Oral Answers to Questions

Alex McIntyre Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

T5. Yesterday, I met the chief executive of Ofcom with colleagues from this House to discuss our frustration about the lack of effectiveness of its enforcement action in improving Royal Mail services in my constituency. In Gloucester, we are getting post every couple of weeks at best. People are missing hospital appointments and important legal deadlines, and quite frankly, they are wondering whether they should put their Christmas cards in the post this week, so that they might arrive in time for 25 December. How can we ensure that Ofcom has the power to effectively enforce the universal service obligation, so that Royal Mail services actually improve in my constituency?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Questions should be really on point.

Royal Mail: Performance

Alex McIntyre Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

The service provided by Royal Mail in my constituency is simply not good enough. Hundreds of residents have written to me over the past year with shocking, but unfortunately almost identical, stories. In the worst-affected areas of Abbeymead and Abbeydale, most residents I speak to do not get post for three to four weeks, only for a pile of letters to arrive at once. I know that to be true because I live there, and my post arrives monthly as well.

In Tuffley, Matson and Hempsted, they are experiencing similar issues: people are waiting on hospital appointments, new debit cards and other important post. I hope that most of the Mother’s Day cards have now arrived—I pray that all the Christmas cards have been delivered. Something has to change.

I want to be absolutely clear that this poor service is not down to our hard-working posties in Gloucester. I visited the Gloucester North delivery office last week and spoke with them, and they are working really hard in difficult conditions. The post arrives late from the Bristol sorting office; the posties are waiting later and later in the morning for that delivery from Bristol, which impacts how many hours they can deliver for. Parcels are being prioritised over post—that is what the posties tell me, but management are still denying it. The posties also told me in detail about the two-tier workforce system, which means that most staff now leave in six months.

To make matters worse, they are being undercut by other companies that pay their staff more. Amazon recently opened a large depot in Gloucester, and is paying £4 an hour more than Royal Mail offers. The Minister knows that I have been raising this repeatedly with the Department for Business and Trade. I have written to Ofcom, which still says that it is fining those companies and that will improve things. It will not; they are baking those fines into their business cases. Can we please give the regulator more teeth so that we can actually improve the service?

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Alex McIntyre Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

I think the hon. Gentleman can tell from the comments around the House how much respect and affection there is for posties around the country, and I am disturbed by what he describes. Ultimately, the only sustainable future for Royal Mail is in bringing together a workforce who are really passionate about what they do and a management who are seeking to get the company into a financially sustainable position. That is why we are prioritising the talks going on at the moment.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

Gloucester residents have been let down by Royal Mail for years; it is prioritising parcels over post and profits over our posties. I have a visit to Gloucester North delivery office on Friday, and I was shocked to find out from the frontlines that it is offering overtime to clear the backlog before I get there. Ofcom has proven to be utterly toothless in this matter; it is not regulating properly, and Royal Mail is baking the fines into its business plans. What more can we do to give Ofcom the bite that it needs to improve service for Gloucester residents?

Horizon Redress and Post Office Update

Alex McIntyre Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

The right hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me; I have been very focused on the efforts to increase compensation for the victims of the Horizon scandal, which has been the immediate challenge facing the Government in this policy area. It was something we heard loud and clear in opposition and we wanted to see progress on it. As I alluded to earlier, I suspect that the recommendations in Sir Wyn Williams’ inquiry will range quite widely, and if it touches on the particular issue that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, we will look at that extremely carefully. More generally, I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice will be interested in his question.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for the update on the redress scheme for victims of the Horizon scandal. I also thank him for listening to my campaign to save the Kings Square post office in Gloucester and for maintaining so many vital services for Gloucester residents with today’s announcement that they will be franchised and continued. Will he meet me to discuss the merits of the new franchise staying in its current location? Kings Square has a fantastic future, with the opening of the university’s new City campus later this year and the Forum, a new office, hotel and leisure facility, which will be fantastic. It would be great for the new franchise to be an important part of that future.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his continued representation of his constituents’ interests. He has made a number of very clear representations to me on the importance of the Gloucester post office, and I would be very happy to meet him to discuss its future as it transitions to a franchise-run operation. I should make it clear that the Post Office very much wants these franchises to be in key locations that are important for our communities, because that is obviously where the commercial income will come from, so it will be keen to meet with stakeholders such as Members of this House and other local stakeholders. If my hon. Friend would like to meet me to discuss this issue further, I would be very happy to do so.

