Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Clearly, there is a wider context for children. It is about services and safety—those are both contexts in this—as well as livelihoods. All those things are affected when people do not provide a minimum service level.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

rose—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

If I may, I will respond to the question from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). All those things are affected when there is a universal strike. The Bill is about guaranteeing a minimum service level.

--- Later in debate ---

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Yes.

[Chris Stephens]

Further to that point of order, Mr Evans, is it also in order for hon. Members who have received donations from employers to register them in the debate?

[The First Deputy Chairman]

That is exactly the same point. Let us just move on please. We have got a lot to deal with today, and it is six hours of protected time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—certainly now that he has found his Back-Bench voice again—but it is disappointing that he is still in favour of the Bill even though he says how badly drafted it is. We know how bad a Bill’s concept and drafting are when something like 120 amendments are tabled, spanning 53 pages, yet the Bill itself has only six clauses over seven pages.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), who is responsible for about a quarter of the entire amendment paper. I am disappointed to see that there is not a single Tory amendment, nor a single Tory MP backing any of the amendments despite how many there are. It is good to hear some critical voices, however, and I hope that at the very least the Minister will listen to the Tory Back-Bench voices telling us how unconstitutional the Bill’s drafting is and the dangers that it will bring.

With only five hours to debate amendments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said, it is clear that the Government are intent on ramming the Bill through with minimum scrutiny but maximum politics as part of the Tory culture war—a culture war that they are now taking to something like 7 million key workers. I hope they get their just reward at the next election from those 7 million voters. Considering that the Tory party accumulated only 14 million votes at the last election, those 7 million key voters could be critical up and down Great Britain.

The Bill is so offensive that there is a moral dilemma involved in tabling amendments to it. How can we improve a Bill that we so fundamentally oppose? For that reason, we tabled amendments to delete each clause. As I have said before, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), has described the Bill at the Dispatch Box as “anti-strike legislation”. Our amendment 33, which was not selected, would have changed its title to “Anti-Strikes (Forced Working) Bill”, which would have been quite apt.

The Bill presents opportunities for employers to pick on specific individuals and name them as required to break a strike. If those individuals do not comply, they face the ultimate sanction of sacking. Those proposals are not replicated internationally, even in places where, as the Government like to remind us, there is some form of minimum service legislation. The threat of sacking for going on strike is absolutely outrageous, so I certainly support Opposition amendment 1. Although the Minister says that the Bill could not lead to sacking, the overview in the explanatory notes makes it clear that it will remove protections from unfair dismissal for going on strike. That is the key aim of the Bill, as set out in the overview given in the explanatory notes, so the Minister cannot say that the Bill will not lead to the sacking of key workers.

[Chris Stephens]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Minister keeps shaking his head whenever someone mentions dismissal, but it is clearly there in the Bill. The Bill says that someone who is sacked will have no right to an industrial tribunal. The very real concern for many of us is that trade union officials and activists will be the ones who are picked on. They will be dismissed and will not have the right to a tribunal.

[Alan Brown]

I will return to that point, but it is quite clear that the Bill allows individuals to be named. If someone is deemed to be part of an awkward squad, or to be a trade unionist the company wants rid of, they can be named. If they do not break a strike, they could be sacked.

A common theme on the amendment paper is the attempt to control and limit the definition of “minimum service” and ensure that it relates to service required for genuinely critical health and safety-related matters. I support such amendments, although we know that there is existing legislation that covers life and limb protection anyway. In a similar vein, there are attempts to limit unilateral impositions by the Government. There are also several new clauses and amendments that relate to consultation, voluntary agreements, compliance with international obligations and the implementation of an arbitration process. If the Government had any intention of collegiate working, we would not have to debate the inclusion of such measures.

Another theme—I am glad that the right hon. Member for North East Somerset brought it up—is parliamentary sovereignty and the need to prevent too much control from lying with the UK Government. Those are issues that should exercise Tory Back Benchers.

I support all amendments that would eliminate the retrospective effect of the Bill and stop it applying to strikes that have already been balloted for. The Bill is bad enough, but to apply it retrospectively to attack strikes that have already been properly balloted for, under the existing rules and the existing draconian legislation, is just bizarre.

The SNP has tabled amendments that would protect devolution and require approval from devolved Governments and other bodies on devolved matters before implementation. If Scotland were indeed an equal partner, the UK Government would not have a problem with such requirements, but we know that their attitude is “Westminster knows best”, even though it is Westminster that is wrecking inter-Government relations. It is now Westminster that is looking to wreck relationships with key workers, including in the devolved nations.

Our amendment 27 is an attempt to eliminate the ridiculous proposal that secondary legislation could be used to “amend, repeal or revoke” any previous legislation already passed by Parliament or any future legislation in this Session. SNP amendment 28 further makes it clear that such Henry VIII powers should not extend to devolved legislation. It might be acceptable for most of the Tories to allow their Government unparalleled powers over past and future legislation, but it is simply not acceptable to us that Westminster could have carte blanche to rip up devolved legislation that has already been passed. I welcome the similar amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) to protect the devolved institutions; I hope that Labour Front Benchers too will see the need to stand up and protect devolution.

I also support the hon. Member’s amendments 98 and 77. They mirror our amendments 30, 36, 37 and 38, which would amend clause 4 and the schedule to ensure that the Bill will not apply to Scotland. New clause 2 spells it out: the Bill should

“not apply to disputes which take place in…Scotland or Wales”,

no matter where the workers reside. If the Tories really want this Bill, I suggest that they own it and justify it to the nurses, ambulance drivers and train workers in their constituencies—but do not think about imposing it on Scotland and Wales, whose Governments do not want it.

Our amendments are intended to prevent imposition from Westminster, but the blunt reality is that unless employment law is devolved to Scotland, the Bill—clause 3 in particular—will allow Westminster to interfere and impose as it sees fit. We are now seeing Westminster confirming autocratic powers.

--- Later in debate ---

The purpose of this piece of legislation is to dismantle the trade union movement and workers’ rights, while transferring yet greater powers to the Government and overriding the devolution settlement. I commend my amendments to the House and urge everybody to oppose this terrible piece of legislation.

[Chris Stephens]

Let me first refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I notice that not one Conservative Member has referred to their interests in terms of backing from employers, but we will move on.

I want to speak to amendments 39, 42 and 48 and new clause 4. There were 120 amendments tabled to this Bill—a Bill that, in reality, is a page and a half of detail. That would suggest that there are some problems with the Bill. I noted that the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) talked about how terrible the Bill was; he will support it, which is up to him, but he was correct to identify some of the problems with it. There should have been line-by-line scrutiny.

When I heard some of our Conservative colleagues speaking earlier, I was in the middle of changing a password. I had to settle for that wonderful Scottish phrase, “In the name of the wee man!”, because I can only conclude that they were talking about a different Bill entirely from the one before us today and the amendments tabled to it. I am sorry to say that what we have heard from the Government about this Bill in the past few weeks is a deadly political cocktail of arrogance, ignorance, misplaced confidence in their ability and a complete lack of knowledge of a trade union working environment.

Anyone would think, from listening to some of the rhetoric from those on the Government Front Bench in the last couple of weeks, that it was the trade unions that were the bosses, and the employers who were the innocent, downtrodden and low paid. The irony, of course, is that the Government went on strike last summer, without a ballot—they had the ballot afterwards. It was okay for them to go on strike last summer to force workplace change, but it is not okay for people in the fire service, education, health or transport. You really could not make up some of the statements the Government try to get away with.

Indeed, the Government are ignoring existing legislation. Not one Conservative Member in the Chamber today has acknowledged section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which provides for safety and “life and limb” cover. That is a must in existing legislation and there is a custodial sentence if a trade union does not supply it. The Government do not seem to know that, and it is incredible that they do not understand the existing legislation. Emergency “life and limb” cover is already there in legislation.

[Sam Tarry]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. In the recent ambulance and paramedic strikes, it was clear in the action all across the country that those local agreements that protect for life and limb worked pretty well. People did get the service they needed in those emergency situations where life and limb would otherwise have been challenged. Surely the Minister and the Government must listen to that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

The Government should listen to that point, which the hon. Gentleman has made for me. If there had been no life and limb cover in the disputes in the past few weeks and months, the first thing the Government should have done would be to encourage the employers to take the trade unions to court to enforce that life and limb cover. I note that they have not done so.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

This life and limb point is very important. We must balance people’s right to strike against the public’s right to a minimum service guarantee. Can the hon. Gentleman explain how the right to life and limb in present legislation would cover a strike that stops all trains, for instance?

