Terminal Illness (Support and Rights) Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. For the avoidance of doubt, the hon. Gentleman has the floor. If he wishes to give way, that is entirely up to him.

[Chris Clarkson]

I said in the previous debate that I enjoy Friday sittings, because people introduce Bills to address concerns that are probably not covered by current legislation.

I agree with quite a lot of what the Minister said. There is a great deal of support in the current framework, but the point of the Bill, as I understand it, is to try to address the places where that support is not getting to people who need it in a timely fashion. The example of a person having to go to an employment tribunal when they may have only a few months left to live is very powerful, because it throws the situation into stark relief.

Part of the problem is that we can go into abstraction, because there is no ticking clock showing how much longer we have on this earth. People will have myriad concerns at that moment in their life. They will want to tidy up their affairs and they will want to make sure their family are looked after, but they will probably also forget to take care of themselves in the way they normally would. They might lose out because they do not necessarily know what support is available, as they will be so busy trying to ensure that, when they exit the stage, those around them are able to carry on, and we do not want them to lose out. Nobody in this country should ever be in a position where they are not able to look after themselves properly. People should die with dignity. Dying well is a good way of looking at it. We need to remove the stigma that attaches itself to being terminally ill. I am the son of a cancer survivor. We were very lucky, but many families are not. That moment crystallises people’s thinking about what has to happen in a very short period of time.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton North on bringing forward this Bill. It is a worthwhile piece of legislation, and I can tell that he has given it serious thought and has worked with partners. I implore the Minister to make good on his promises to bring together people from the various Departments that will be affected. We have a good suite of things available. The special rules for the end of life provide pretty powerful protections but, as we saw in the previous debate, even where we have a framework that is supposed to work, it is not always the case in lived experience.

I would like to see the Bill continue in some form down the legislative pathway, which will rely on us all working together to understand where pressure needs to be applied to things that are not working, and where best practice can be enhanced by looking at other sectors. I look forward to seeing what comes next, but I go back to my original point. We need to lean on the existing protections. We need to better understand what levers we need to pull and how we can apply best practice where we have it, so that we can ensure that everyone around us has the option to live with dignity and to die well. I look forward to having a conversation with the hon. Member for Stockton North, because the Bill has piqued my interest. As I said, I like Friday sittings because I get to think about things I would not normally think about.

Britain’s Industrial Future

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

After the next speaker, the time limit will be reduced to four minutes. With five minutes, I call Kenny MacAskill.

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow).

In this debate on the industrial future I wish to deal with renewables, in particular offshore wind. There has been some mention in the debate earlier—indeed, we have seen it in the press—that the statistic about Scotland having 25% of Europe’s potential offshore wind is incorrect. I am happy to concede that, although I am surprised it has been pilloried upon the Scottish Government because the statistic was also echoed by the UK Government, including by Ministers and even a Deputy Prime Minister, but I accept that technology changes.

It remains the case, however, that Scotland’s offshore wind potential is huge and significant. I am not prepared to accept the prognosis of Unionist front organisations or other bodies funded by rich men with an agenda. I maintain that the potential remains big because I remember when Scotland’s first bounty came about in oil and gas. As a child of the ’60s I recall being told that oil would all be gone by the ’80s, then it would be gone by the millennium, and when we got to the referendum in 2014 we were told that it was nearly gone and it was an impediment—how could a country like Scotland possibly survive as an independent nation if it had to put up with the difficulty of looking after its depleted oil and gas sector? Now, however, we find that there is a rush to grant licences at an excessive pace. So Scotland’s offshore wind potential is huge; even the former Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) described it as the Saudi Arabia of wind. If Scotland can do from wind what Saudi Arabia has done from oil, I will be very happy.

It has huge potential because Berwick Bank alone provides more electricity for domestic supply than Scotland has in households. That shows the potential, but to do it we have to ensure that the state has control, or at least a stake, that local businesses get the contracts, and that local workers get the jobs.

In each of those areas we are failing, and the Government have failed. In that context, I will look at one particular offshore wind farm. That wind farm is at Neart na Gaoithe, a Gaelic name and Hansard will get the spelling from me later. It is situated 15 km from the coast of Fife and 20 miles from my constituency, East Lothian, where the cabling will land. It is owned by EDF and ESB, one a state producer of power for France and the other the electricity board from the Republic of Ireland. The profits from this wind farm—54 turbines providing 370,000 households with electricity—are going not to Edinburgh or London, but to Paris and Dublin. That is ridiculous, and at minimum a stake should be taken by the Scottish or the UK Government.

What about the contracts? The contracts for the 54 turbines are going to Hull; they are certainly not going to Methil, where BiFab lines lie empty, or Arnish where lines also lie empty. I do not begrudge the work going to Hull, but 54 is more than the number of turbines committed to or produced in Scotland at all, which is unacceptable. Every yard in every estuary in Scotland should be producing these turbines because the requirement is there, yet we are getting numbers of contracts that we could count on our hands and feet and that is simply unacceptable. The other contracts are going abroad too, to Belgium, Spain, Norway.

What about the jobs? I listened to the hon. Member for Peterborough going on about jobs going abroad. At this very moment workers in the Neart na Gaoithe field who are operating on the Solstad ship the Normand Navigator, are getting redundancy notices because there has been an extension of the offshore workers immigration rules and as a consequence the employers are laying off UK seafarers—36 so far, and more perhaps in other fields—and replacing them with cheap south Asian labour. That is simply disgraceful. We are not giving the contracts to Scottish business, and the workforce, whether based in Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom, are getting redundancy notices. Many of them took those jobs because there was an opportunity to work closer to home. In my constituency, we will be able to see the turbines turning, yet many in their homes will not be able to meet the bills despite the fact that the energy should be available cheaply and not priced at the rate of European gas.

We are not even getting the jobs. As I said, we have the ridiculous position that we will be legislating in this Chamber to address the iniquity and disgrace of P&O and yet a situation caused by the Home Office’s rule change is seeing UK seafarers laid off and dealt with as despicably as P&O dealt with other sailors. It is about time that we took the opportunity to get the best of renewables and to protect our own workforce.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Good news: one colleague has withdrawn from speaking, so the time limit will stay for the moment at five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister, Chi Onwurah.

Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Friday 28th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to speak in the debate. As a mother of four who has had to negotiate very different flexible working practices throughout those years of being a mother and carer, I can assure the House that this subject is close to my heart.

I would like to invite you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to my jobs fair on 11 November at the Roehampton leisure centre. I hope that plenty of people who want flexible-working jobs—and, indeed, many other jobs—will be able to come and find out more about employment opportunities in the Roehampton, Southfields and Putney area.

I also want to pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the Mother of the House, who marks 40 years in Parliament today, and who inspired me to get into politics. She has campaigned for flexible working throughout her time in the House. She was the architect of the Low Pay Commission and the Equality Act 2010, she has been a champion for women in the workplace in Parliament and at home, and she is a long-time campaigner for flexible working for parents, grandparents and carers.