Employment Rights Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Alex McIntyre Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

I always bow to your advice, Mr Mundell. I will try to save the Minister the embarrassment of having that recorded in Hansard.

Let me try to return to my point. While I accept that advisory boards of Government Departments often follow this formula, we have a particular definitional problem with this one. The problem is whether, in the example I gave before the intervention of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles, the independence of a seemingly independent expert—most reasonable people would say a university academic, professor, doctor or whoever would normally fall into that category—would be influenced if they were a member of a trade union, and whether in that case their membership of the board would be compliant with the provision for an “equal number” of independent experts and those representing the trade union movement on the board.

This is an important problem for the Minister to acknowledge. He must be very clear to the Committee whether the word “independent” in paragraph (c) would disallow anyone who is a member of a trade union from being a member of the board under paragraph (c), for fear of contradicting paragraph (a).

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

I refer the Committee to my membership of the GMB and Community unions. The shadow Minister is keen for us all to stress our trade union membership, and we do so at the start of every sitting. He makes the point about trade union membership potentially impacting independent experts, but he will be aware that many university professors are funded by private limited companies to support their research, just as some Opposition Members are supported by private limited companies and employers for campaign purposes, none of which is declared in this Committee. Would he not say that might impact those professors’ independence too? Would that not need to be declared to ensure that the numbers are balanced?

[Greg Smith]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I believe in freedom; I have no problem with any hon. or right hon. Government Member being a member of a trade union. The point here is clarity and transparency. We have a Bill in black and white in front of us that refers to equal numbers but fails to define whether a member of a trade union could sit as an independent expert or would have to be categorised under subsection (4)(a) as representing the interests of trade unions. This is a matter of information on which the Committee and the general public deserve to have clarity before we allow this clause to become part of primary legislation in our country. As in all walks of life, there will be points of debate on that. I want to hear from the Minister’s own mouth whether he deems it to contradict the “equal number” provision. We could dance on the head of a pin all day, but when we are seeking to pass legislation, clarity is very important, and I look to the Minister to give it.

Employment Rights Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Alex McIntyre Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

I come back to this point of principle: either we have autonomous bodies that can make their own decisions or we do not. If the Government’s answer is that we do not, I certainly understand why they do not want this amendment, but I do not understand why they persist with their support for that which they created in the first place—the academisation of so many schools—and resist making the more straightforward argument for a one-size-fits-all education policy. I hope they do not adopt such a policy, because of the progress that the Labour party made through academisation in the first place. However, that is the natural conclusion of what the Minister is saying.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

I refer to my membership of the Community and GMB unions. In the break, the shadow Minister challenged me, saying that I had been very quiet this morning—I was feeling festive, but perhaps I am feeling less festive now. Let us take the analogy about choice that he is trying to set out and put it in a slightly different context. Private limited companies are often seen as the drivers of growth, and we have heard lots about that from the Opposition. Those companies have lots of freedoms to make decisions and to invest where they want, but they are all subject to the national minimum wage. Is the shadow Minister suggesting that a national set of terms and conditions will remove academies’ freedom to make entrepreneurial decisions? I am interested to hear whether the Conservative party’s position is now that the national minimum wage should also be abolished.

[Greg Smith]

No. I did challenge the hon. Gentleman on his quietness in the morning sitting, and he has not disappointed this afternoon, but of course that is not the position of the official Opposition. The last Labour Government brought in the national minimum wage, but the last Conservative Government brought in the national living wage. We are absolutely committed to that, but it is a rule that applies equally and evenly across every sector in the economy. In schedule 3 and amendment 168, we are talking about a specific carve-out of an existing position for one specific sector.

Employment Rights Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Alex McIntyre Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 127, in clause 22, page 33, line 12, leave out from “that” to end of line 21 and insert—

“the reason for the variation was to provide for improved employment practices and to update and reform outdated working practices, in order to allow for the more effective running of a business or organisation.”

This amendment would provide an exemption to unfair dismissal for failure to agree to a variation of contract.

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair for the afternoon sitting, Ms Vaz. The amendment, in my name and those of my hon. Friends, is a probing one—I want to be clear about that from the outset—that would provide an exception to unfair dismissal for failure to agree a variation of contract.