[Chris Stephens]

I will take that argument on, because I am coming on to amendment 39. Listening to our Conservative friends on the Government side of the Chamber, anyone would think that this Bill was about setting a minimum service level across the public sector. If only that was the case. That is not what it does. It sets a minimum service level only in the event of industrial action—on strike days, not non-strike days. The Minister has not yet told us what amendments he will accept—maybe that is the theatre he will provide at the end—but amendment 39 makes clear the concerns that many of us in this House have that minimum service levels should not be higher on a strike day than on a normal working day.

The reason for that, as anyone who has a trade union background can tell us, is that when employers come to trade unions to discuss the “life and limb” cover and ensure that all those arrangements are made, some employers then ask for more people on a strike day than they do on a non-strike day. That is just a fact—that is what employers try to do. Amendment 39 would address the point that a minimum level of service on a strike day should not be higher than it is on any other normal day.

Of course, that raises the question of the Government trying to get away with marking their own homework on the ILO conventions. They have determined the Bill complies with the ILO conventions—never mind what anybody else says—because they say so. The Government have marked their own homework, and they say we should be very grateful that they have done so; they are ILO-compliant, so we should just be quiet and accept it. Well, I am sorry, but I like to speak truth to power and to check things—always checking what is in the paperwork and in writing was part of my trade union training. Amendment 39 would ensure that there is a very real sense of the Government’s homework being marked, and that the Bill is compliant with ILO conventions and with the EHCR, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) mentioned.

I will conclude my remarks on the issue of devolution, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not just about Wales and Scotland, or indeed the Greater London Assembly. Every local authority in England that has a service of the sort mentioned in the Bill could have a minimum service level imposed on it by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it worries me to see the Secretary of State tweeting and referring to the weekend as unofficial strike days, as he did a few months ago. They were rest days, not unofficial strike days. I am concerned that we have a Secretary of State who does not seem to know what happens in a trade union working environment but is trying to set minimum levels of service on a strike day, not just in England, but in Wales and Scotland, affecting their devolved competencies.

If there was a strike in Glasgow by McGill’s Buses, it would be the Secretary of State who determined what the minimum bus level was for that weekend. That is really quite incredible—[Interruption.] The Minister can chunter all he likes, but that is what the Bill says. Agreeing to new clause 4 would sort out that issue, so perhaps the Minister could tell us which amendments he will accept.

[Andy McDonald]

I hear the Minister chuntering from a sedentary position about the Bill not covering buses, but that is not what it says. It covers “transport services” and its jurisdiction is UK-wide.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. That is the problem, is it not? The Bill says “transport services”, and that could be anything. It could be buses, taxis or the horse and cart for all we know, because the Bill is so open-ended.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that the Government will look at the amendments that my hon. Friends and I have tabled, which are an attempt to improve the Bill. Our main reason for opposing the Bill is that the Government will be impinging on devolution and on human rights, and they do not know what happens in a trade union-organised environment. That is why the Bill should not get a Third Reading.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Just a tiny point of information: when I am sitting at the Table, I am not Madam Deputy Speaker; I am either Dame Rosie or Madam Chair. I call Rachael Maskell.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

I rise to speak to amendments 21 to 24, which are in my name. In doing so, I am happy to support the amendments in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). I declare my interests, as other hon. Members have: I believe in democracy and I am a member of Unite.

Before I speak specifically to the substance of amendments 21 to 24, I will say a few words about the Bill and develop some of the points I outlined on Second Reading. To be blunt, this is a bad Bill that I believe is in total violation of the fundamental human right to withdraw one’s labour. Since Brexit, and throughout this Parliament, we have been promised an employment Bill but, alas, none has materialised. Time and again, we have been told there is insufficient parliamentary time for such legislation to go through both Houses of Parliament but, miraculously, the British Government have suddenly found parliamentary time to ram through a hugely controversial Bill, albeit a short Bill, that will radically alter employment law and trade union relations on these islands.

This Bill will be railroaded through its remaining stages in just six hours tonight, which is a total disgrace that makes a mockery of those who say Parliament is taking back control. We are about to confer huge, sweeping powers on a Secretary of State who, at the stroke of a pen, will be able to force employees to work against their wishes. I do not know how often it needs to happen for Ministers to take it seriously, but when the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) suggests this Bill is going in a dangerous direction, it is a clear indication that they ought to think again.

It is clear from the few speeches we have heard from Conservative Members tonight that the British Government see the foundations for this Bill as being the fact that some European countries have provisions for minimum service levels. Leaving aside any surprise at the UK suddenly benchmarking itself against legislation from EU member states, we see nothing on the continent that is anywhere near as strict as what is proposed in this Bill and drafted in a way that gives one man in Government such wide-ranging powers.

[Chris Stephens]

Is my hon. Friend aware of anywhere else in Europe where an employee could be dismissed, with no right to a tribunal, as proposed in this legislation?

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is spot on with that question. That point has been made throughout the debate by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West, when she makes the case that if we looked for countries that do that, we would find ourselves in with the unholy club of Russia and Hungary. Perhaps the policy of global Britain has changed and the Government are seeking to emulate the policies of Hungary and Russia. That would be a courageous electoral strategy if they are, but none the less my hon. Friend makes that point.

I wish to say one more thing about international comparisons before moving on to deal with the amendments. Many Government Members suggested on Second Reading that the Bill enjoyed the support of the ILO, but it has since clarified that that is not the case. So that nullifies that line from the British Government, which, when scrutinised, is found wanting on just about every clause in this tawdry Bill.

I am conscious of the fact that there are well over 100 amendments in 50 pages on the amendment paper, as well as multiple new clauses, so I will seek to confine my remarks solely to those that stand in my name, and I will start with amendment 21. Many of us know that this legislation is only the thin end of the wedge; I do not think that Ministers will stop here. For many on the Tory Benches, this is an ideological war. It is a blatant attempt to finish what Margaret Thatcher started: bringing the unions to heel. We have heard it tonight, with language such as “union barons” “the paymasters” and so on. Fundamentally, the Bill is about the victimisation of trade unions and working people, and it is all about creating a wedge issue for the next election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

This legislation is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This is the Parliament of the United Kingdom: it has every right to legislate. We believe this is needed across Great Britain, and industrial relations are clearly reserved to this Parliament.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, I will move on.

As we have made clear, we hope not to use the powers in the Bill if adequate voluntary agreements are in place where they are necessary. However, we cannot continue to rely on existing legislation or voluntary arrangements to help protect the lives and livelihoods of the people we represent. The public and workers reasonably expect the Government to intervene to protect people’s lives and livelihoods, and that is what we are doing by ensuring that essential services continue, even while workers are exercising their right to strike.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Commencement

Amendment proposed: 32, in clause 5, page 2, line 15, at end insert—

“(2) But no regulations may be made under this Act or the Schedule to this Act before the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament statements of consent to the Act from—

(a) the Scottish Parliament,

(b) Senedd Cymru, and

(c) the Greater London Assembly.”—(Alan Brown.)

The intention of this Amendment is to prevent the Act coming into operation until after consent to the Act has been obtained from the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru and the Greater London Assembly.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Chris Stephens Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and I absolutely agree. I was reflecting while the Secretary of State was making his opening speech, and I was thinking that, if I still worked in social care or one of the key public services—if I was paramedic, a nurse or one of those key workers he mentioned—and I was listening to this debate, I would be really upset and offended by the way he represented them here today. That is not what the Labour party thinks of those key workers.

The Secretary of State has claimed that this legislation is about public safety, so why does the Bill not mention safety once? He knows full well that working people already take steps to protect the public during strikes through derogations and voluntary agreements, yet he brazenly claims that this punitive legislation is needed because of ambulance workers. That is insulting and shameful, and I think he should apologise for the way in which he has awfully smeared ambulance workers.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I thank my Unison comrade for giving way. I am not a member of the parliamentary Labour party, but I am a proud trade unionist. Will my good friend remind the House that section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 guarantees that trade unions will agree to provide life-and-limb cover during an industrial dispute, because failure to do so could result in a custodial sentence? This Bill is therefore completely unnecessary.

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with my friend. We may not be in the same party, but we are in the same trade union.