I congratulate my hon. and brilliant Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on bringing this vital Bill to the House, on working with Ministers, many organisations, many employers and others to bring it this far, and on her powerful speech. Labour fully supports the Bill, and I am glad that so many Members who have spoken today have come together to allow this common-sense piece of legislation to progress.

As I said earlier, I have four children, and at different times during their early years and primary-school education I would have benefited greatly from these provisions—from knowing that I could ask for flexible working, knowing that I could ask for it for my team as a manager, and knowing that it would not just be up to a certain manager or senior manager or the culture of a particular organisation where people might say, “This just isn’t the way we do it here”. I have had two job shares. I have experienced various changes in working times and hours and locations, depending on when my children were at nursery or at primary school and when I had to pick them up. Every time I went back from maternity leave—four times—my children immediately fell ill and I had to ask for some kind of flexible working: it just seemed to happen that way. The “day one” provision is very welcome, meaning that people will no longer have to wait for six months or many weeks. I have job-shared in politics as well, as deputy leader of the Wandsworth Labour group, and I would welcome much more flexible working in our political systems too.

Covid showed how differently we can work, and was a huge culture-changer. That, I think, will enable this Bill to be enacted and make an even bigger difference. It does make a huge difference to be able to stay in work with caring responsibilities, and, as others have mentioned today, that will greatly increase the recruitment and retention of the best possible workforce for our country. Flexible working should have been the past for far longer, but it is certainly the future. It is crucial to achieving gender equality in the workplace and a fairer, growing economy, changing our economy and the world of work for the better.

It is disappointing that the Government have not made a pledge on flexible working in an employment Bill—such a Bill has still not been brought to the House—and up to now have repeatedly failed to follow through on their promises to promote flexible working. As Working Families showed, one in three requests for flexible working has been turned down, so we do need this legislation to lead a change in working culture. With rights enshrined in law for those conversations, working culture will catch up much faster. Flexible working is not just about working from home, it is also about the place in which people can work and changing hours according to needs. The changes that the Bill would make are straightforward and make complete sense.

As has been said, the Bill would introduce a requirement for employers to consult the employee before rejecting a flexible working request—or accepting it, as I hope will happen more frequently. It would also allow an employee to make two statutory requests in every 12-month period rather than the current one request. That talks to the realities of life, where people can have changes to their caring responsibilities, changes if they have a long-term illness—there could be a change to that illness during the year—or changes that may come about for their partner or other people with whom they are sharing caring responsibilities. There may be many changes, so two requests instead of one would be welcome.

The Bill would also reduce the period in which an employer is required to administer the statutory request from three months to two months—obviously, it would be hoped that a decision would be made more quickly—and remove the requirement that the employee must explain in their statutory request what effect the change would have on their employer and how that might be dealt with. That would be shifted so that the employer would have to look into it and think about ways in which it could make a request work.

A Labour Government would go further. As part of our new deal for working people, we will ensure that all workers have the opportunity to benefit from flexible working and that they can do so from day one as a default right, with employers required to accommodate that as far as possible. The right to flexible working would include flexible hours, compressed hours, staggered hours and flexibility around childcare and caring responsibilities. A Labour Government would support small and medium-sized businesses to adapt to flexible working practices and increase the uptake of flexible working. Labour would also end one-sided flexibility, with all workers having secure employment and regular and predictable working hours so that they can plan their lives around a stable job.

I want to spend some time reflecting on the impact of that on women in particular. The level of economically inactive working-age women rose by 124,000 compared to the year before. There are 1.5 million more women than men currently out of and not looking for work. In January to August 2022, the number of people—men and women—who were economically inactive due to having to look after family members increased by 79,000 on the year before, and one in five economically inactive people cite looking after family members as the reason for that. Those figures demonstrate the need for the Bill.

For too long, working women have been denied good quality, affordable childcare, proper parental leave and access to flexible working, and our country has been denied the opportunity for growth that they would bring. Gaps in employment because of a lack of flexibility and needing to leave work at times result in a loss of confidence to return to work, having been out of work for some time. They also result in reduced pension entitlement and reduced opportunities for career progression. Those, in turn, are a major reason for the gender pay gap. The changes that this flexible working Bill would bring about would transform many people’s work and go a long way to reducing the gender pay gap.

I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East as well as the TUC’s “Flex For All” campaign, Action for ME, Working Families, and Pregnant Then Screwed. Those groups have been right to call out the Government for their shocking track record and repeated broken promises on supporting working mums, dads, carers and people with ME, but the Bill will be transformative for working people and will address many of those appalling statistics.

This is an excellent and long-overdue piece of legislation that will transform the lives of hard-working people up and down the country. This place is at its best when it is united around common sense and a common cause, so I thank the Government for their support in letting the Bill progress through the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Just before I call the Minister, it was a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) on the 40th anniversary of her election to this place. May I, on behalf of the whole House, send our congratulations to the right hon. and learned Lady, who, 40 years ago, was a trailblazer about to become not only a very young female Member of Parliament, but a mother? She has been a role model and a champion for women in politics these past four decades and the whole House joins me in sending her our most sincere congratulations and best wishes. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

I now have even greater pleasure in calling the newly appointed Minister, Kevin Hollinrake.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I inform the House that the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have the Bill in front of me. It states that it is presented to the House by “Mr Secretary Rees-Mogg”, but the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) is sitting on the Back Benches. Can you explain to the House how on earth we can possibly proceed with what was essentially a vanity project for that particular individual? Would it not be better for him to try his luck with a 10-minute rule Bill, or in the private Members’ Bill ballot?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman gets the prize for making the best point of order of the day, and possibly of the month or Session. His observation about what is printed in the Bill is correct, as is his observation that the right hon. Gentleman to whom he refers is sitting in his previous customary place on the Back Benches. At the point the Bill was printed, the Secretary of State was the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), but government is seamless. The name of the right hon. Gentleman, then Secretary of State, being on the Bill is of historical importance, but of no constitutional importance today. Other Ministers are now ready to speak at the Dispatch Box representing the Government, and all Government Ministers are Ministers—[Interruption.] I hear a sedentary interruption from somewhere of “for now”, but that is exactly my point: individuals are transient; government is permanent—[Interruption.] Permanent during the space of one Parliament. As we are in that same Parliament, the personal position of the right hon. Member for North East Somerset is, I am sorry to tell him, irrelevant for the moment. I call the Minister, who last week was a new Minister and is now a seasoned Minister, to move Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dean Russell]

I am afraid I will make progress, because I can see the Opposition Front Bencher itching to get up and speak and comment on my speech.

By ending this constitutionally outrageous and absurd provision on 31 December 2023, we will ensure that Acts of Parliament passed during our membership of the EU will be returned to being the highest law in the land. The will of those past Parliaments as expressed through primary and secondary legislation will no longer be secondary to the will of Brussels.