The premise underpinning the Bill’s provisions on fire and rehire is that the only reason for an employer to want to re-engage employees on varied terms is to exploit them by giving them worse terms and conditions. I am in no way, shape or form suggesting that that does not occasionally happen, but I come at this debate from the other direction, presuming that most employers are good employers who care about their workforce and want to see a happy staff getting on, being productive and doing the things they do to make the business a success, be that making things, giving advice or providing a service.

The Bill basically says that a business needs to be going bust for the process of varying a contract to be justified. Again, I am not certain that that is the right starting point. What if there were a legitimate reason for wanting to vary certain terms and conditions? We touched on this in our debate on SNP amendments 160 and 161 before the break, and I gave some examples thinking about the pace of change in a business. Let us say a manufacturing business moves from a very manual process for putting a product together—be it a car, a piece of furniture or some smaller product—to invest in robotics or something.

I can think of a farm in my constituency that was a traditional dairy farm but, thanks to a not insubstantial grant from the previous Government, has built a robotic dairy. That means that the people who work on that farm are doing a fundamentally different job. They no longer have to get up at 4 am to manually hook the cows up to the milking machines; believe it or not, the cows now form an orderly queue for the milking robots. I am not joking, Ms Vaz. I invite anyone to come and see it with their own eyes. There is a vending machine where people can buy the milk direct. The point at which staff intervention is needed is if an alarm indicates that a machine has clogged or broken, the pasteurisation room has hit the wrong temperature, or whatever. It is a fundamentally different job. Sometimes, that happens in a workplace where the employer wants to keep the staff—they do not want to let anyone go and they do not want the robots to replace them—but it involves different terms, different conditions and a different physical thing to do on a daily basis. I offer that as a practical example of how businesses change.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

I refer the Committee to my membership of the GMB and Community unions. I have two short questions for the shadow Minister. First, if the changes are so positive for employees, can they not simply accept a change to their terms and conditions? Secondly, let us take the scenario that he describes, where there is a change in processes, and put that in a business-to-business context. Say a business moves from wooden cogs and to metal cogs, and it has a contract with the wooden cog supplier. Is he aware of any circumstances in which that business would be able simply to break that contract without any notice or legal recompense to the other business?

[Greg Smith]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He is right that the businesses in the situation he describes would have to go through a legal process, probably involving very expensive contract lawyers, to alter such a contract. I do not think it is helpful to directly compare those supply chain contracts with employment contracts, because on one level we are dealing with human beings and on the other we are dealing with the flow of parts, services or whatever.

The hon. Gentleman is also right that a change in terms and conditions can sometimes be very positive for the employee. Perhaps it involves fewer hours for more money—that sometimes happens—or longer holidays. Of course, if something better is being offered, employees should have the flexibility to accept that, having exercised due diligence and looked it over properly—dotted the i’s, crossed the t’s and all that. What I am trying to get at is where the business model, and the day-to-day operation of the job, has fundamentally changed, through robotics or whatever.

Fireworks: Sale and Use

Alex McIntyre Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for presenting this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I also thank the 285 Gloucester residents who signed the petitions, and the scores more who have emailed me about the issue. Fireworks are a hallmark of celebrations in my constituency and around the world. From Eid, Chinese new year and Diwali, to bonfire night and new year’s eve, for many they symbolise moments of unity, happiness and cultural expression. However, I understand that for many others, the sight and sound of fireworks is not so warmly received.

Like many Members in the Chamber, I have received dozens of emails from constituents expressing their concerns about the use of fireworks. Some have written to me to highlight the risks they pose to the wellbeing and safety of pets and wild animals. Others have expressed concern about the effects that they may have on those with PTSD or respiratory conditions, and on people with autism and Down’s syndrome, who may be more sensitive to loud noises. Additionally, many of my constituents have raised concerns regarding the use of fireworks to commit crime. I share all of those concerns, and I am not alone in that, as demonstrated by today’s debate.

From the several public petitions that I have seen, I know that the concerns that I hear in Gloucester are echoed across the country. The issue is not confined to my constituency, but resonates nationwide. Sadly, in Gloucester there have been a number of crimes involving the use of fireworks, including fireworks being posted through letterboxes and set off in people’s front gardens. That is incredibly dangerous, as the cases of those present in the Public Gallery show us. We need to tackle that surge in antisocial behaviour, and I am pleased that the Government have set out their commitment to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour in all our communities.