These brave, hard-working men and women struck local life-and-limb deals on a trust-by-trust basis ahead of all the strikes. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says it is trust by trust, but it is the best way to ensure that the right care is provided, and those employers know that. When I was a home help, we always put patient care first. We negotiated to ensure minimum safety levels, which is more than I can say for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, under whose watch we have seen excess deaths and an increasing crisis in the NHS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Farris]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her point, and I will assist her, because I was coming on to that point. The article 11 right may be restricted for two reasons—if the restriction is necessary, yes, and proportionate. The International Labour Organisation, of which the United Kingdom is a founding member, recognises that maintaining a minimum level of service provision can be both when it comes to essential services. Its committee on freedom of association has expressly set out the two circumstances in which it may be appropriate: where strike action would pose a risk to life, safety or health; or where the service is not essential in the strict sense of the word, but where repeated strikes would bring a very important sector to a standstill.

[Chris Stephens]

The ILO also says, does it not, that the minimum service level has to be agreed by an independent arbiter if there is a dispute, which is not in the Bill, and that there should not be a dismissal, which is in the Bill?

[Laura Farris]

I am grateful to both SNP Members for their interventions. I am coming on to those points, so I will make a tiny bit of progress, if I may.

On the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), we already know that transport and education meet the ILO’s test, because the ILO told the United Kingdom that in its response to the challenge to the Trade Union Act 2016 submitted by the TUC in 2015. In its response, the ILO committee of experts—Members can look it up; it is on the website—said that in relation to transport and education

“recourse might be had to negotiated minimum standards for these sectors as appropriate”.

We also know that many comparable countries take a much tougher line than the Government are proposing. In the United States, to give one example, 38 out of 50 states ban public sector strikes altogether.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, my position as chair of the PCS parliamentary group and my membership of the Unison Glasgow City branch.

The Government started with clapping workers on their doorsteps and they are ending with clapping them in irons. Each of the staff mentioned in this Bill worked hard to protect our communities through crisis after crisis, but if they now wish to protect their own families, they are being threatened with dismissal. The false respect shown to them for their dedication and commitment has now become the removal of their most fundamental human rights.

None of the countries that Government Members have mentioned—they have also mentioned the ILO—imposes these restrictions on balloting or these notification requirements for strike. If the Government want to be consistent about the ILO, let us bring back the Trade Union Act 2016 so that we can discuss those thresholds and restrictions.

Another problem with the Bill is arbitration. In Europe, there is a social partnership model, so workers and employers try to reach agreement on things, but the Bill’s proposals seek to remove the Central Arbitration Committee and turn co-operation into conflict. We are now being advised that this Secretary of State would be the sole arbiter—this Secretary of State whose arrogant and ignorant performance this afternoon showed us everything that we always suspected: the Government are clueless when it comes to industrial action. This is a Secretary of State who tweeted last year calling the weekend a non-strike day and he is to be the arbiter of this. As Denis Healy once said, there are some people who should be gobsmacked at birth.

Trade union activists could be used as a weapon, with them picked to be the ones attending work, so that they will be the ones challenged to cross a picket line, and if they do not do so, they will be dismissed. That is a completely disproportionate action. In Europe, the norm is that they would lose their pay, which would seem more proportionate than automatic dismissal, with no protection to take that matter forward to industrial tribunal. I will be fundamentally opposing this Bill today, tomorrow and any other day of the week.

Royal Mail and the Universal Service Obligation

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow my comrade, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). I have to say that I agreed with many of his remarks, which will no doubt concern him greatly. I also congratulate my good friend, the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), on securing this important debate.

It would be remiss of me not to mention my family connections to Royal Mail: my late grandfather worked for it for many decades, and two uncles also worked for it. They cared passionately about the Royal Mail service when they worked for it, as do the workers in the Govan and Hillington delivery offices—when I have met them on the picket line during the present dispute, it is clear just how much they care. As I have said to the Scottish secretary of the Communication Workers Union, its members in Govan and Hillington are a credit to themselves and their trade union, because they care about the public. They know the communities and they look after vulnerable members of those communities, looking in on them and making sure they are okay. They care about the service and the key principles around that service.

Royal Mail staff have no interest in turning the service into a gig economy-style parcel courier, but Royal Mail is introducing insecure contracts and lower pay into the service to try to turn Royal Mail into just that sort of gig economy parcel courier service, which should be of deep concern, for many of the reasons that the right hon. Member mentioned. My concern is that Royal Mail’s direction of travel will leave communities, businesses, customers and workers worse off.

In discussing the universal service obligation, we need to ask questions about the financial mismanagement of Royal Mail, which I believe puts the universal obligation at risk. Questions need to be asked about how a company can make profits of £758 million, as reported in March last year, which would easily qualify for any excess profits tax, and, six months later, that profit has been turned into a loss of £57 million. The company is almost Carillionesque in its management approach. As someone who was part of the Carillion inquiry, I can see similar themes in Royal Mail’s management approach in terms of profits, sending money to its shareholders, running down the service and then making losses. The comparison is not unfair.

The end of Saturday deliveries would have a harmful effect on other industries, such as the publishing sector, as has been mentioned. It would result in millions of pounds in losses from people cancelling magazine subscriptions, for example, and reduce advertising revenues. It would also lead to thousands of decent Royal Mail jobs being lost around these islands, and it runs completely counter to the often stated levelling-up agenda that we hear about so often.

In closing, I hope the Minister will talk about the proposed takeover by Vesa Equity, which has been allowed to increase its stake in Royal Mail; we have had no explanation about that as yet. I have a very real concern that it wants to break up the service and break Royal Mail apart. If that is the case, the company will hear from many hon. Members, and not just myself, as to why that should be opposed and obstructed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As the Minister concerned, clearly I will vote in favour, as the hon. Gentleman would imagine, but let us have a good debate about that on Monday. I spoke to one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), today, and he said he was very supportive of a minimum service level, so we should not draw battle lines on this issue simply on party political grounds. But perhaps we should have a go at debating that on Monday.

The importance of the universal postal service is a key element of today’s debate, as mentioned by many hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), and the hon. Members for Reading East (Matt Rodda), for Luton South, for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Ilford South (Sam Tarry). Our objective continues to be the provision of a financially sustainable and efficient universal service that meets the needs of users, within an open and competitive postal market. That is why the six-day-a-week, one-price-goes-anywhere, universal service remains at the heart of the regulatory regime, and why Ofcom has a primary duty to secure its provision.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon asked what I am doing to make sure that Ofcom meets its responsibilities. I met the head of Ofcom and other members and pointed out very clearly its role as a regulator, and in ensuring that this service continues.

To be completely clear, the Government currently have no plans to change the statutory minimum requirements of the universal postal service, which are set out in the Postal Services Act 2011.

[Chris Stephens]

I take what the Minister says in good faith, but could he maybe just respond to some of our concerns about the actions of Royal Mail and the proposed takeover from Vesa Equity? While the Government are saying that they want to keep the six-day service, Royal Mail management and some of its shareholders seem to be trying to do something completely different.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I will come on to the Vesa point later, but set out in the legislation, from back in 2011, there is a clear and transparent process for how any changes to the universal postal service should be considered. That was coalition legislation. Any such change would need to be made through secondary legislation and be agreed by Parliament. We would also expect Ofcom to consult with all stakeholders. Our position has been very clear in my meetings with Royal Mail and Ofcom: we think that the six-day service should continue.

Ofcom has a monitoring regime in place to identify any risks or threats to the universal postal service. Since 2012, it has published an annual report setting out key data and trends in the postal sector, the impact of the changing market dynamics on UK postal services, and Royal Mail’s performance. Royal Mail is clearly facing some challenges, particularly given the long-term decline in letter volumes and the currently challenging economic backdrop, but I have yet to receive any convincing case for a need to change to meet users’ needs and to ensure the financial sustainability of the universal postal service.

A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and the hon. Member for Jarrow, raised a point about large business owners and the impact on large businesses, such as those that produce magazines and the like, and how they would be impacted. We would fully expect their needs to be taken into account, in terms of user needs’ surveys. The hon. Member for Reading East talked about the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises—something that is very important to me personally—and making sure that they can get marketing messages out to communities across their target areas.

I have made it clear to Royal Mail that it needs to make any case for change to Ofcom and that I will fully consider any advice the regulator gives me on the future scope of the universal postal service.

Hon. Members have understandably raised concerns about Royal Mail’s service delivery performance. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon both raised that point. It is true that the business has faced increasing pressures over the last few years, not least the coronavirus pandemic and the industrial relations dispute with the Communication Workers Union. There have been impacts on the business and the users of postal services. It is regrettable to see postal services disrupted due to strike action and to see the impact that that is having on consumers, businesses and other users.

We are not involved in the negotiations, given that Royal Mail is a private company. However, we are monitoring the dispute closely and have urged Royal Mail and the CWU to reach a resolution as soon as possible. I know there are ACAS talks right now and there will be no further strikes until 20 January, until the talks have concluded. I very much hope that the talks will prove successful.