The Bill will unlock growth across the United Kingdom. As we seize the benefits of Brexit and restore a sovereign approach to law and regulation, we can again legislate in support of the UK’s interests, rather than those of Brussels. This is of particular importance now, as our country pushes forward to recharge our economy in order to make the UK the best place in the world to run a business—[Interruption]—whether you want to live here, whether you want to walk in a beautiful green field in a park in our wonderful, beautiful lands of the UK—[Interruption]—or whether you want to start a business or grow a business—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I have let this run, but I have had enough now. The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) must stop shouting at the Minister. It is not appropriate behaviour and it gets us nowhere. She will have an opportunity to make a speech. If the Minister wishes to take her intervention, he will take it as he has taken other interventions, but she must stop shouting at him.

[Dean Russell]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have no issue with Opposition Members shouting, but I think that they perhaps sometimes do it a little too much. We want to make this country the best in the world; I have taken many interventions and hopefully that has been recognised. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Justin Madders—[Interruption.] Forgive me—I was totally prepared for a change of personnel on the Government Front Bench, but I had no idea that there would be one on the Opposition Front Bench. I call Jonathan Reynolds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. This is a point of order. It would have been simpler had the hon. Gentleman been facing the Chair in the first place, because while he was addressing the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) I could not see him, and it was therefore difficult for me to hear what he was saying. When I ask Members to face the Chair, it is not out of some kind of vanity; it is because if everyone faces in this direction, everyone can be heard.

[Richard Graham]

This is a very simple point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) just said that I have never accepted the decision of this country to leave the European Union. That is a quite extraordinary and entirely untrue observation, and I would ask him to withdraw it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I appreciate the sensitivities. The hon. Gentleman knows that the content of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech is not a matter for the Chair, and not one on which I will comment, but he has made his point.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I now give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom).

Carer’s Leave Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Like other speakers, I am delighted to support this Bill and I am very happy to follow on from a great speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt). Introducing a day one right to carer’s leave is a really good step forward in the crucial task of making life easier for the millions of unpaid carers who do such dedicated work across our United Kingdom. I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for bringing the Bill forward.

As we have heard today, very often caring responsibilities fall on women—although not exclusively, of course. Like the first Bill we reflected on this morning, this Bill is another way to ensure gender equality and that we are doing all we can to support women to pursue the opportunities and careers that they wish to pursue. We started out this morning reflecting on pregnancy and maternity leave; many women go through that in their 20s, 30s or 40s. We now are going on to the caring responsibilities that many women take on in their 40s, 50s and 60s. We have covered that spectrum today.

As I said in an intervention, I feel that this is just one point on a longer journey. There are many things in this country that we will have to change if we are to adapt to an ageing population that needs more care. Finding different ways to make life easier for those heroes who care for their elderly relatives will be an important task for us as a generation. Like others, I highlight the incredible economic value of the work done by unpaid carers. If that burden fell on the state, it would have a massive impact on the public finances and cost billions of pounds. We all owe carers a massive debt of gratitude. This Bill is just one small step in trying to repay that.

I recognise that many employers would already go well beyond what is in this Bill, and I encourage them to do that. In terms of legislation, I hope in the future we can go further than what is currently in this Bill.

I will close my brief remarks—I do not want to jeopardise this Bill or subsequent ones on the Order Paper—by commending all the carers in my constituency. I have met many of them in the 17 years I have had the privilege to represent Chipping Barnet in this House. They are incredible people who are incredibly dedicated. Sometimes they work 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I single them out for their compassion and dedication, as well as the groups that support them, such as Friend in Need in east Barnet and the Barnet carers centre.

We all know that we face difficult decisions on spending and the public finances over the coming weeks and months for many reasons, not least the overhang of covid and the debts that has left us with. We must always ensure that we do as much as possible to ensure that the social care system is funded, not least because of the crucial importance of respite care in giving all of our wonderful unpaid carers support, respite and the opportunity to live their lives. I look forward to supporting this Bill today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Minister.

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

It is always an honour to speak in these debates, and this one in particular shows the emotion that flows round the House. I really thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for bringing forward this important legislation, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken on this important issue. I will do my best to cover some of the key points—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I do apologise for interrupting the Minister. It is important to admit a mistake when one has made one. I have omitted to call the Opposition spokesman. I am terribly sorry, but I got the order wrong. I call Imran Hussain.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think it is a fair mistake. When one has been sitting here since 9.30 this morning, one blends into the furniture and background. I fully understand.

I, too, thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for bringing forward this very important debate. As I did in the previous debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), I congratulate her on securing support for this Bill from across the House. The speeches we have heard, which I will come on to, are all a tribute to how she has worked across this House to secure support. The point I made earlier was that, in any debate of this nature on a private Member’s Bill, securing such support requires a lot of hard work and dedication in working with colleagues and coming to compromises on certain issues. Well done to her and to all the hon. Members who have made excellent contributions during the debate.

The hon. Lady herself spoke very well about the huge benefits this legislation will bring. That point was continued by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey). He gave a figure, which I was not aware of, of £135 billion as the amount that has been saved by the work—the fantastic work—done by carers. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) again spoke passionately about her personal experiences. She is quite right and I join her when she says that we, as a House and as a country, owe a debt of gratitude to carers for all the work they do. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is absolutely right in saying that the number of people who ultimately, with time, will need care will undoubtedly increase. I think that is a common-sense argument, and I agree with him. Both the hon. Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) and the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) also set out the huge benefits that the Bill will bring, and I absolutely agree with them.

I am conscious of the time, so I may not speak for as long as I did in the previous debate. I am very conscious of the need for the Bill to progress, but I will make a few points. First, I join all other Members in thanking carers for the fantastic work they do. I think all in the House would agree that there is no doubt that statutory carer’s leave is long overdue. While almost 5 million working people care without pay for friends, family and loved ones alongside their work, they have no statutory right to request time off to attend to these important responsibilities when the need arises. Instead, they are forced to take annual leave to care for their family or friends, rather than use it for their own rest and relaxation. Given the increased risk of sickness, exhaustion and burnout that unpaid carers face, they desperately need to take that leave for themselves. If they do not take annual leave, they are forced to rely on the good will of their employers to allow them to take unpaid leave instead. As we have heard with countless examples, that is given on some occasions and, tragically, is not on others. Given the important role that unpaid carers play and the fact that so many of them find themselves in precarious financial positions, especially with the soaring cost of living crisis, this situation is simply unacceptable.

Many Members have set out the huge benefits of having carer’s leave in statute. Carers UK has stated that granting unpaid carers the right to take carer’s leave would improve the finances of carers who would no longer have to reduce their working hours or give up work altogether. It would also increase productivity for employers by improving retention rates, and increase economic gains for the Treasury—a point made by other hon. Members. It would support women in the workforce who are, tragically, overwhelmingly more likely to be juggling work and unpaid caring responsibilities.

The issue of carer’s leave should have been addressed by the Government long ago. We therefore support the Bill, but it is disappointing that we have had to wait for it for so long while the Government have continued to drag their feet to introduce statutory carer’s leave. It is especially disappointing given that they promised in their last two manifestos in 2017 and 2019 to introduce statutory carer’s leave, creating false hope for unpaid carers up and down the country for the past five years.

