Sale of New Petrol and Diesel Cars and Vans

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it, and I thank those hon. Members who have pushed for it. The Government have finally acknowledged that there is a climate crisis, but the 2050 net zero emission target and the ending of sales of fossil fuel vehicles in 2040 are too late. I support the movers of this debate in proposing to bring forward the date at which we stop selling new diesel and petrol cars to 2030. The shift does not just impact on our CO₂ emissions; many people across the country, including many in my constituency, are exposed to toxic air, and they want to see changes. Tens of thousands of people are dying from air pollution now, and the poorest people in society are being affected the most by air pollution.

Last week, I had the pleasure of joining the London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, in unveiling the Chiswick oasis, a 400-foot screen wall that protects St Mary’s Primary School and William Hogarth Primary School in Chiswick from the toxic air from the A4 next door. People from across the community came together and showed that they want to see action to stop the air pollution epidemic. Mayor Sadiq Khan has also introduced London’s ultra-low emission zone, which is set to reduce air pollution in central London by 45%, and his leadership in implementing low and zero emission bus fleets is already showing significant reductions in pollutants on roads such as Chiswick High Road.

We need to see national leadership now, however, and I come back to the type of fuels that cars, vans and other vehicles are using. We have to speed up the production and use of electric vehicles as a proportion of the fleet mix. We also have to help people to make changes to make this happen. Let us make it easier to scrap older and polluting cars through a Government-funded wide-scale scrappage scheme for polluting vehicles, to bring some income equality into the change that is needed, and let us have more electric car charging points. The Government provide some grants to plug-in vehicles and support for the roll-out of electric charging points based at home and at work, but for commercial vehicles—this debate is about vans as well as cars—and for users who are driving for most of the day, probably for work, fast charging points are essential.

Last month, research showed that there are just under 9,000 public charging points in the UK, of which only 1,500 are rapid charging points—those that can recharge a car battery to 80% in around half an hour. The roll-out of public and particularly rapid charge points needs to run ahead of the supply of new electric vehicles; otherwise, the demand for new electric vehicles will slow down. Overall, 29,000 charging points will be needed across Britain by 2030, of which about 85% will need to be either fast, 22 kW, chargers or rapid chargers, which are more than 43 kW. This will need Government help, such as grants to install rapid charge points, particularly in the less commercially viable places away from the town centres and major roads where there is a business case that is quite easy to prove for those schemes. We need schemes similar to the home charging and workplace schemes that are already in place for standard charging.

Tesla has raised a different concern with me: not a shortage of grants in this case, but our ancient common law. Tesla has a showroom in my constituency, and I was able to drive one of its cars to the West Drayton depot a few miles up the A4. I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle): yes, it was fun. Tesla is concerned because high-voltage cables will need to be installed for the rapid charging points, and our ancient wayleave laws make it difficult to run high-power cables across private land. The more landowners there are, the more complicated the process becomes. I am sure that the Government are addressing this.

Moving on, I share the note of caution mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who chairs the Transport Committee on which I serve. While the shift to electric vehicles will reduce our CO₂ emissions, she noted that it does not answer the problem. Some of the particulates that pollute our urban environment, such as those from brake linings and tyres, will still be present even with electric vehicles, so we do need to address that issue and put in more mitigation where we cannot get away from using vehicles.

I have concerns about the assumption that we are talking about a straight switch from one type of private car to another. We are still over-dependent on large, single-person metal boxes on wheels to get around. However private cars are powered, they still take up room, cause congestion, emit harmful particulates and are expensive to own. Car use among young people has been in decline over the past 20 years, and that is set to continue. Cars militate against using active forms of travel that keep us fitter and are cheaper. We could do so much more to reduce our dependence on private cars and vans to make our cities and towns more sustainable and pleasant places to live.

Urban areas have seen a bigger roll-out of battery-powered cargo bikes, which can move quite large loads around our cities and could be used much more with Government incentives. We need to get on low-emission buses and cycle and walk more, and the Government could do more to provide cheap and easy alternatives, particularly for sub-three-mile journeys. Buses play a key role in helping us to reduce our dependence on the private car, but as the Transport Committee has found, 3,000 bus routes have been axed since 2010 and subsidies have fallen by £20 million in the past year, following cuts to local government grants.