Industrial Action

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

It is worth reminding the House that my hon. Friend is an acknowledged expert in employment law. I am grateful for her thoughts and clarification that the International Labour Organisation says that the legislation is compatible with article 11. I have been able to sign off the European Court of Human Rights compatibility on this measure. As she rightly points out, it is not just friends and neighbours in Europe but around the world where strikes are, in many cases, banned—not what we are proposing—and minimum safety levels are in place. There is nothing illegitimate about what we are doing. It fits with the ILO, and who signs up to the ILO? The TUC and many other unions besides.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Every single concern that the Secretary of State and all those on the Government Benches have raised so far is already covered by existing legislation, because trade unions are legally obliged to provide life and limb cover. That is the existing law. Will the Secretary of State tell us what the difference is between that and his proposed legislation? That will be the test of whether the new legislation is an attack on workers.

[Grant Shapps]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point, which I am pleased to answer. When strikes are taking place tomorrow and we are not able to get a simple answer to the question of what the national level of emergency cover will be for people in the most urgent situations—heart attacks, strokes and other life-threatening ailments—that is why we need minimum safety levels. When for many, many months, some of the poorest in society have been unable to go to work to earn their own living, perhaps as a cleaner or a hospital porter, that is why we need minimum service levels on our railways. I very much hope he will see the point and help to represent his constituents who are being prevented from earning money or, indeed, from being safe, should they have an accident tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

4. What recent assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the increase in the energy price guarantee in April 2023 on households.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

5. What recent assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the increase in the energy price guarantee in April 2023 on households.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

15. What recent assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the increase in the energy price guarantee in April 2023 on households.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grant Shapps]

Of course, everybody has had a £400 discount from their bill that is not repayable, and 8 million families also have additional support—those on income support and the like. The hon. Gentleman mentions the £200; we only just doubled that from £100 in the autumn statement the week before last.

[Chris Stephens]

Rising bills terrify most households. The End Fuel Poverty Coalition recently warned that

“predictions of ‘a humanitarian crisis’ for children stuck in cold homes are now a very real possibility”,

so does the Secretary of State accept that failure to provide additional support for vulnerable families in April will have dire consequences?

[Grant Shapps]

I just mentioned support for 8 million families that goes beyond just the £400 and the energy price guarantee. Those 8 million families will benefit from all manner of additional support—£1 billion for local authorities, additional money for people on various forms of universal credit, and money for pensioners—all of which is designed to help people through a crisis that the whole House should recognise has been brought on by Putin the dictator invading Ukraine.

Exclusivity Terms for Zero Hours Workers (Unenforceability and Redress) Regulations 2022

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Dean Russell)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Exclusivity Terms for Zero Hours Workers (Unenforceability and Redress) Regulations 2022.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.

The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 6 July 2022, will make exclusivity terms unenforceable in contracts that entitle workers to earn net average weekly wages that do not exceed the lower earnings limit—currently £123 a week—ensuring that that such workers are not restricted by exclusivity terms. It will give such workers the right to take on additional employment without being subjected to detriment and—applicable only to employees—unfair dismissal.

The measures we are introducing will increase participation in the labour market and, together with our agenda to boost productivity, will drive higher employment, wages and economic growth. We want to give businesses the confidence to hire and retain workers and to provide their workforce with the skills and experience they need to progress in work. We want to put more power into the hands of individuals and businesses to find and create work that suits their personal circumstances, and we want to enable workers to reskill so they can make the most of the economic opportunities and to best deploy themselves to drive growth and productivity in the economy.

During the cost of living crisis, we will continue to protect vulnerable workers. The measures will help to ensure that low-income workers can boost their incomes with additional work should they so wish. That builds on the support we have given to many workers during the cost of living crisis: in April, we raised the national living wage to £9.50, equivalent to a pay rise of more than £1,000 for a full-time worker; we gave 1.7 million families an extra £1,000 a year on average through our cut to the universal credit taper and increased work allowances; and a new in-work progression offer will mean that 2.1 million low-paid workers on universal credit will be able to access personalised work coach support to help them increase their earnings. The reforms reflect the Government’s ongoing commitment to protect and enhance workers’ rights across the country.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The Minister is typically generous in giving way. There is some concern that exclusivity terms are unenforceable under the lower earnings limit. Why have the Government chosen that route and not, for example, that of the European Union directive on transparent and predictable working conditions?

[Dean Russell]

I will come to that point later. I do intend to respond.

I will take a moment to walk through what the draft regulations do. This statutory instrument will extend the protections in the Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations 2015. The existing regulations make exclusivity terms unenforceable in zero-hours contracts where previously they were banned from doing work under any other contract or arrangement, or barred from doing so without the employer’s consent. We are making further revisions to extend the protection to individuals who work under workers’ contracts and earn less than or equal to the lower earnings limit, ensuring that they may take on additional work to boost their income should they wish to do so.

The draft regulations will also extend to those workers the right to redress, so that they have the right not to be subjected to any detriment by a non-compliant employer. If they breach an exclusivity clause in their contract, that will be subject to the regulations. For employees, any dismissal for that reason will be regarded as unfair. All workers subject to any detriment will have the right to bring a claim or a complaint to an employment tribunal.

A second, separate statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure will be laid in Parliament after the draft regulations are approved. That is necessary to make the right to bring a claim under the regulations subject to early conciliation, which is a requirement set out in the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. That separate statutory instrument will mean that a prospective claimant wishing to take a case to the employment tribunal must first contact the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service about their dispute and consider conciliation before presenting a claim to the employment tribunal. The second SI will also amend the regulations to extend the time limit for making a claim to consider this application of early conciliation.

The provisions of the 2015 regulations make unenforceable exclusivity terms in zero-hours contracts, but they do not cover such contracts where only one hour or limited hours are guaranteed, which leaves some of the most vulnerable workers in our society subject to exclusivity terms while their weekly income is low. Those low-income workers are significantly more likely than the average worker to want to undertake additional work.

In recent years, we have seen a rise in the use of short-term variable hours contracts. That has been very positive for some people, with the flexibility on offer helping those with other commitments stay in work or get back into the labour market. For others, such contracts have resulted in a level of unpredictability that has made it difficult to plan their lives effectively or have the financial security they need. We want to protect those who are most in need and address inequality, so that everyone has the opportunity to participate in a labour market, enjoy a fulfilling working life and make a living, especially during a cost of living crisis.

The Government consulted on the policy in the regulations between December 2020 and February 2021. The consultation generated 30 formal responses from a range of legal organisations and professionals, along with trade unions, academics, local government and equalities groups. Overall, responses showed wide support for our policy proposals to extend the range of contracts in which exclusivity clauses should be made unenforceable.

An estimated 1.5 million workers receive a weekly wage that is below the lower earnings limit in their main job. The reforms will ensure that workers in that group that have exclusivity clauses are able to top up their income with extra work if they choose. Workers will have more flexibility in when and where they work to best suit their personal circumstances and commitments, such as childcare or study, including the option of working multiple short-hours contracts.

Businesses will benefit from a widening of the talent pool of job applicants to include those who would have otherwise been prevented from applying for roles due to exclusivity clauses with another employer. The reforms could also create more opportunities for low-paid workers to reskill as they take on additional work where desired, allowing individuals to make the most of new opportunities in existing sectors with growing labour demand, as well as in emerging sectors and occupations.

The Government want to ensure that businesses and individuals can make the most of the opportunities in our flexible and dynamic UK labour market to generate long-term economic growth and prosperity. The reforms will help us deliver on the ambition to make the UK the best place in the world to work and do business by putting more power into the hands of individuals and businesses to find and create work that suits their personal circumstances. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson.

I welcome the statutory instrument, but agree with the shadow Minister that much more is required. I thank him for mentioning, I think clause by clause, my private Member’s Bill, the Workers (Definition and Rights) Bill. Given that the Minister has been in post a while and is perhaps, in current terms, a veteran at ministerial level, will he meet me to discuss its provisions? It touches on the issues that we are dealing with today, some of which I will come on to. The shadow Minister had obviously seen my speech before he got to his feet, because I will now reiterate just about every point that he made—perhaps more quickly, which will delight some hon. Members, though not all, I see.

I wish to pursue the issue of not using the EU directive on transparent and predictable working. It seems that the promises given that there would be no changes, and that the UK would adopt any changes from the European Union and embrace all the employment legislation and workers’ rights protections, are not coming to fruition. This change in enforcing the lower earnings limit, not the EU directive, seems to indicate that the Government want to do things differently.