I am also concerned about the pressure we place on our emergency services. Last year on bonfire night weekend, people sought advice on burn injuries from the NHS every 21 seconds. The fire service is under immense pressure too, responding to frequent call-outs regarding fireworks. That is particularly concerning, as we lost almost a fifth of the fire service workforce under the last Government, further exacerbating the strain.

I am saddened to hear of the effects fireworks have on our wildlife and pets, which suffer as a result. As a father of a rather sleepless one-year-old, I also highlight the struggle of parents with young children who just want a few peaceful hours of sleep. We must find a balance one that allows people to enjoy fireworks while ensuring that their enjoyment does not negatively impact others.

We need thoughtful and considerate legislation and we as individuals must be mindful of the impact of our actions on those around us. It is clear from the debate that the current regulations and enforcement do not work. I am particularly persuaded by the articulate arguments made by hon. Members from across the House for lowering the decibel limit to 90 dB, in accordance with international comparators.

I am pleased that the Government will work with businesses and charities to inform any future fireworks policy. We must ensure that legislation on the use and sale of fireworks keeps the public safe, prevents the misuse of fireworks and protects our pets and wildlife.

Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting)

Alex McIntyre Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I want to refer to a couple of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment and that, as the MP for Gloucester, I perhaps have a vested interest, given that a number of my constituents work over the constituency border in Cheltenham.

Flexible working will not be available in every role, for some of the reasons listed in the Bill, but for many roles there would be the ability to start half an hour later and finish half an hour earlier, perhaps, or to work different hours over the course of a week. Those are results of flexible working requests. I think that, sometimes, there is a haste from the Conservative party to equate flexible working with working from home—and to put little notes on people’s desks saying that they are not working hard enough. It is really important that we look at flexible working as a whole.

In my experience as an employment solicitor, the Bill is welcome, because the “reasonable” test is important in making sure that we are encouraging employers to think properly about flexible working requests. This measure is also very business friendly, because there is a long list of exemptions that will allow an employer to say, “Because of x, y and z, flexible working is not appropriate.” There is no requirement to accept a request; there is only a requirement to think about it, and to think about those exemptions reasonably. In the context of what we are trying to do, and that balancing act between rights for employees and rights for businesses, I think this lands in about the right place.

The shadow Minister is right that this change will not apply evenly in every sector; it cannot in every business, because of the reasons listed in the exemptions. Each business will have different requirements regarding customer demands, performance and quality. It would be quite difficult for a dentist to work from home, I suggest, but it might be quite easy for them to come in at half-past 9 two days a week. Again, that is a flexible working request. The reasonableness test deals with the purpose of the shadow Minister’s amendment, which is to look at how different sectors might approach the change rather than having a one-size-fits-all approach.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my membership of GMB.

I will apologise now if I have an out-of-date amendment paper; the one that I have is dated Tuesday 3 December. Very early on in our discussions, we had the strange definition of a small or medium-sized businesses as one employing 500 people or more. I just want to check whether the proposed amendment is indeed accurate, because it refers to

“the test of reasonableness in subsection (2)(b)(ii)”.

I do not think that any such subsection exists—I think it should be (3)(b)(ii)—but I appreciate that that might be my misunderstanding.

--- Later in debate ---

As these are probing amendments, we will not push them to a vote, but the Opposition’s message is to ensure that everything is thought through, so that the Bill does not create some huge problems down the line. I do not believe that this is a ridiculous amendment, but I will bring up a ridiculous example. Imagine one of the authors who try to emulate the writings of Ian Fleming having to write in future about M asking where Bond is, and Moneypenny coming into the room and saying, “I’m sorry M—he’s flexibly working today. The nuclear warhead has reached its destination.” I appreciate that is an absurd example, but I make it to properly push—

[Alex McIntyre]

Will the shadow Minister give way on that point?

[Greg Smith]

I will finish the line, and then I will. I make that point just to highlight that there are sometimes circumstances in which the flexibilities that the Minister spoke of may not fully apply. I am sure a witticism is coming.

[Alex McIntyre]

Sadly, I am not very funny. Would M’s HR adviser not say, “That might have a detrimental impact on your performance, Mr Bond”? That flexible working request could therefore be reasonably denied.

[Justin Madders]

I am sure that was in “GoldenEye”!

