, and the judge criticised the council, but the case had to be ruled out because it was out of time. The council—which did not consult the residents, but consulted the wrong streets, and which the judge criticised—is now pursuing the very people it failed for £5,000 in legal costs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that authorities should be held accountable when serious consultation failures occur, and that residents should not be financially penalised as a result of the incompetence of the consultation?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) on securing such an important debate. To me, it is about culture, creativity and human talent, and about people reaching their full potential in life and making sure that that is not taken away from them by things that can happen. This morning, I hosted a drop-in with Equity, and I met the Association of Photographers. They are worried, and rightly so: 58% of Association of Photography members say that they have already lost work to AI. That is more than £14,000 on average already lost by each professional photographer. That is not work going; that is work being taken by generative AI. More than 15 billion AI-generated images are out there now, trained by using people’s intellectual property without permission, payment or those people even knowing. Photographers post their pictures on their websites, then AI companies send in web crawlers to scrape them—no consent, no warning. That is data theft, plain and simple. It breaks data protection laws, and we should call it out for what it is, because once scraped, they are gone—people cannot retrieve their property. We would not allow that in any other sector—it is not right. We would not let someone steal our tools, so why would we let them steal our work, our face or our voice? That is robbery. Actors are finding their faces and voices turning up in ads and games that they never agreed to. AI watches people work and copies them. No one should lose their job and their creative talent to a machine that is trained on their own work—it is your face, it is your voice, it is your style, and it should be your choice. Consent must come first—no yes, no use. Let us fix this. Let us give working people the rights they need in the AI age. We have copyright law for a reason, so let us update and strengthen it. Tech companies cannot just take—there must be rules and no opt-outs. There have to be protections and there has to be fair pay. Protect our artists, our voices and our jobs. This is not science fiction; it is happening right now, and we need to act now before irreparable damage is done.

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Frankly, some of the contribution that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) should have been made when the decisions were taking place—they should not have had to wait until today. I commend the Secretary of State for how he has dealt with this issue and for getting us together for today’s debate. The idea that somehow we could have debated the negotiations as we were having them is for the birds, frankly, because all we would have done is tell our negotiating partners what we were going to the negotiating table for. Negotiations are not done like that, and nor should they be. And to those who have been moaning about us having been recalled on a Saturday, I say that you can recall me on any Saturday, at any time, and twice on a Sunday, if it means we can save industries and thousands of jobs. I will be here every time. Some of us know what it is like. The town of Corby was built on steel. The people of Corby and East Northamptonshire know only too well what it is like to have the steelworks closed down and devastation befall local communities. When the Corby steelworks closed, 14,000 people lost their jobs and unemployment rose to 30%. Corby and East Northamptonshire was once home to the largest steelworks in Europe. Today, it employs just shy of 500 people, and it still manufactures 250,000 tonnes of steel tubing per year. We would not be the place that we are without the steelworks that Corby once had, and we know the devastation that the job losses would cause for the community of Scunthorpe. That is why this is the right thing to do. We must maintain steelmaking capacity in the UK. In these increasingly uncertain times, we must maintain national security by having the ability to produce our own virgin steel. All options should be open, but the blast furnaces must not be switched off, because once that happens, they are gone. That is the problem in other parts of the country, and it should have been raised at the time. In any modern economy with a central mission for growth, production of our own steel is crucial. That will be at the heart of any future industrial strategy. I am proud to be here today to support the Bill and to secure a future for steelmaking in the UK.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Victims of Domestic Abuse: Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  9. What steps her Department is taking to provide safe accommodation for victims of domestic abuse.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Victims of Domestic Abuse: Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  One of my constituents is a victim of domestic abuse and on a 999 priority list. She was served a section 21 notice by her landlord and denied band A housing by the council because, in order to keep custody of her children, she had signed a police protection order stating that she was not at risk of domestic violence. She was forced to choose between her children and a safe home. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that councils properly prioritise domestic abuse victims so that no one faces such an impossible choice?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Waste Incinerators · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I want to raise the issue of an incinerator that has received planning permission on Shelton Road in Corby. I believe that, at best, the planning system is being exploited —without a shadow of a doubt, it is being played. Corby is a growing new town. The site I will refer to is on an ex-ironside site with a sludge lagoon. The planning permission for the Corby incinerator was applied for in 2013 and granted on 7 February 2014—more than a decade ago. The only public consultation lasted for 20 days, and one single notice was placed in the Northamptonshire Telegraph , so most residents had no idea about the incinerator. DEFRA’s temporary pause on issuing permits ended on 24 May 2024, and the Environment Agency permit for the incinerator was granted just 11 days later. No community funds—section 106 money—have ever been raised from the project. Planning permission has not expired, despite the fact that it is more than