I say to Government Members that not everything from the European Union is bad. Its workers’ rights and employment protections are of a good standard. Indeed, the Government have even committed that when the European Union makes changes around, for example, insecure work, they will be open to considering and perhaps adopting them I hope that the Minister will confirm that is the case.

The Minister has mentioned that there will be other statutory instruments. They really have to deal with the insecurity of people who do not know how many hours they are going to work week to week. This is a nonsensical position; it puts a lot of pressure on these people financially because of childcare and transport costs. Does the Minister agree with me and the shadow Minister about the Taylor review recommendation regarding those who are on zero-hours contract for 12 months or more and their right to request a contract that better reflects the hours they work? It has been mentioned that that was a Government commitment; it was in the “Good Work Plan” in 2018, but has not been implemented.

I will quickly make just two more points. First, notice periods have to be dealt with. This is a huge issue for those who are on zero-hours contracts. We cannot have three people getting a text message saying, “The first one here will get the shift.” That is an absolutely scandalous practice, but it is still going on in far too many workplaces. Finally, will the Minister tell me when we are going to see this much-vaunted employment Bill? It was committed to in the Conservative manifestos of 2015, 2017 and 2019.

[Dean Russell]

I genuinely thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions to this debate. When I was at university, I worked on what we would now call a zero-hours contract, doing as-and-when work. As such, I totally understand the challenges that people face with this, which is one the reasons for these reforms. People on the lowest incomes being told that they cannot work elsewhere is just wrong, and these regulations go towards rectifying that. I appreciate that there is always a desire to go further and faster, and I hear that, but hopefully we are all in agreement that we are heading in the right direction with these regulations.

I will come to employment Bill later. I brought in a private Member’s Bill that would have been part of that employment Bill—the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill—and I am very proud of that. I recently became the Minister with responsibility for this area. There are great things happening, but I will address those later in my speech.

I hope I can cover most of the responses to the excellent questions during the debate. If I do not, I will absolutely write back. I know the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is a regular writer of parliamentary questions. I always enjoy reading and responding to them, so I thank him very much.

The points that have been raised demonstrate the need for the regulations and the broad support for introducing them. The Government are intent on driving higher employment, wages and economic growth. The implementation of these regulations will support this aim by building more flexibility into the labour market and putting powers into the hands of individuals and businesses to find and create work that suits them and their personal circumstances. Short-hours contracts can provide a necessary level of flexibility for individuals, allowing them to work around other commitments such as study or childcare. The flexibility provided by short-hours contracts, including as zero-hours contracts, is something we know that the majority of these workers enjoy and, therefore, this should be protected.

This proposal will allow individuals to work multiple short-hours contracts, allowing them to boost their income while maintaining the level of flexibility required for their personal circumstances. A dynamic and flexible labour market will help us retain and attract talent, while fostering a diverse and inclusive workforce. The talent pool of job applicants will widen, as those who have been prevented from applying for jobs by another employer will help businesses to fill vacancies in key sectors and provide employment opportunities in marginalised areas. This more flexible market encourages an upskilling of workers and allows a match to be made between individuals and work which best uses their skills, which will drive higher employment, wages and economic growth. The culmination of these factors will contribute to the commitment we are making to ensure that the UK is the best place in the world to work.

There can be good reasons for employers using exclusivity clauses to protect the interests of their business. Although I am aware of the concerns that have been raised, some employers use exclusivity clauses to ensure that high-level company information remains confidential. However, we believe that employers should equally respect the right of a worker to earn a living, particularly where guaranteed earnings are low.

Returning to the points made in the debate, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston voiced about the lack of Government action to deliver on the manifesto commitment to create a right to request a more predictable contract. The Government remain committed to doing this. The right will allow a qualifying worker to make an application to change their existing working pattern if it lacks predictability in the hours that they are required to work, the times that they are required to work, and the duration of the contract. I will gladly follow up with more detail, if that would be helpful.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned preventing one-sided flexibility and increasing business power over employees. We totally recognise that one-sided flexibility is a problem and that a minority of employers may misuse flexible working arrangements. We held a consultation inviting views on tackling challenges related to non-guaranteed hours; we are currently analysing the results and will respond in due course. Again, I am happy to follow up once that is available.

The hon. Gentleman also raised concerns about the continued absence of an employment Bill. As I said earlier, I have been forging my own way with my private Member’s Bill on tips, and there are many other relevant PMBs. I am afraid this is a very similar answer to the one I gave before, but hopefully he does not mind a repeat—sometimes they are good on TV. The Queen’s Speech set out a packed and ambitious legislative programme, which includes a comprehensive set of Bills that enable us to deliver on priorities such as growing the economy, which will in turn help to address living costs and get people into good jobs.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister is being typically generous in giving way. I was on the Bill Committee for his tips Bill, which is a good measure. His predecessor gave a commitment that an employment Bill would be in the last Queen’s Speech, but it was not. Given the strong and stable Government who we have at the moment, can the Minister tell me in which King’s Speech we will see an employment Bill?

[Dean Russell]

I appreciate the intervention and the diligence with which the hon. Gentleman follows Government process and Conservative manifestos. Of course, there is still a desire to introduce an employment Bill, but a lot of the activity that would have been in such a Bill is coming forward. A neonatal private Member’s Bill is currently in play, and there is some really great work going on in that space. I hear him and will feed back the comments, but we are forging ahead in a positive way. I too was disappointed that the Queen’s Speech did not include an employment Bill, but we remain committed to delivering our as many of our commitments on employment as parliamentary time allows. As I say, numerous private Members’ Bills on employment rights have been introduced as a result of PMB ballots in the Commons. Wherever possible, there is a keenness to support those that are aligned with the goals of the Government..

The hon. Members for Glasgow South West and for Ellesmere Port and Neston both asked why the draft regulations are not being extended further, and I understand their views. Ultimately, the intention is to ensure that low-paid workers who are not able to secure the number of hours they would like from their current employer are able to seek additional work elsewhere. The lower earnings limit is set each tax year by the Government and is an established marker of a low-paid worker. Using the lower earnings limit will also ensure that the threshold remains relevant. Setting the threshold at the level of the lower earnings limit balances the needs of various businesses while protecting the most vulnerable workers and enabling them to boost their income where required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dean Russell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, but I suppose that in some instances it would be a bit like somebody working in the Conservative party and also in the Labour party. We can see the slight conflict there.

[Chris Stephens]

Not a conflict at all.

[Dean Russell]

Well, the news is that the SNP and Labour are going to form a coalition, so perhaps I am wrong to use that example.

[Chris Stephens]

We are ready to serve.

[Dean Russell]

What I would say is that the EU regulations provide for a wholesale exclusivity clause in all contracts, whereas we believe that, in some instances, exclusivity clauses are needed for businesses to protect business interests, allowing them to continue to generate economic growth. If it is helpful, I will come back to Members with some more precise examples for reference.

To move on—I am conscious of time; I know people normally like these Committees to run quickly, but this is an important statutory instrument—concerns were raised about the announcement from His Majesty’s Treasury about additional requirements for the lowest paid universal credit claimants, who would face having their benefits reduced if they did not meet them. With our changes to exclusivity clauses, we want to help people on low incomes to secure more and better paid work, to provide a valuable income boost for vulnerable and low-paid workers. That will help universal credit claimants to meet those new earning requirements and keep their benefits.

There was a question about when we will lay the subsequent legislation. We plan to lay the associated negative statutory instrument as soon as possible, following the successful passage of these regulations.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dean Russell]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not. I think I have been quite generous and friendly to all sides.

We plan to lay that SI as soon as we can, with a view to the policy coming into force later this year. I can update Members when we have a firm date.

I hope I have covered all the questions, but if I have not, I will gladly follow up in writing. I thank everyone here today. I commend these draft regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Exclusivity Terms for Zero Hours Workers (Unenforceability and Redress) Regulations 2022.

Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn on taking the Bill forward on behalf of the Minister, the hon. Member for Watford. I congratulate him in particular on rising to ministerial office; I have always found him incredibly thoughtful since he entered the House in 2019. I never quite thought it would be a Conservative Member bringing forward legislation to strengthen employment rights, so I am grateful to Comrade Russell for doing that. I only hope that the current Leader of the Opposition can bring himself to start supporting employment rights, because he seems to be on a bit of a slippery wicket on that one.