In London and other cities, many people want to cycle for short journeys, but we need dedicated cycle lanes, better cycling infrastructure, such as storage, and stronger laws to protect cyclists. The Government need to ramp up the amount of investment in cycling infrastructure.

Finally, by moving forward the deadline for net zero CO₂ emissions, we need to inject much-needed urgency into the policy. The clearest message that I have heard from the hundreds of people who have contacted me about climate change is that they want us to take urgent action. They do not want just more warm words; they want us to take the lead. Let us put the UK at the front of the global fight against climate change and air pollution by taking much bolder steps.

Community and Sub-Post Offices

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands]

I agree 100% with my hon. Friend that the entire exercise is, quite frankly, a piece of nonsense; she makes her point well.

The fees that banks pay to Post Office Ltd, which in turn compensates its sub-postmasters, to carry out this work have been ridiculously low––so much so that the majority of these transactions are actually carried out at a loss to the sub-post office. For example, for every £1,000 of cash accepted over the counter, Post Office Ltd is paid 24p. There is no differential between the commissions paid for coins and for notes, so in effect if the post office had to count 100,000 pennies, it would get to keep 24 of them as payment. To be clear, Post Office Ltd also pays a transaction fee, but the combined fees are insufficient to cover those costs. It is clear that the current deal is deeply unfair and unsustainable.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate to the House. Of course, there are issues in rural areas in Scotland, but we also have an issue in Brentford town centre—a small town centre in the suburbs of London. We have lost our sub-post office, which closed in the new year because the sub-postmaster did not want to keep it on. No one else could be found among any of the other businesses to run the sub-post office because, as he has just outlined, it is just not viable. Does he agree that the Government need to review their tapering down of the network subsidy payment, which was supposed to be what made sub-post offices viable? In Brentford’s case, it is clearly no longer viable.

[Gavin Newlands]

I totally agree. It is simply not viable to be a sub-postmaster at the moment.

Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018 Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 General Committees

[Justin Madders]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I am standing in for my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock), who has had a family bereavement. I am sure the Committee sends its condolences.

The Minister’s introduction presented the regulations as a necessary tidying-up exercise to remove unnecessary references to EU directives in important areas of workers’ rights, such as maternity leave, part-time work, fixed-term contracts and so on—I think she used the term “minor” to describe the effect of the legislation. On one level, that is understandable—we need our laws to be aligned with reality—but it seems at odds with the Prime Minister’s stated aim of protecting workers’ rights. From the removal of those powers, one can only conclude that the Government do not intend to match our EU counter- parts in terms of employment protection. The Committee will note that I asked the Minister about that and I do not think we had any confirmation that it is Government policy.

The regulations do not just remove our ability to keep pace with the EU but remove one area altogether. The Minister has already referred to it, so the Committee will not be surprised to hear that I am talking about European works councils, which are an important part of workplace democracy and a vital mechanism for giving a voice to the employees of multinational companies.

The Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999 set out the rules governing European works councils. They say that where a company is based in two or more member states and has more than 1,000 employees, a European works council can be set up if one is requested. The regulations provide for the procedure to set up the council and a series of rights for employee representatives. Many of the information and consultation rights and protections are stronger than those under national legislation—for example, in relation to time off for workers’ representatives and the right to use experts and to undergo training. Those rights will be lost in a no-deal scenario.

Article 1 of the EU’s recast directive on European works councils anticipates the possibility of works council agreements that include non-EU countries and encourages them to proceed on a voluntary basis to enable workers’ representatives to participate. For example, the European works councils of companies operating in Switzerland often include Switzerland in their scope and may include Swiss representatives as members. However, the regulations do not appear to make provision for works councils to continue to include the UK in their scope on a voluntary basis, even though some European works councils have already amended their agreements to enable them to continue to work with UK representatives after Brexit.

In the regulations, the Government seek to retain certain aspects of the European works council scheme for councils set up before exit day, whenever that turns out to be. We welcome the fact that the enforcement framework, various employee representative rights and protections, and the confidential information protections are preserved for existing European works councils. There are also provisions to ensure that existing European works councils can continue to operate.

The concern, however, which we have already referred to, is that no new councils will be set up and that the right to request information on employee numbers, the provisions governing the setting up of a negotiating body, and the process and content of works councils and information and consultation procedure agreements will be lost. That clearly constitutes a loss of valuable workers’ rights in contravention of the Prime Minister’s promise to maintain existing workers’ rights at current levels.