While the Government were right to junk many of the proposals of their 2017 manifesto, the promise of introducing statutory carer’s leave should not have been one of them. I am sure that the Minister will explain why it has taken so long to get the proposals to the Floor of the House, and why these important measures are being introduced only as a private Member’s Bill and not as Government legislation, given their repeated commitments to me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) to introduce an employment Bill. As I said earlier, such a Bill would have allowed the Government to protect unpaid carers and much more.

We of course support the Bill, but it falls short of what unpaid carers really need, which is paid carer’s leave. Under the proposals set out in our new deal for working people, the next Labour Government will legislate to introduce just that, to ensure that working people can respond to family emergencies as and when they arise without being left out of pocket.

Unpaid carers are among the many unsung heroes of the health and care sector—a point that ran through all the contributions today. They step in to support their friends and family with care so that those people can retain some of their independence and dignity. I hope that the Bill progresses with support from all parties. This important Bill certainly has our support and I hope the Government will join us in supporting it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

And now, Minister Dean Russell.

Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. As the House can see, a great many people wish to speak and we have very little time left, so after the next contribution I will have to reduce the time limit to three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We are now on a time limit of three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Stephanie Peacock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)]

I remind Members why we are here today: the site on Preston New Road rocked houses, damaged communities and terrified residents not just on one occasion, but on two or three. Quite rightly, the Conservative Government put a ban on fracking until they could be convinced that it could be safely drilled out and would cause little disruption to communities.

When the Prime Minister was on Radio Lancashire, host Graham Liver—we have a very good host, and I congratulate him on his wedding—cornered the Prime Minister in the first 30 seconds of speaking to her when he said, “What has changed?” She did not have an answer. He asked three or four times but she still could not answer. She just kept saying that she was very clear that people would be consulted. He asked her what that consultation would look like. She did not know.

Government Members accusing Opposition Members of taking over the Order Paper is an absolute joke. Your Government put in the ban. Your Government said that the ban would not be lifted—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It is not “your” Government; it is “their” Government.

[Kate Hollern]

Their Government put in the ban. Their Government said that they would lift the ban when safety had been assured, but that has not happened. So they can play politics and find an excuse to vote against their conscience, but they cannot blame Opposition Members. I do not support fracking, Lancashire does not support fracking, and the Government have failed to deliver any assurance that it is safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

Fracking is an issue that ignites very strong feelings among my constituents. Since the Government announced a change in direction on this issue, I have been very much looking forward to a genuinely free and fair debate in this place, where I could go on the record and outline my concerns, and those of thousands of my constituents, about fracking returning to the Fylde coast.

However, this is most certainly not the free and fair debate I have been hoping for. This Opposition day debate is a very different beast. The motion is not about fracking at all; it is an attempt by the Labour party to take over the functions of Government. It would overturn the Standing Orders and procedures of this House that say only the elected Government of the day get to decide parliamentary business. It would allow Labour to legislate against the wishes of my constituents, who elected a Conservative Government at the last general election. We will not and cannot allow the Labour party to seize control of the Order Paper. If they want to do so, they should do something they have not done in 17 long years and win a general election. The Opposition know full well that Conservative Members who share their legitimate concerns about fracking cannot vote for their motion today. Instead of engineering a constructive and fair debate, Labour has contrived to weaponise this issue. Truly shameful behaviour.

While I have the opportunity, I state once again that the vast majority of my constituents do not support the return of fracking to the Fylde coast. The environmental and safety thresholds and protections were breached when fracking previously took place at the Preston New Road site, only a few miles outside my constituency. As a result, fracking stopped in 2019.

The war in Ukraine has woken up the west and demonstrated that we cannot rely on authoritarian foreign regimes for our energy supplies. As such, I support the Government in striving to maximise more of our domestic energy reserves, particularly North sea oil and gas, and nuclear power. Although I can see why the Government have put fracking back on the table, it should only take place where it is safe and where it is supported by local communities, as the Government have reiterated time and again, and as the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has made clear once again today. I wholeheartedly support that position.

I welcome the steps the Government are taking to determine how local consent can be established, and I look forward—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I call Rebecca Long Bailey.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Climate (Graham Stuart)]

It is a great pleasure to wind up this debate, to which there have been so many excellent contributions from across the House. Perhaps not for the first time, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)—he is an extremely clever man, for whom I have a great deal of respect—has been a little bit too clever by half. Perhaps if more drafting had gone into this, instead of seizing the Order Paper we could have had a different style—[Interruption.] It was an attempt to seize the Order Paper. Quite clearly, this is not a confidence vote—[Interruption.] Obviously, this is not a confidence vote; it is an attempt—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Come on, let us listen to the Minister. That means be quiet up there on the Back Benches as well.

[Graham Stuart]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Graham Stuart]

I will not give way. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is getting over-excited. He has described himself as a nerd—accurately, of course. Perhaps he should have spent more time looking at parliamentary procedure.

I am proud to say that this Government have led the way in reducing emissions and moving towards net zero. When the right hon. Gentleman left power in 2010, not only was there that note that said there was no money left, but less than 7% of our electricity—around 6.8%—came from renewables. It is the Conservative party that has delivered the green revolution and will continue to do so. That means that more than 40%—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, are they allowed to maintain this ridiculous stunt? It is bad enough—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Mr Davies, we are having a debate. If everybody shouts at one another, we cannot have a debate.

[Graham Stuart]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has brought calm to the Opposition to point out that only 7% of electricity came from renewables when they left power, but the figure is more than 40% today. If we look at energy efficiency and people who are struggling to heat their homes today, what percentage of houses had an energy performance certificate rating of C and above when Labour left power? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) wants to tell me from a sedentary position, but I will tell him that it was 14%. What is it today? It is 46%. The Conservative party is moving this country towards net zero, and not only are we doing that at home but we are leading internationally as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It had better be a point of order.

[Justin Madders]

I think it is, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is really important that Members know what they are voting on—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Members know what they are voting on.

[Graham Stuart]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We will continue to lead the world and drive forward offshore and onshore wind and solar energy, we will have SMRs and gigawatt-level nuclear, as well as support for AMRs, and we will come forward with proposals to support hydrogen and CCUS. We are looking all across the piece to drive the green revolution, but as part of that work we need to secure the gas and oil we rely on at the moment as we manage and drive down our usage on the path to net zero.

[Hon. Members]

Oh!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We have to hear the answer.

[Graham Stuart]

That is a matter for party managers, and I am not a party manager.

Community support is so important. That is why, as we heard the Secretary of State say today, we have pledged that there will be the community veto we have heard so much about from colleagues including my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), for Winchester (Steve Brine), for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), for Worcester (Mr Walker), for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), for Blackpool South (Scott Benton), for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), and for Leigh (James Grundy), as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), up the coast from me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are very strong rumours that the Government Chief Whip has apparently resigned. I wonder if it is possible to get some clarity—[Interruption.] More than rumours—[Interruption.] Well, if Government Front Benchers want to say no. I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether or not that can be confirmed, given that this is a matter of parliamentary discipline?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Lady raises a point as to whether a member of the Government has resigned. I have not been given any such information. I know no more than that and it is not a point of order for the Chair.