a decade old, because work has started on the site—basically, a pathway has been built, but the site itself has not yet been built out. That leaves residents uncertain about the future. The planning permission was initially granted because the site was on the outskirts of Corby, but there has been expansion ever since, which has not been taken into consideration. The site is no longer on the outskirts of Corby; it is in the heart of a community, right next to local businesses and thousands of houses. It is 750 metres away from the houses and 1 km away from Priors Hall school and nursery, all of which did not exist when the planning permission was granted. The traffic impact assessments carried out 10 years ago have not been updated, and even then they estimated that there would be 175 lorries a day carrying waste through Corby. Do Members not think that, after seeing “Toxic Town”, the people of Corby have had enough of lorries with waste being driven up and down its streets? They do not need it anymore. Ministers have informed us that the Government’s crackdown on incinerators will not apply to proposals with existing planning permission, although the fact remains that waste incineration is the dirtiest form of power generation, so councils must now reconsider. That shows that the waste incineration system is broken. The incinerator in Corby must be reconsidered, and we must have a full review of the planning permission that was given for that site more than a decade ago, given that not one brick has been laid and the local circumstances have changed beyond all recognition. That is the least we can do for the people of Corby.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have said it before, and I will say it again: due to the virtue of my last name, I am the only legitimate union Barron in this place, and I am absolutely proud of it. It is an honour to speak on this Bill again, and I commend this Government for bringing it forward. We made a commitment to working people before the election, and we are following that through. I welcome the Government’s new clause on agency workers. In Corby we have more employment agencies than any other town in Northamptonshire. We now see that those who work in agency jobs will receive fair treatment in pay, working hours and job security, which is to be welcomed as we aim to create a better local economy for the people of Corby and East Northants.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No. Zero-hours contracts are banned in Spain and in the Republic of Ireland—employers cannot use them. Do not tell me that those countries do not have flexibility; they have. We will survive in the future, as we survived in the past, without exploiting working people, because countries do not grow their economy by exploiting working people. This Bill goes some way towards stopping that. The Bill bans exploitative zero-hours contracts, increases protection from sexual harassment, introduces equality menopause action plans, strengthens rights for pregnant workers, makes flexible working the default, strengthens bereavement leave, improves pay and conditions through fair pay agreements, provides day one protections against unfair dismissal, and establishes the Fair Work Agency to make sure all employers are playing by the same rules. The Bill will deliver the jobs for the future that will benefit working people in Corby and East Northamptonshire, and I am proud to support it.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It will indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point so well. This Bill has been a huge move in terms of sick pay, as far as the Government are concerned. It will bring 1.3 million people into getting sick pay for the first time, and we need to welcome that. We might need to have a look at some point in the future to see if there has been a drag downwards in terms of the people around the lower earnings limit, but we should certainly welcome this as a step in the right direction. This is not just about legislation: we must change the jobs market and the perception of work that some people have in modern Britain. There are still some people who do not recognise the value that working people bring. I had a meeting last week with the parcel delivery company Evri, which operates in all our constituencies. It described the employer-employee relationship as a “master-servant” relationship. I turn around and say that that kind of view of working people is absolutely dated. Evri said that if it changed the status of its workers, it would want its “pound of flesh”—its words, not mine. While we have those who treat and describe working people in such a way, we must bring in legislation to ensure that they cannot treat people like that. Working people are not servants, and they should be treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve. That is a fundamentally wrong, crass and outdated way to view employment in modern Britain, and as long as there are still those who think like that, we need to ensure that we change things for the better, and this Bill goes a long way towards doing that. The question I often ask myself is this: why do those who want economic growth think that we make growth happen through insecure work, minimal wage rates and zero-hours contracts, under which people do not know what they will earn in order to support their family from one week to the next? Work should not mean a lifetime trapped in poverty; it should be the route out of poverty, and this Bill is a step in the right direction to ensure that is what it becomes once again. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on modernising employment, and at our last meeting we heard from Zelda Perkins, of the Can’t Buy My Silence campaign, about non-disclosure agreements. Her testimony makes it absolutely clear that more needs to be done in that space, and if there is room to do so through this Bill, I urge the Government to accept the amendments that were described earlier. The APPG looks to the future of work and what good employment looks like. At the end of the month, the APPG is going to look at good work, the new deal and this Bill. We will look at the full effects of this Bill to see how we can take forward its benefits and transfer them into the modern world of work. In the 21st century, modern employment should look like security of work, well-paid and with progression opportunities, in order to keep families out of poverty. This Bill goes some way towards doing that. In conclusion, I urge all Members to support this Bill, which bans exploitative zero-hours contracts. Saying that this will somehow stop flexible working is for the birds—it is not the case. We had flexible working long before we had zero-hours contracts. We survived then, we can survive now, and we will survive into the future.