I want to offer my support and that of my party for the whole Bill, from clauses 1 to 15. My constituent, Joan Tomson from Carmyle, was in touch with me in the summer about this specific issue of how to protect tips for staff. I am fortunate to have in my own constituency excellent restaurants such as Kastriot’s in Baillieston and Gia’s of Shettleston. They would not dream for a minute of trying to steal their staff tips, but this Bill addresses the bad employers out there who behave in a completely unacceptable way. It is right that we bring forward legislation to bring them to heal.

It will come as no surprise to the Minister when I say that the Government need to bring forward a full employment Bill. It is noticeable that we are having to bring forward piecemeal bits of legislation, such as the excellent Bill before the Committee or, indeed, the legislation introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on neonatal leave and pay. These are hard-won battles that we are having to fight on employment rights, but if anything has been taught as a result of the shameful actions of British Airways and P&O Ferries—

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[David Linden]

I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend.

[Chris Stephens]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill and the other legislation that he talks about have the support of the trade union movement, which is playing a vital role? The rhetoric that we sometimes hear from Ministers is not the rhetoric that we want to hear. We want to see a partnership with trade unions so that we can shape employment legislation that deals with insecure work and unfair conditions.

[David Linden]

This is probably an appropriate juncture to declare my membership of the Unite trade union. I agree with my hon. Friend; he is right to put that on the record and it is topical because at the weekend the wonderful Rozanne Foyer from the Scottish Trades Union Congress talked at the SNP conference about how refreshing it was that the Scottish Government very much view trade unions as partners. I am sure that, given the doughty leadership of Comrade Russell as the Business Minister, the trade unions will find an open door from this Government, but my hon. Friend is right to put that on the record.

As much as I seek to poke a bit of fun at the Minister, today is a day for us to work across party lines. This is an excellent piece of cross-party legislation and I will be glad to see it hopefully pass through Committee, through the remaining stages in this House and then over to the noble Lords, and receive Royal Assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

No, I am fine.

[The Chair]

Okay. I understand that the shadow Minister has a personal issue that means she is unable to be here this morning, so I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dean Russell]

I know how important my hon. Friend’s campaigning on whistleblowing is for her and I appreciate her raising it. I will come to the tribunal process later in my speech. In terms of communications, it has been wonderful that, from the early stages of the Bill, the media have been very active in promoting it, and I know that the Government have been very much promoting it. This is also about transparency, which I will come to, in terms of not only ensuring that businesses are clear with their staff but making it clear to the public that members of staff will be keeping 100% of their tips. That is a key part of the Bill that it is so important to get across: 100% of their tips—everything that they are given—should be shared fairly with staff.

I will continue with my speech, so that we can come to a close. All the points that have been made show why the Government stand resolutely behind the Bill. We want to see it enacted, benefiting millions of workers in industries where tipping is common, such as hospitality, which is such a huge workplace for so many. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn has set out how the clauses protect workers and why that is so important, and I am pleased to say that the Government support all the clauses. I will reiterate a few points on why they should stand part of the Bill.

The Bill will prevent employers from making any deductions when distributing tips, apart from those required or permitted by existing legislation, such as under tax law. That ensures that all money left by customers is passed to workers in full—I reiterate the words “in full” as often as I can. The Bill also establishes a requirement to allocate tips fairly—fairness is at the heart of the Bill—between workers at a place of business. That protects vulnerable workers and prevents exploitation.

A statutory code of practice will help to promote fair allocation of tips. The code will be developed with the help of key stakeholders and will be subject to a full consultation period before the final version is brought to both Houses for approval. On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle made, that consultation is key, because it will help to raise awareness of what organisations and workers want but also make them aware that this is going to happen across all the sectors affected. It will ensure that the diverse views and practices of stakeholders are taken into account in preparing the code. To support enforcement of these new requirements and hold employers to account, the Bill will also require employers to have a written policy on tips and to maintain records relating to tips. These measures will be enforced by employment tribunals, with the tribunal empowered to revise allocations of tips and order compensation of workers.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East, who is not in his place, made some wonderful comments, and I reiterate my thanks to him for them. He asked why this legislation is not being brought forward as part of an employment Bill and is, instead, a private Member’s Bill. The Bill highlights a very important issue, and I am pleased to say that there is cross-party consensus that tips should be fairly attributed to workers. I know, because I felt it at the time, that it was disappointing that the Queen’s Speech did not include an employment Bill for the third Session of this Parliament, but we remain committed to bringing forward legislation to deliver on our commitments on employment rights, and I know that there are several other pieces of legislation coming through.

[Chris Stephens]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is, as always, generous in taking interventions. A number of Members have stepped in where the Government have not acted—a number of private Members’ Bills are being tabled that address issues of employment and workers’ rights. Will the Minister commit to look at those pieces of legislation and meet the hon. Members who have put them forward, so that we can tackle some of the issues and injustices that take place at work?

[Dean Russell]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I am always happy to meet Members and discuss how they feel we can create better workplaces and support workers’ rights. I already have many meetings with colleagues to ensure that we are heading in the right direction on that.

With regard to the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow East, I want to be clear that more needs to be done to ensure that tips earned by workers go to them in full, which is why the Government are supporting the Bill. I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn for taking forward this legislation.

I also note the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury about his son, Liam. I know he is a proud father of Liam; he regularly talks about how proud he is of him. Liam is a credit to him, with the work he is doing while at university. The key point my hon. Friend made is that this is not about topping up salaries. That is an important point in the Bill, and it is important that we communicate it. This is a gratuity, tip or service charge that is a “thank you” on top of a salary. It should never be used by employers, and the Bill makes it clear that this is not about topping up salaries; it is about an additional piece and making sure that workers receive tips fairly and squarely.

I will now conclude, because we have covered a lot of ground and I am very pleased with the feedback from the Committee. The Bill provides vital protection for low-paid workers. Bringing forward these new rules will protect over 2 million workers from bad bosses and give them an avenue to seek remedies. It will be good for businesses too, as they will be confident that they are not being undercut by companies where bosses are keeping tips for themselves. The Bill is an excellent step. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn has received support from both sides in the House and in Committee, and I want to thank everyone for the collaborative way we have all worked, for the way that the feedback has come in and for their support inside and outside the Chamber to make sure that workers are protected in this way. I look forward to following the Bill through its parliamentary stages.

Employment Law: Devolution to Scotland

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Westminster Hall

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of devolving employment law to Scotland.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.

The Minister will recall that I have spent many hours in this place calling for reform to employment law. She will also be aware of the backlash from unions at an employment Bill being nowhere to be seen in the most recent Queen’s Speech. Indeed, Frances O’Grady of the Trades Union Congress highlighted that vital rights that Ministers have promised, such as flexible working, fair tips and protection from pregnancy discrimination, are at risk of being ditched for good. The fact is that this Government need to get a grip on workers’ rights. If they refuse to do so, then now is the time to devolve employment law powers to Scotland to allow the Scottish Government to enact our own reforms.

The SNP Scottish Government are doing everything in their power to improve workers’ rights where they have devolved competence. Throughout the pandemic, the Scottish Government have worked to prioritise workers’ rights, calling on employers, trade unions and workers to work together during this challenging time to ensure that workers are treated fairly. The SNP Government refreshed their Scottish business pledge to align with the fair work principles, and they established a new learning network and an international fair work summit. They also published a fair work action plan in February 2019, which set out a range of measures to support employers to embed fairer working practices. That is supported by trade unions across Scotland.

Additionally, the Scottish Government published a gender pay gap action plan in 2019, bringing together a cross-Government group to approach the gendered impact of inequality in the labour market. The Scottish Government are also a champion of the real living wage, which is of the utmost importance during the cost of living crisis. There are nearly 1,500 living wage-accredited employers in Scotland, giving Scotland the highest rate of workers in the UK earning a real living wage.

With the limited powers that they currently hold, the Scottish Government have worked hard to tackle in-work poverty and support those on low incomes and, ultimately, to condemn exploitative zero-hours contracts by establishing a fair work convention to support the fair pay and conditions agenda. However, with employment law reserved to the UK Government, Scotland can only go so far; it is only able to address part of the problem. Full devolution of employment law would allow Scotland to go even further by creating fairer workplaces, increasing wages, reducing insecure work and fundamentally tackling in-work poverty head on. Shifting that power to the Scottish Government would allow them to stop the race to the bottom on workers’ rights that we are seeing in the post-Brexit UK.