The opportunity for workers to participate in discussions with their European colleagues on company-wide issues is valued by businesses, employees and their representatives. It can include opportunities for the workforce to be included in strategic multinational decisions about jobs, investment and training. Employees and unions are concerned that if UK representatives lose their place at the table, there will be a risk to UK jobs and investment.

In the event of a no deal, we need a commitment to continue to support and facilitate future voluntary UK worker participation in European works councils, as anticipated by article 1 of the recast directive, by keeping in place existing rights and protections for UK representatives on European works councils after Brexit. This will ensure that, in future, UK worker reps joining new or existing councils will continue to have their current rights and protections, including the right to paid time off to attend such meetings, as currently set out in regulations 25 to 27, and a right to training, as set out in regulation 19B. In our view, the draft regulations need to be amended to cover at least those basic work- place protections. Failure to do so would mean not honouring the Prime Minister’s clear commitments in this area.

On a more technical point, as alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, the draft regulations are supposed to come into force on exit day, with the exception of certain provisions. The Minister needs to explain the need for that distinction.

I also have concerns about the lack of a Government statement on their timetable for revoking the regulations, in full or in part, should a withdrawal agreement with the EU be concluded. The draft regulations do not provide for the method by which they would be revoked. The unique circumstances that we currently face could involve considerable numbers of statutory instruments being repealed or revoked in a short space of time. The nature of the revocation is an important matter that we need clarity on from the Minister. I hope she agrees that, if a withdrawal agreement is secured, the draft regulations will not be needed subsequently, including in a transition period or in any backstop, if that is where we end up.

The second draft instrument proposes to alter the Secretary of State’s power under section 38 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 to provide TUPE protection to workers not ordinarily covered by those regulations, which typically include what are colourfully known in the directive as administrative reorganisations of public administrative authorities and the service provision changes that the Minister referred to.

I understand the need to remove the reference to the EU, but I do not understand why, as part of that process, the Government intend to water down TUPE protections, which it seems will be the inevitable consequence of using the phrase “TUPE-like” in the draft regulations. That is the nub of it. Why is “like” in there at all? Surely it is superfluous. The protections will be “the same or similar”. Why can they not just be the same? That is what the Opposition want, and I think it is what the Prime Minister intended.

This change will cover a potentially huge number of employees, as it will apply to contracting out of public sector services, market testing, private finance initiatives, any other outsourcing and contracting exercises, second and subsequent generation contracting where the contract was first awarded from the public sector, and reorganisations and staff transfers from one part of the public sector to another. We cannot simply nod through the draft regulation because it could affect thousands of employees.

The risk is that “TUPE-like” could mean that TUPE protections on changes to terms and conditions may no longer apply. Will the Minister confirm that the power could be used to prevent employees’ terms and conditions from being preserved after a transfer? Is it not the case that the draft regulations will mean that current rules regarding protection against a dismissal connected to a transfer could also be disapplied? Is it not also correct that existing laws regarding information and consultation on a transfer could be ignored as a result of the draft regulations? On the latter point, the Trades Union Congress points out that the draft regulations do not expressly refer to employee representatives, be they trade unions or elected representatives. Will the Minister explain why that has been omitted?

I would also be grateful if the Minister clarified what would happen in a no-deal Brexit where employees of a UK company were involved in a TUPE transfer post 29 March to a new employer based somewhere within the EU. Would any employee wishing to enforce their rights against their new employer have to do so subject to the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction? Normally, both employers in a TUPE litigation would be made parties to the case. Does that mean that UK companies could still be subject to ECJ jurisdiction post Brexit?

The other aspect of the second draft instrument is the proposed amendment to section 13 of the Working Families Act 2006, which will have the effect of removing the obligation to keep pace with EU law on annual leave entitlements. The enshrining in UK law of the working time directive was one of the finest achievements of the last Labour Government, bringing for the first time a legal entitlement to rest breaks and paid annual leave. I am not surprised that the Government are taking the opportunity to weaken the standing of the working time regulations, given that a number of current and former members of Government, including Cabinet members, have spoken at length about the supposed burdens of the regulations. The Opposition do not consider paid annual leave or daily and weekly rest breaks to be a burden. They are essential health and safety measures, as well as important parts of workplace protection.