[Tim Farron]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could clarify that the Minister closing the debate we have just had from the Dispatch Box informed his colleagues that it was not a vote of confidence, when we saw earlier, in writing from the Government Deputy Chief Whip, that it was. Could it be possible that Government Members voted in the Division just now without any clarity on what it was actually they were voting for?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, which of course is not a point of order for the Chair. My concern is that what is said on the Order Paper is correct and accurate, and it is. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the point he raises, but it is not one on which I can judge. Ministers are responsible for their own words.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I urge you to launch an investigation into the scenes outside the entrance to the No Lobby earlier. As you know, Members are expected to be able to vote without fear or favour and the behaviour code, which is agreed by the whole House, says that there shall never be bullying or harassment of Members. I saw Members being physically manhandled into another Lobby and being bullied. If we want to stand up against bullying in this House of our staff, we have to stop bullying in this Chamber as well, don’t we? [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are talking about behaviour. We will have a little bit of good behaviour for a moment on both sides of the House.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter about behaviour. He knows better than anyone else that we have an extremely good system for investigating allegations of bullying, intimidation or bad behaviour. If the hon. Gentleman cares to bring evidence and facts to me, I will make sure that the matter is properly investigated. Of course, we must have decorous behaviour at all times, so we will now proceed quietly and politely.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.

Question agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House calls on the Government to consult to ensure there is a robust system of local consent, and clear advice on seismic limits and safety, before any hydraulic fracturing for shale gas may take place; and believes that such consultation must consider how the views of regional mayors, local authorities and parishes should be reflected as well as the immediate concerns of those most directly affected.

Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

It is a real privilege to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on introducing the Bill—I hope I have got his constituency right. I am Scottish born and bred, so I should.

It has been very moving to hear the experiences of many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) and the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). I do not have children myself, but we all empathise with them in the traumatic experiences they have had. I speak on behalf of my constituents in saying that we think this Bill is simply the right thing to do.

On a personal basis, it is pleasing for me to speak in this debate because, until last week, I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, so I was part of some of the discussions on the Bill. It is good to see it come to the Floor of the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who is going on to bigger and greater things. He was an exceptional Minister in BEIS, and he is compassionate and focused and has done great work on this topic. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), to her place, and I know she will do an exceptional job of carrying on that work.

I also pay tribute to the many charities that have been advocating for the Bill. Bliss has been mentioned on a number of occasions, but others such as The Smallest Things and Tommy’s have also been involved. I thank all the parents who have shared their individuals stories, because that has the most impact.

My hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) put it so well: people should not be asked to choose between their livelihood and being with a very ill newborn child. The scale of this issue is large: I was surprised to read that one in seven children needs neonatal care, and more than 50,000 a year spend considerable time in neonatal care units. This is an ongoing problem, because 80% of those children need ongoing medical assistance and almost half end up back in neonatal care. This is not simply a one-off event.

There is no question that when a child is born prematurely or with major healthcare issues, the only place for the parents should be by their side. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) put it very well when she said that those first few days and weeks of close physical contact are so important for the development of a child. Also, critical decisions may have to be made while a baby is in neonatal care. Those can literally be life and death decisions, and the parents need to be there when they are being made. They should not be at work. They need to be there in real time, seeing the development of the child’s care. While all the medical staff do the most amazing job, there is nothing better than the focus of relatives and parents. I have seen that in other situations when I have visited family and friends in hospital. It is the care of the immediate relatives that can sometimes be so, so powerful.

I have talked about the scale of the problem, but I also want to talk about the intensity of the problem. These are some of the most traumatic moments that any parent will go through. My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate talked very powerfully about the mental health issues that parents may suffer. I was also quite surprised to read that 66% of fathers end up having to go back to work while their child is in neonatal care. That may have been okay 30 or 40 years ago, but I think we all now live in a world where we realise it is vital that both parents, whatever sex they may be, are very, very involved at the earliest stages of the care. That is very important.

What is also very important is that once the child comes out of neonatal care both mothers and fathers can spend time with the child. I heard a few weeks ago that a lot of parents end up using their maternity and paternity leave in the intensive care unit, and then, when the child goes home from the ICU, they immediately have to go back to work at that point and do not have the few weeks or months of bonding once the child is home. If your child has been in neonatal care—either because they have been incredibly premature or had serious health issues—you need that bonding time even more than if it were a normal healthy child.

Some people have asked, “Does this put too much of the burden on employers?” I argue that that is not the case. I started off by saying that as a society we need to do the right thing, and this is clearly the right thing, but employers also need to do the right thing. I argue that it is in the interests of employers to do the right thing. We are in an employment environment where it is incredibly difficult to hire good-quality talent, with the lowest unemployment rates since 1974, so it is in the economic interest of employers to provide good packages for employees, because they are in a war for talent and they can only secure the best talent if they are a humane, compassionate employer. Most employers will use discretion and do the right thing, but we should not be subject to an employer’s whims and their discretion. This needs to be in statute, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for introducing this important Bill. This is a Conservative manifesto pledge and we also had it in our March 2020 Budget, so it is good that it is coming to fruition in such a cross-party and co-operative manner.

I will conclude my remarks by saying that I very much welcome this legislation. It is the right thing to do and my constituents think it is the right thing to do. There is no question but that when someone has a child in neonatal care, the parents should be there too and not in work. They should be doing everything they can to support their baby at that time, and they should have the support of society.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Having observed that this Bill has total unanimity of support in the House, I do not think it compromises my usual impartiality if I seek to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East—it is quite easy to say that when you know how—on bringing forward such an excellent Bill. Having given birth to a premature baby one week after a general election, and in the middle of a Conservative leadership election, I can understand some of the stresses and strains that have been expressed this morning. Let us proceed, with Ruth Jones.

Employment Agencies and Trade Unions

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. A great many Members wish to speak and, as the House will be aware, we have limited time—we have just over an hour left. I hope that they will be courteous to their colleagues by taking five minutes or less each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that intervention, but I fundamentally disagree. As the hon. Member will know, when someone makes an interlocutory application for an injunction, they often have to give an undertaking in damages. The cap, which I have not yet come on to, will not be raised to a new level; the order merely restores what was put in place, which was the will of Parliament when the legislation was enacted back in 1982.

There is a very strong argument that an organisation that causes loss to another through its breach of a duty of care should be responsible for 100% of damages, but the Government have not taken that view. They have capped the liability in damages for trade unions, even when strikes are illegal. They have tried to balance the disincentive from strike action, for which I make no apology, with protection for trade unions from the full consequences of their actions, even though they might be illegal. The reason is that the Government are in favour of trade unions and do not want crippling damages being awarded against them. There is a balance of rights and obligations, which in my view is absolutely reasonable.

The cap was set by Parliament under the Employment Act 1982 at between £10,000 and £250,000, based on the size of the union and its ability to pay. It seems quite wrong, in 38 intervening years, for the caps not to have been increased by the rate of inflation or by any other amount. The rights of unions and the rights of damaged businesses and individuals have now, in my submission, become unbalanced. The legislation is no longer acting as proposed, and I think the Government are quite right to take action to rebalance it, as it originally required. I have looked up, on the Office for National Statistics website, the retail prices index figures for inflation between January 1982 and May 2022. The multiplier, to be entirely accurate, is 4.31963. The Government’s proposals, which use a multiplier of four, are actually less than the inflationary increase.