Last December, the European Union delivered employee status to gig economy workers, untying them from the constraints of self-employment status and allowing them basic employment rights, such as minimum wage, holidays and sick leave. That reform of workers’ rights in the EU may well have been one of the most ambitious extensions of workers’ rights from Brussels since Britain left the EU, and we are missing out. Since leaving the EU, the UK Government have been complacent on updating employment law to tackle the injustices faced by the UK workforce.

Scotland overwhelmingly supported retaining EU membership, in no small part due to its commitment to the extension and promotion of workers’ rights. Instead, the UK Government’s approach appears to be to leave workers to appeal to the courts where they cannot access justice, as in the Uber and Addison Lee cases. Without reform of existing legislation, workers are left at the mercy of rogue employers. In 2019, this UK Government were elected on a manifesto that promised to introduce measures to protect those in low-paid work and the gig economy. That was embodied in the promise of an employment Bill that would protect and enhance workers’ rights, with the tagline, “Making Britain the best place in the world to work”.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Taylor review reported five years ago and recommended things that the Government should do quickly, including simplifying worker status. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Government have sat on that report for five years with no action?

[Angela Crawley]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The Taylor report gave the Government a comprehensive list of items that they could address, but sadly they have been sleeping on the job.

Although there was no commitment in this year’s Queen’s Speech to bring forward the promised employment law reforms, perhaps the Government now have an opportunity to do so. Will the Minister tell us why we should trust this Government to treat workers’ rights as a priority when, three years after that promise was made, no employment Bill has materialised?

We have already seen the ambitions of the UK Government slip. Now we are knee deep in pandemic recovery, a cost of living crisis and a looming recession. It is imperative that the Government make a concrete commitment to improving workers’ rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Crawley]

I want to make some progress, but I will come back to the hon. Member.

There are more and more people in insecure work, more and more people with insecure wages, and more and more people with insecure rights in the workplace. More people are under-employed, and more people are holding down multiple jobs and yet struggling to support themselves. Sadly, more and more people are struggling to invoke their workplace rights and unionise.

In real terms, that means more people have been plunged into in-work poverty and are unable to rely on stable incomes, which is invaluable to those trying to make headway through what will be a bleak winter for many families as we approach a cost of living crisis. The impact of the pandemic is clear, the impact of Brexit is clear, and the impact of this Government’s stagnation and failure to act is blatant. I call on the UK Government to either act now or let the Scottish Government do so. I would love to have every competence that this Government have to bring forward an employment Bill and transform employment rights. They have failed to do so, and they do not appear to want to.

I was deeply disappointed that there was no commitment in the Queen’s Speech to improve workers’ rights. The decision to shelve the employment Bill represents a missed opportunity for this Government to make serious progress on changing employment law. They have missed the opportunity to update policies on flexible working, carers leave and paid miscarriage leave, which I have argued for time and again. They have failed to strengthen protections against workplace sexual harassment and other equalities protections.

The Minister will recall that I have spent many hours in this place calling for the introduction of paid miscarriage leave. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) has pursued relentlessly the right for neonatal leave and pay, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce those measures. I have pursued numerous vehicles in Parliament to try to ensure that the important policy of paid miscarriage leave is introduced but, sadly, I feel I am reaching the end of the road. The policy has cross-party support, yet it has been unable to succeed because of the archaic working practices of this place and this Conservative Government’s failure to commit to legislating on the issue. That reinforces why this system will never work for Scotland. It is becoming clearer by the day that we cannot trust this Conservative Government to prioritise workers’ rights. Instead, we see the further entrenchment of socioeconomic inequality in our society.

Scotland did not vote for Brexit, Scotland did not vote for this Conservative Government—it has not done so for many years—Scotland did not vote for this latest Prime Minister, and Scotland did not vote to roll back workers’ rights and leave the European Union. Yet we find ourselves in a situation where this Government will not act, and our Government want to act but do not have the powers to do so.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; she is being very generous. Does she share my concern and that of many others that the Government seem to want to roll back trade union rights further, and are threatening trade unions that they are going to raise thresholds and make industrial action more difficult?

[Angela Crawley]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know that the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) wished to intervene too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

It will have a clear commitment to implement what we are currently doing in terms of the Labour party’s commission. I am not going to discuss what is in the commission in a Westminster Hall debate because it is being finalised and will be launched in the early part of November. However, the hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed with some of the outcomes of that detailed work.

The commission is not about Scotland as such; it is about all the nations and regions that come under the umbrella of the UK. I know the hon. Gentleman does not believe in the UK, but we do and some of that is in there on devolution. That is the reason the Scottish Labour party, of which I am a member, is entitled to have a different set of policy perspectives from the UK party on a whole host of issues. Gordon Brown’s commission, which will be launched in November, will do some of that.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. His history is a wee bit wobbly. I gently say to him that not all the UK trade unions were opposed to the devolution of employment law, Unite being one of them. If I remember the exchanges I had with them during that debate, the hon. Gentleman was quoting the Trades Union Congress and not necessarily all the UK trade unions.

[Ian Murray]

I cannot recall who was and who was not, but the conversations that went on through the conduit of the TUC, which was responsible for taking those conversations forward, had come to the conclusion by speaking to their members that the UK trade unions would not want to devolve. Those positions may have moved since; in fact, I think the GMB’s position has moved since, which is hardly unsurprising given the state we have.

I am sorry the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) is not here after that rather difficult and strange intervention. In the time that I was the shadow Minister responsible for employment law, I sat across from the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Jo Swinson, who was a predecessor, successor and then predecessor again to the Scottish National party in East Dunbartonshire. She was the Minister at the time and took that Bill through the House of Commons, which not only did a whole host of anti-trade union things but extended the qualifying period for employment rights from one to two years. The Liberal Democrats are not sitting on the fence; they are quite clearly on the other side and trying desperately to climb back across the right side. I am disappointed that the hon. Lady came out with that because it undermines her arguments about what she needs to do.

I conclude with a canter through the question of what the Labour party would do. Our deputy leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), launched our fair work policies at conference last year for a new deal for working people. Launching that, she said it was an attempt to make Britain the best place in the world to work. I think it is an attempt to do that. We did not develop those policies in a vacuum of ideology, which is essentially what the previous Government have operated on—I hope the new Government will be slightly better—but by working with our trade union colleagues and employers, and working together to come up with something that can be implemented for the benefit of the economy and workers.

We would strengthen workers’ rights from day one. We would take away that two-year qualifying period and take it down to day one. That is the right thing to do and it gives people security. It cannot be right to be able to sack someone without a reason at one year and 364 days. In fact, the argument I have always made on that is that if we wait until one year and 364 days to find out if someone is good enough, the manager should be sacked for not doing their job properly. They could find out much earlier in the process if someone is good enough for the job they have been employed to do.

We would ban fire and rehire; that is a fairly straightforward thing to do, which would protect workers in this country and create good businesses. I went on holiday by ferry this year, but I just could not travel on P&O; I used another ferry company. When I saw that big P&O sign as I approached Dover, I just felt disgusted that a firm would do what P&O did to its employees at a time when they require their jobs and their wages more than at any time in the past.

Banning fire and rehire would also make work more family-friendly by helping to balance home, community and family life. We have done that before, through the maternity and paternity pay brought in during the last Labour Government. We would extend statutory maternity and paternity pay now that we are out of the European Union. Shared parental leave is a big issue. In fact, I agree with the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) regarding the uptake of shared parental leave, but I do not think it is a legal thing. I think it is a cultural thing and also about equal pay, because all the analysis shows that there is such a low uptake of shared parental leave because it is still the father who is the main or highest earner in a family, and sharing parental leave may be a cultural thing in terms of employers and employees asking for it. Those are some of the cultural barriers that we have to break down.

We would ban zero-hours contracts. All workers have the right to regular contracts and predictable hours, reasonable notice of changes in shifts, and wages paid in full for cancelled shifts. We would strengthen trade union rights, raising pay and conditions, and—crucially—we would use fair pay agreements to drive up the pay and conditions of all workers.

I did not want to be political in this debate, but some of my colleagues from the Scottish National party could not resist being political earlier, so I cannot resist now. One of the key things that a Government can use to drive up standards is procurement, and one of the biggest levers that the Scottish Government could pull, given the powers of the Scottish Parliament, is procurement, using it to drive up standards.

However, we have just seen £700 million of licences for ScotWind being issued to companies with no procurement specifications on wages, local employment, apprenticeships and all those kinds of workers’ rights. So, yes, devolving these matters might be the right thing to do, but my challenge to the SNP is not about the principle of devolution but to tell us what it would with it.

Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill

Chris Stephens Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands]

I could not agree more, but my productivity probably could not be measured in that way, because I had gone back to work. Having done so, I spoke with colleagues, receiving their congratulations and so on. Not long after my return, I was called into the office by my boss Thomas, who sent me straight back to the hospital, saying that my place was by Lynn’s side, supporting her. Moreover, he said that I was not to worry about leave or money, and I was given additional paid leave for as long as I required it. My wife’s boss similarly ensured that her maternity leave started at the originally planned date.

This was not policy, in either case; the additional leave was given at those bosses’ discretion. I want to thank Thomas Kelly and Steve Tomlin for their empathy and for their support. We were extremely lucky to have such empathetic bosses, but as others have said, it should not be down to luck.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I am here to support this Bill because of the experiences of my sister with my niece Erin, who was born three years ago. I looked after my nephew and other niece throughout that week.

The importance of this Bill, as my hon. Friend knows from his own experiences, is that it would alleviate somewhat the stress that people go through, because they would not have to worry about their leave or pay. Does he agree that that is one reason why the Bill needs to go through the House today?

[Gavin Newlands]

I certainly do, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend managed to get in just before my final sentence, not least because his sister went to the same school as me.

I hope that, despite the mayhem all around the Minister at the moment, she will see this paid leave rolled out as quickly as possible so that all parents are as lucky as we were.

Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill

Chris Stephens Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jane Hunt)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) for bringing this important Bill forward. He is well known for his hard work both for his Watford constituents and in supporting his colleagues, but now he will possibly be able to transform the whole country, based on this work.

I am pleased to confirm that the Government will support this Bill. Bringing these new rules into force will give new protections to millions of workers in industries where tipping is common, such as hospitality. This is especially crucial now as we continue to recover from the pandemic.

Hon. Members were given quite detailed information about their own constituencies to help them during the pandemic, and I was surprised to find that there are 3,000 people employed in the hospitality sector in Loughborough alone. That equates to exactly the same number as my biggest employer, so that was quite a surprise and very interesting.

It is good to hear support for the Bill in this House. I will take some time to address some of the points hon. Members have raised today, but first I will speak a bit more about why the Government are supporting it. Many were appalled to hear the stories a few years ago of bosses wrongfully pocketing tips intended for their workers—money left by customers who wanted to recognise the hard work and excellent service they had received from the staff.

That is why my Department took action to understand the scale of the problem. We launched a consultation to determine whether previous voluntary guidance in this area was sufficient. We have continued to develop policy positions based on evidence and conversations with stakeholders. The Government believe that tips should go to the workers who earn them and that businesses that withhold tips from staff are wrongfully benefiting from money intended for hard-working staff. While many businesses already pass tips on to staff in full, our evidence shows that nefarious practices persist, with businesses deducting up to 10% in some cases.

Some people have raised concerns with us that bad practice has increased since the pandemic. The Government are therefore pleased to support the changes in the Bill, and I will reiterate some of the key details about what the new rules will and will not do. As my hon. Friend mentioned, upon passage of the Bill the rules will prevent employers from making any deductions when distributing tips, apart from those required or permitted by existing legislation such as tax law.

We are not making any changes to tax law under the new rules. How tips are treated for purposes of taxes and national insurance contributions depends on whether they are made in cash or by card and whether they are made directly to the worker or processed by the business or by independent tronc. That will remain the case.

Under this Bill, anyone who is a worker will benefit from new rights, but it does not cover those who are self-employed. The rules will apply across all sectors, and that is the right thing to do. However, to be clear, businesses that do not normally deal with tips will not be significantly affected by the Bill. This is also a good opportunity to remind the House that tips already cannot be used to count towards national minimum wage pay. That has been the case since 2009.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the Minister for re-emphasising that point. Will she confirm that it is still the Government’s intention to pursue rigorously employers who are still trying to make tips part of the national minimum wage and that those companies should be named and shamed, as is currently the case?

[Jane Hunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I can tell him that, yes, that is absolutely the case.

I will now talk about the proposed code. A voluntary code of practice on this topic was published in 2009. Our evidence shows that voluntary guidance alone has not been enough to stamp out bad practice. This Bill will therefore require employers to have regard to a statutory code of practice. The code will continue to be developed in partnership with key stakeholders, and will be subject to a full consultation period before the final version is brought to the House for approval. The code will outline a fair and transparent allocation of tips, as set out in different example scenarios. It is very important that the code continues to be developed with stakeholder input, so that we do not inadvertently disallow certain arrangements that are considered fair in some workplaces for the benefit of both businesses and workers. It is important that the code can be updated in the future with the approval of Parliament but without any primary legislation, in order to keep up with changing practices.

I will now address some of the specific points made by colleagues in the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Watford again for all he has done. He raised a matter where I almost have to declare an interest, in that my husband interrogates the waiters whenever we go out to make sure that they are going to get the tip—it is surprising how many say that they will not get it. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) clearly showed a good understanding of her local businesses and her constituency. She talked about burgers, and I quite agree that it is the service we pay for in the tip, not the burger itself. As she said, each establishment will create its own fair system available to everyone working there, so that the kitchen staff and cleaners can be included. They can decide what they want to do and that will then be followed. She also referred to consumers, and the Bill is fair to them as well. They are within my brief too, so I would like to be fair to them. I commend her for what she did while working in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy until recently.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) talked about his experience and examples from restaurants in Broxtowe, and I can speak from experience when I say that the restaurants there are very good indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) talked about the great variety of restaurants on the Hartlepool riviera, which provide such great service to the people of Hartlepool—again, she is to be commended. My hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) talked about statutory protections that are currently lacking in the system and about rewarding the service given. He referred to the need to be timely and fair, and the word “fair” comes through again and again in this Bill. He is absolutely spot on.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) for his kind words and I thoroughly enjoyed working with him on the all-party group for small and micro businesses. He talked about a shortage of workers because of the pandemic, and indeed previous to that. I hope that this Bill will attract workers to the sector and help it to become one where people can form a career and get on in life. I am happy to meet him to discuss the hospitality sector, as he requested.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), referred to her surprise about some of the well-known businesses that have been taking tips. I absolutely agreed with her on that, as I was surprised as well. Conservatives always support hard work, and I think that is the vein in which we have been talking more than anything else.

The hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), and my hon. Friends the Members for Watford, for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) and for Meriden raised concerns about employers using tips to top up low-paid workers. The law is clear: tips, gratuities and service charges cannot count towards the minimum wage. The Bill does not alter that position, and under these proposals employers cannot use tips to make up national minimum wage pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden rightly said that we need more workers to get the pay and tips they have earned, to help promote employment in the sector, as I mentioned. Actually, there is no need to wait for this Bill to be passed; the sector should put its plans in place well in advance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Watford referred to deductions from tips for card payments and admin fees. To be clear, under this policy, employers must pass on all tips to workers without any deductions, other than those required or permitted by existing legislation—for example, normal tax rules will apply. They cannot make any deductions to cover the costs of running a business, including the cost of processing card transactions or other administrative costs.

My hon. Friends the Members for Watford and for Meriden referred to clarity around the code of practice. As I mentioned, the statutory code of practice will be published and consulted on before being laid before both Houses of Parliament for approval. The code will be developed through consultation in partnership with stakeholders. We hope to start informal discussions on the draft code later this year. There will be more formal consultation on a draft after the Bill has received Royal Assent. The code will provide details on when the Bill applies, how many employers should distribute tips fairly, tronc arrangements, employers’ tipping policies and record keeping. It will also include illustrative scenarios, such as sharing out tips between front of house staff and kitchen staff.

In conclusion, bringing forward these new rules will protect more than 2 million workers from bosses who do not currently do the right thing, and give them an avenue for seeking remedies. Businesses will be assured that they are not being undercut by companies where bosses are keeping tips for themselves, and consumers will have increased confidence that their tips are going to the workers they intended them for. The new rules are backed by previous Government evidence and analysis. The Government are therefore pleased to support this private Member’s Bill.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the Minister and I congratulate the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) on bringing forward this important Bill. I make a similar plea to hon. Members about the previous Bill: will she discuss with the Leader of the House how we can get the legislation through quickly? I would like to take part in Committee if possible.

[Jane Hunt]

Yes, of course I will ask about that. There are reasons, related to HMRC and that kind of thing, why it might still be delayed, but I will do exactly as the hon. Gentleman requests.

It is good to see the support for the Bill in the House today. If we take away—takeaway is the operative word, given what we are talking about—one thing, it is fairness. I look forward to continuing to work with the Member in charge of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, who is a dear friend and works tirelessly for the people of Watford, and with stakeholders to support the passage of the measures.