It is clear from this instrument that the Government do not wish UK workers in future to enjoy parity with their European counterparts. This can be seen as the firing of the starting gun on the race to the bottom. Indeed, as the political declaration makes clear, employment standards are to be considered subordinate to open and fair competition. That is where we are heading.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just about the protection of employees but about those they serve? I refer to the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by our hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) in the Chamber today, which was prompted by the deaths of people in Coventry as a result of a bus driver having worked inordinately long hours that week and the two weeks beforehand. That is an example of the importance of adequate employment legislation, not only for workers but for those they serve and their customers.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the working time directive was initially presented as health and safety legislation. It is not just about the worker’s health and providing adequate rest breaks, but about protecting those enjoying the benefits of their labour.

The Prime Minister may talk a good game but the evidence is that the words do not match the reality. Hers is the party that introduced employment tribunal fees, doubled the qualifying period for unfair dismissal and commissioned the atrocious Beecroft report, which proposed removing workplace protections altogether. I hope I will be forgiven for taking the Prime Minister’s comments in the Chamber yesterday about matching EU developments in employment rights with a pinch of salt, given what is before us today. Her track record does not inspire confidence, and these regulations do not do what she claims she wants to do. In fact, they do the opposite.

I say to the Minister that if the Government are genuinely trying to find common ground with Members across the House, these regulations should be withdrawn, because they do not do what the Prime Minister claims she wants to see happen. They represent the erosion of workplace protection and they must be opposed.

Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. He has been a fine supporter of the Bill—a sponsor, no less. He is right. Not everyone does this, and those who do give good employers a bad name. That is why I made the point in response to the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) about the damage this will do in people’s minds if it is their first experience of the world of work.

I want to square up what the Bill does and why it does it. It is essentially split into two main parts. The first part amends the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. It makes it clear that where someone takes part in a trial shift—it defines what a “trial shift” is—they are to be paid at least the national minimum wage, and that the Bill applies right across the United Kingdom.

I have put in some safeguards based on the feedback I have had from members of the public, as I have been discussing. First, when a member of the public is offered a trial shift, it is to be made clear to them in writing how long it will last so that people cannot be strung along. It will also be made clear how many jobs actually exist. That should put an end to the practice of offering “ghost” shifts where no job actually exists.

Secondly, the person and the employer are to have an agreement that proper feedback is going to be received. In one case, a person—I will not identify them but it was the daughter of a prominent Scottish Labour politician —went on a trial shift in a bar, worked three or four shifts, and at the end of it the employer said to her, “We’re not taking you on—you don’t have enough experience.” They already knew that from looking at her CV at the application stage.

We have to try to empower applicants a bit, because people are feeling helpless. This is not about ending trials or the ability of an employer to test someone; it is just about ending the ability to take someone for a ride and pay them nothing.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important Bill forward. I was not really aware of this issue until, when my eldest son was a teenager, a couple of his friends worked several unpaid shifts in a restaurant. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is particularly rife in the hospitality industry, which many of us partake of and spend money in? If people were more aware of the issue and the need to plug the hole in existing employment legislation, they would support the Bill. Should not all Members support the Bill?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Yes, I do believe that. What the hon. Lady says is funny; I have put a name on it—I have called it an unpaid trial shift. Most folk would say, “What on earth is that?” but when I explain it, they realise that their own kids have done it, their neighbours’ kids have done it or their nieces and nephews have done it. Everybody knows somebody who has done it.

On hospitality, I will say this. I had a very constructive meeting with the British Hospitality Association, which supports measures such as this because it wants the industry to be seen as an attractive place to work and build a career in. Anything this Parliament can do to help hospitality or other sectors can only be a good thing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Climate Change and Industry (Claire Perry)]

I commend my hon. Friend and her local enterprise partnership for their work. We look forward to seeing that report and to having productive conversations. We do not want any barriers that impede economic growth in her constituency and region.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

T6. Net present value is the economic measurement generally held to provide the most robust assessment of all the costs and benefits of any proposed major infrastructure project. Would the Government ever support a major infrastructure project that, at its inception, was calculated to have a negative net economic benefit?

[Greg Clark]

One of the things that the House has correctly required of the Government is that we should take account of the impact on local economies—for example, on small businesses. That is something that has changed in the impact guidance, and it is right that it has.