It is entirely right that the order restores the original intention of Parliament. The legal right to strike is wholly protected, and it is disingenuous for Opposition Members to suggest that the right to strike is being in any way affected. The order merely restores the balance of rights between the damages available to the victims—and they are victims—of tortious losses caused by illegal strike action and the protection of trade unions from crippling losses. That is right: it is an incentive to avoid illegal strikes, which I think is a good thing.

This is good government. I support the order; I only suggest that from now on, the limits should rise automatically with inflation to avoid having a repeat of this debate in 2060.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

That is absolutely true. There is a suggestion that the rail industry could bust the current rail dispute by hiring agency workers. Where are the unemployed signalmen who are sitting at home saying, “I cannot wait for the railway workers to go on strike so I can get a shift”? Those people do not exist. This is completely wrongheaded, and utterly impractical. In the gig economy, so-called key workers fighting for better employment terms and pay seem to be expendable under a Tory Government who do not care. Where is the employment Bill that the Government have been promising us since 2015?

There is another point that I forgot to make at the beginning of my speech. Last week, after his resignation, the Prime Minister made a commitment not to introduce legislation that was not in the Government’s manifesto, and not to introduce controversial legislation. Well, by any measure, this is controversial legislation, and, crucially, it was not in the Conservative party manifesto, and therefore it should not be introduced.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the compatibility of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2022—which we are discussing today—with the Human Rights Act, the trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union, and the UK’s commitment to the International Labour Organisation’s fundamental conventions, including convention 87, article 3?

We have heard about the impact assessment, but what consultation have the Government had with the rail industry employers, rail industry unions and rail industry regulators, including the Rail Safety and Standards Board, about the risk assessment of the use of agency workers in safety-critical parts of the rail industry? What consultations have the Government had with devolved Administrations, local authorities, health boards and other public services? I am guessing that they have not had such consultations, because if they had, they would have been told that these proposals were not workable. And what consultation have the Government had with the employment agencies themselves? We have already heard that the agencies do not support this legislation.

We in the SNP will certainly be opposing this statutory instrument and supporting the Labour prayer. My friend on the Labour Front Bench, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, is a good Unison comrade and I have known her for 15 years. I know that the trade union is proud of her working here, as well as of other hon. Members.

It is madness to say that no impact assessment has been produced for this SI because no significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors is foreseen. Fining trade unions for pursuing strike action that is deemed unlawful is a deliberate Tory attack to undermine the ability of trade union members and working people to pursue their aims. Instead, the Transport Minister should be negotiating with the trade unions—sitting down with them and seeing if he can help to resolve this dispute. It is quite incredible how this Government do not understand working people or how modern trade-unionised workplaces operate. This statutory instrument that they are proposing should therefore be placed in the bin.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am going to impose a time limit of four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I, too, would like to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I want to acknowledge the excellent contribution of the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) and congratulate him on the conclusion he has arrived at. I am a proud trade unionist. I have worked ever since I left school, for 43 years, and I have always been a member of the appropriate trade union. I am involved with numerous parliamentary groups and trade union groups related to the justice unions, the Public and Commercial Services Union, the National Union of Journalists and the RMT. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you. I am also a member of Unite and have the honour of chairing its parliamentary group.

I suspect we are here because the Government have engineered strikes in the rail industry that could have been avoided. Sadly, the country was brought to a standstill, which was completely avoidable. The right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), who wants to be Prime Minister, is the culprit; he is the roadblock to successful negotiations between rail operators and the trade unions. My advice is: lift the restrictions on the rail operators, let them negotiate fairly and freely, and a settlement can be secured.

I suspect the Government wanted strikes, however. First it was to distract from some of the shenanigans in Downing Street, and now they want to pitch worker against worker to cover for some of the economic failures of another prospective Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak). The Government want to break strikes and force working people who are organised in trade unions to accept job losses, worse pay, worse pensions, and worse terms and conditions.

Enough is enough. People who work for a living refuse to be poor. It is not too long ago that Conservative Members were applauding public sector workers for their selfless contribution. Many in the transport sector and the national health service gave their lives to provide services and protect us during the pandemic, but memories seem to be short. So we will be organising, and I am firmly of the belief that we should not accept real-terms cuts in wages, whether in the private sector or the public sector.

Make no mistake: these statutory instruments come off the back of the recent RMT rail strikes, and the Government aim to sow political division. My colleagues on the Front Bench mentioned that employers and industry figures, including the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, oppose these changes. Let me just say for the record that the trade union co-ordinating group, a coalition of 11 national unions, not all of which are affiliated to the Labour party, has published a statement calling these proposals

“a shameless ideological assault on the millions of trade union members…in this country who are already suffering from the cost-of-living crisis.”

The Government’s plan is unworkable, but these SIs have not been designed to be workable. They have been designed to undermine strikes, irrespective of the damage they will do to working people, to their living standards, and to the economy and businesses in the meantime. The Government want untrained agency staff to take over safety-critical infrastructure as a means of breaking strikes. The public must be warned that if the Government cut corners to break strikes, safety standards will be compromised. The Minister said in her opening remarks—although she would not take my intervention—that this would not affect the safety of the public, but not too many months ago we saw P&O Ferries replace over 900 seafarers with agency crew, leading to the most appalling safety failures. Inexperienced seafarers who replaced experienced crews were involved in 31 separate incidents, including safety-critical failures such as not being able to operate lifeboats safely. In fact, one ferry was left adrift in the Irish sea after engine failure—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman was speaking with such authority that I did not notice he had exceeded his four minutes. I am afraid I will have to stop him there. I call Craig Mackinlay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I will have to reduce the time limit to three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does he not think that to be a working person in Britain today, to have lived through a decade of stagnating wages, to have seen their pay collapse in real terms while prices soar and to know their own Government refuse to lift a finger forces people on low pay to take strike action to try to force—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order.

[Ian Byrne]

Absolutely. I agree with everything my hon. Friend said.

This is a Government who furiously defend the class interests of those they represent in this place, and that is never the working class. The Trades Union Congress has pointed out that the action is a violation of trade union members’ right to strike, which is safeguarded by international law. Make no mistake, this is a risk to public safety, and standards will be lowered. Any consequences of these actions will lie at the foot of this Government.

The Government’s cynical regulations that we are debating tonight put agency workers, who they know have limited rights, in the position of having to turn down an assignment with the prospect that they will be denied future work by the agency if they do not want to cross a picket line. Many agency workers, such as supply teachers and bank nurses, will be trade union members themselves, and they have suffered terribly in this pandemic.

The regulations highlight the insecurity of the labour market, the erosion of workers’ rights and how flawed and immoral it all is. The pandemic shone a light on this immorality when workers with covid had to continue working because they had no sick pay. The employment model is broken for millions. We should be legislating and learning lessons from covid, and enhancing worker protections, including sick pay. Instead, tonight we are voting on a scab charter for bad employers from a Government who have picked their side.

Trade unions are the transformational vehicle for positive change—they have been for centuries and, despite the efforts of this wretched Government, will continue to be so for future generations. I will always be proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with them supporting workers in the struggle who refuse to be poor.

Tonight is yet another sad day for democracy in this place. I stand in absolute solidarity with all those trade unions and trade union members who are fighting so hard for our communities and the rights of workers everywhere. Their fight for economic and social justice has never been needed more.

Fairness at Work and Power in Communities

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Sheerman]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister mentioned me, but then was intervened on, perfectly legitimately, by a colleague. I think she was about to say that I had made a wonderful speech and was about to rehearse the key points, but she was unable to finish what she intended to say about me.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, that is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a point fishing for compliments, and he is not going to get one from the Chair; nor, I fear, from the Minister.

[Richard Drax]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I balance the equation? I tried to get in, having been mentioned, but I was not allowed, so I feel the same as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). It is the same for both sides.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is not going to get any compliments either. Let us return to the subject of the debate.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Member for Huddersfield was begging for a shout-out, so I am happy to give him one. His points were wonderfully bonkers, and I disagreed with most of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

We are still committed to one, but the fact remains—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) may think that I did not notice that he was not here at the beginning of the Minister’s speech. He may not intervene, as he was not here at the beginning of her speech.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The fact remains that we have already made progress on legislating to strengthen workers’ rights. We have closed the loophole that saw agency workers employed on cheaper rates than permanent workers and we have quadruped the maximum fine for employers who treat their workers badly. The fact is, we on the Government side measure how well we are doing not by the title of legislation but by the fact that we have delivered record high levels of employment.

Moving on to the points made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), she criticises us for not doing enough on the cost of living. I remind the House that at the autumn Budget, when she and all her colleagues had an opportunity to reduce the cost of living, like the rest of them she voted against measures in the autumn Budget to reduce the universal credit taper rate, which effectively gave low-income families a £1,000 tax cut. So they failed to support those on the lowest incomes. We do not buy their argument that they are interested in the cost of living, because when the legislation comes forward they vote against it.

The hon. Lady also criticised the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, just as she did the levelling up White Paper. I remember her comments during the debate on that. They were all sneering and no substance from someone who, again, clearly had not taken the time, like the hon. Member for Enfield North, to read it. She is constantly playing catch-up, because her immediate priority is to criticise instead of engaging with the policy detail. That is why the five-point plan she wrote in January consisted of five recycled policies we are already carrying out and some sour finger-pointing. That is not an action plan.

The fact is that we have done quite a bit on the cost of living. We are supporting families with the cost of living through £22 billion of support in 2022-23 and delivering the biggest net cut to personal taxes in over a quarter of a century. Our plan for jobs, as I mentioned earlier, is bringing unemployment back below pre-pandemic levels. We are delivering a £9.1 billion energy rebate with the £150 council tax rebate. We are increasing the value of the warm home discount to £150 and expanding eligibility to cover nearly 3 million households.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am afraid the hon. Lady is being disingenuous with the way she is presenting the argument. She knows—[Interruption.] I will withdraw that remark, Madam Deputy Speaker. She knows that I do not know the specific circumstances of her constituents. What I can tell her is what the Government are doing. I would ask her, given that we have devolved so much policy to the Scottish Government: what are the Scottish Government doing to help her constituents?

I will go back to saying what we have been doing in this country. The fact is that we have delivered for the whole United Kingdom, securing vaccines for all four nations and agreeing the largest funding settlement since devolution. It is also ridiculous for us to be criticised by Labour Members for not devolving more. In 13 years of Labour government, there was no devolution except in London. We created so many devolution deals. We even provided jobs for three Labour MPs, Tracy Brabin, Andy Burnham and, until recently, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central—and they say that we are doing nothing on employment. I am afraid that many of the Opposition’s claims are simply not credible. [Interruption.]

The Queen’s Speech set out the Government’s ambitious —[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The noise is getting a bit too much. I cannot hear the Minister—[Interruption.] Look, it is obvious that hon. Members disagree with the Minister. That is what they are here for; they do not have to make so much noise about it. We have to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Kemi Badenoch]

It is because they don’t like it up ’em and they know that the points I am making are hitting home.

This Queen’s Speech sets out the Government’s ambitious legislative agenda to grow and strengthen our economy, ease the costs of living for hard-working families and level up opportunity in all parts of the country. It includes the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which will transform struggling towns and cities, supporting local leaders to take back control of regeneration, end the blight of empty shops on their high streets and deliver the quality homes that communities need. A renters reform Bill will deliver the biggest change to rental law in a generation, improving the lives of millions of renters by improving standards in the private and socially rented sector. A social housing regulation Bill will shift the balance towards tenants, strengthening their rights and creating a robust regulatory framework that drives up the standards of social housing everywhere.

I am very proud that my Department is contributing five Bills towards the Government’s ambitious legislative agenda. It has been a pleasure to work with ministerial colleagues, Parliamentary Private Secretaries and officials on these policies, and not least with our Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, who manages to be both Conservative and radical at the same time.

The Bills set out in Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech meet the demands of the moment. Our plan recognises the sacrifices that the British people have made over the past two years and allows us to return to our central mission of levelling up communities and creating a stronger, fairer and more united country.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Miss Sarah Dines.)

Debate to be resumed on Monday 16 May.

--- Later in debate ---

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful for advice from the Chair following the publication of the Humble Address regarding the appointment of Lord Lebedev. As you will know, on 29 March, the House approved the Humble Address compelling the Government to release to us critical information concerning the Prime Minister’s involvement in the appointment of Lord Lebedev to the other place. The evidence provided has been so heavily redacted that it is utterly pointless.

In the written ministerial statement accompanying the publication of the Humble Address, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General suggested that it would be

“for the government to consider what documents are suitable for release.”

I am sure that the Chair would agree that this sets an extremely dangerous precedent. Can you confirm that what the Government say in the accompanying statement—that it is up to the Government whether they are transparent about information requested by the democratic will of Parliament—is incorrect?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order, which is a point of order for the Chair and which she makes very well. I recall the matters to which she refers, but I cannot give her an answer to her question now from the Chair, because if she is asserting—as I think she is—that the Government response as published today to the address of 29 March does not satisfy the terms of that address, she will wish to consider whether that actually amounts to a complaint of privilege. It is the practice of the House that a complaint of privilege must first be raised in writing with Mr Speaker, as is set out in “Erskine May” in paragraph 15.32.

I cannot deal with the matter now, but the right hon. Lady raises it quite properly. If, as I think she probably is asserting, it is a complaint of privilege, she ought to make such a complaint after careful consideration of the written ministerial statement and the return to the address of 29 March, which has just been published, and she should then write formally to Mr Speaker setting out her concerns. I am sure that she will do so, and it will be for Mr Speaker to determine whether or not the matter should be given precedence for debate in the House, being a matter of privilege.

Long Covid: Impact on the Workforce

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

My wife says I am special. I thank the hon. Lady for being most complimentary.

I did not have any symptoms, but I isolated as instructed, because I follow the rules—that is the way to do it. Although I was fortunate and blessed to be asymptomatic and not ill with covid, that is not the case for the many people who did not come through covid unscathed. We have all mentioned that 1.5 million people, 2.4% of the population of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have self-reported ongoing covid symptoms that have persisted for more than four weeks, as of 31 January 2022. Forty-five per cent of them, 685,000 people, first had or suspect they first had covid-19 at least one year previously.

I think of the wall outside St Thomas’s Hospital, where some ladies from Manchester, Liverpool and elsewhere met us two or three months ago. I was walking to the hotel one night, many months ago, and passed the wall. It is a wonderful memorial to those who have passed on, and it is good that those ladies and others organised the wall to give people an outlet for their feelings.

Two years after the first lockdown, the long-term effects of covid are becoming clear. We need to put protection in place for employees with this long-term illness that doctors cannot pinpoint. These people struggle daily to live with it, but they are not protected by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

This Government should urgently produce guidelines for employers in both the private sector and the public sector on managing the impact of long covid among their workforce. We should also launch a compensation scheme, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon mentioned, for all frontline key workers living with long covid. I agree with the APPG that the scheme should mirror the armed forces compensation scheme, which we discussed on Monday night, recognising the relapsing nature of long covid and going beyond the existing pay scheme.

Long covid is a debilitating illness. There is a gentlemen I have known ever since he came to Ards. He is the pastor of a church in my constituency, and he almost lost his life to covid. He is 6 feet 4 inches, and this big, strapping man was brought to his knees. He walked up the hill to Stormont in the “Voice for the Voiceless” protest, and I thought he would have to lie down. Long covid has hit him incredibly hard. He has one day of good and then three days of bad. He has headaches, stomach upsets, blood clots, reduced lung function and chronic fatigue. His church is happy to allow him to rest as he needs. Had he worked for another employer—I will not mention them—he would not have that protection. We must improve the current care pathways for long covid, with a view to ensuring the healthcare system is capable of meeting current and future demand.

In a Westminster Hall debate, I mentioned a constituent who had brain fog. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), has lived that. It is important to say that one of our friends and colleagues in this House has lived with long covid and has found it incredibly difficult, as have others, to deal with. You are not far from our thoughts—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

He is not far.

[Jim Shannon]

Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am probably getting carried away in the emotion of the occasion.

Has the Minister’s Department been able to collect the data on those with long covid? I want to see flexibility for those who are in full-time employment and employment guidelines, to which the hon. Member for Putney referred. I think all hon. Members present want to see them.

Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether the lessons have been learned from covid-19. As the hon. Member for North East Fife said, other diseases will come along and we must be prepared. What we learn from this disease will make us smarter for the next one. I put on record, because it is important when we are talking about these things, how well the Government reacted with the compensation schemes for businesses and the covid-19 vaccine. Those are the positives that gave us heart when we were down in the dumps.

Roughly 4% of the UK’s workforce has had long covid and 82 million work days were lost due to long covid absence in NHS England between March 2020 and September 2021. The real figure may be higher as it was not classified as a reason for absence at the start of the pandemic. It is clear that the effect on business is real, which is why we are having this debate, and that there must be structures in place to deal with it.

Again, I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and all hon. Members for their contributions. I look forward to the contributions from the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. The Minister is a friend to us all and I look forward to hearing what he says.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marion Fellows]

I thank the hon. Lady for the intervention. Hon. Members have already spoken about ME, which is non-specific and can sometimes be difficult to diagnose. The main issue that I would raise in that regard is that people should be believed.

Support is already being delivered across Scotland for those suffering from long covid and the Scottish Government are committed to doing more. They recognise and acknowledge the impact that long covid can have on the health and wellbeing of those affected and have encouraged all employers to apply fair work principles and a flexible approach to dealing with the impacts of covid-19 to protect the health and wellbeing of the workforce.

In the event that NHS Scotland staff are absent due to covid, current temporary measures ensure that they are paid as if they are at work and that they are not subject to corresponding sickness absence triggers. The Scottish Government continue to support NHS colleagues with the provision of those temporary sickness absence measures in the event that they contract covid-19.

Again, the Scottish Government have a long covid strategic network that helps to bring together clinical experts, NHS boards and lived experience. For any disease or issue, lived experience can give those who are trying to help a real experience of what needs to be done. Following analysis and planning by the strategic network to identify where additional resource is needed, the first tranche of funding to NHS boards will be given early in the next financial year, which starts tomorrow. The fund will provide additional resource to support NHS boards to develop and deliver the best models of care appropriate for their populations.

This debate is about the effect on the workforce. It is important that the workforce know what may be wrong with them and that employers know what long covid is about. The Scottish Government carried out a marketing campaign in October and November last year to raise awareness of long covid and to signpost people to the appropriate support. The campaign supported the production of posters for display in community pharmacies and GP surgeries across Scotland in different languages, social media posts and a campaign toolkit that was sent to 250 direct partner contacts, with an additional distribution of approximately 3,000-plus places.

I mention the APPG and its good work. It recommended that the UK Government commit £100 million per annum to funding research into diagnostic and treatment pathways for long covid patients. The Scottish chief scientist office is funding patient-led and Scottish-led projects with a total commitment to funding. Again, that work is being done and disseminated widely.

I cannot finish without talking about statutory sick pay and its effect on people with long covid. It has a disproportionate impact on groups that are already disadvantaged in terms of work and health. To limit further health and inequality, the UK Government must ensure a liveable sick pay for all. The SNP is clear that we must have a system fit for the 21st century and we need to look at the people who are earning the least, because someone cannot even get statutory sick pay if they are earning less than £120 a week, which is the case for many.

The fact that the Government have moved away from having statutory sick pay from the first day of sickness has a huge impact on people. The Prime Minister claimed we should be more like the Germans and not go to work when we are sick, which is quite ironic considering that Germany has one of the best sick pay systems in Europe, with laws requiring employers to pay staff 100% of wages for the first six weeks of sickness. By contrast, the UK has one of the lowest. I remember being in this Chamber and listening to a Conservative Member saying that £96.35 a day in statutory sick pay was quite a good benefit. When she was told that it was £96.35 a week, she was quite shocked, and I was quite shocked that she did not know that. It is absolutely appalling. We are one of the richest countries in the world, and people cannot afford to stay off sick. It is just disgraceful, and the fact that people now have to qualify and wait—is it two weeks?—before they can even access it is just absolutely ridiculous.

The Government did not bring in an employment Bill in the last Queen’s Speech, but they should in the next. Flexible working would also help people with long covid, as it would help them on the days when they are better able to work and perhaps do not need to trail into work. Again, there was a BEIS consultation, which ended over three months ago. Can we find out what has happened to that?

In conclusion, while employment law remains reserved to Westminster, the SNP Scottish Government are using their fair work policy to promote fairer working practices across the labour market in Scotland. I really urge the Minister to look at what is happening with low statutory sick pay, and to look at helping such people—and not just people with long covid, but as they are the subject of this debate, that would really be a huge improvement in the lives of those unfortunate enough to have this terrible condition.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.