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I will take on the chin the hon. Gentleman’s point about the 2011 dataset, which was published under the coalition Government, led by my noble friend Lord Cameron. The current Government is seeking to make this legislation, however, so the onus is on them—right here, right now—to provide the datasets, evidence, proper analysis and impact assessments for the legislation that they are putting before the House of Commons and, later, the House of Lords in this Session of this Parliament. I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts the good will with which that comment is made—it is not a political attack. It is the duty of any Government at any time, as they seek to legislate on any matter, to provide the impact assessments, the real data and the real-world evidence of why it is necessary to put that legislation in place.

As I said earlier, it is simply a case of asking the Government to do their homework properly, and to provide, not just to Parliament but to businesses and employees up and down the land, the basis for which they are seeking to change our statute book.

[Alex McIntyre]

I will return briefly to a couple of the shadow Minister’s comments. I take some quantum of solace in the fact that he now seems to be accepting the principle of consultation. Over the past couple of weeks, we have often heard that he would prefer there to be certainty for business in some of the provisions, and now there is some certainty.

[Greg Smith]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but my argument throughout our debates on the amendments has been that it is normal practice to consult first, legislate second, but in many parts of the Bill the practice is to legislate first, consult second. That, I gently suggest to him, is probably the wrong way round.

[Alex McIntyre]

The “cake and eat it” argument is the point I was trying to make. I advised on flexible working requests regularly when in private practice, where individuals and, in particular, employers were asking what their rights were in respect of a request.

The hon. Gentleman raised two points, the first of which was about costs. Again, I point to the exemptions. The burden of additional costs is one of the exemptions by which an employer can say that it is not reasonable to accept a flexible working request. The balance between having rights for employees and making sure that they are not too much of a burden on business is important. The burden of additional costs is already explicitly covered in the legislation.

Secondly, in relation to tribunals, one of the issues with the current system is the lack of explanation provided. Employees often believe the worst, even if that is not always the case. They might make their request, with valid reasons, and if their employer tells them a flat no, with no further explanation, they often believe the worst and bring a tribunal claim.

Providing that explanation at the beginning requires the employer to think about the request. Not every employer is an excellent, flexible employer; some employers think that by offering flexible working, they will somehow lose productivity, whereas lots of studies have shown the opposite. Through that provision, employers will think about the request, engage with the process and the exemptions, think about what that means for their business, and provide a reasoned explanation.

That will not take as long as we might think, because there are only eight exemptions and people know their business very well. When they give that written explanation, it can be relatively short. It does not have to be “War and Peace”—I should have mentioned another James Bond novel—because it is just to give some background. We will then have an explanation that can be used in a tribunal. That will really assist tribunals in dealing with these cases, because there will be a written explanation of why the decision has been taken.

There are loads of cases in which people bring claims of discrimination because their flexible working requests have been rejected. Those can take up lots of time, when there has been just a misunderstanding between the employer and the employee. By introducing the requirement to provide an explanation, and for the employer to think through the reasonableness of it, there might hopefully be fewer claims in the employment tribunal.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Let me make a couple of quick points to sum up. The Opposition are trying to say that most businesses already do this, but this is not about the principle of introducing flexible working; it is about making the process straightforward, clear and consistent across businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, by ensuring that clarity, it may well reduce the number of cases that get taken to tribunal.

If most businesses are already doing this, why do we want to legislate? Well, we do not want those businesses to be penalised for doing the right thing. We want everybody to be offered the opportunity of flexible working within the reasonableness of their working situation, and with the opportunity for employers to refuse on the eight specified grounds. That will spread best practice not only in it being offered in all places of employment, but in the way that any request for flexible working is dealt with. That is an explanation of the context.

As we have clearly said, our impact assessment has provided an initial analysis of the impacts that can follow, but we will update and define them as we further develop the policy. In fact, part of the clause is specifically about the Secretary of State having the power to provide further detail. We are confident that as most businesses already participate in this process, make the appropriate responses to their employees and understand the system, it will be not a huge new burden to them in any way. I remind Committee members yet again that dealing appropriately with requests for flexible working can considerably help recruitment and retention for businesses. On that note, we reject the amendments tabled by the Opposition.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Statutory sick pay: removal of waiting period

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Employment Rights Bill (Seventh sitting)

Alex McIntyre Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly sensible point. We will come on to that issue shortly. The central point that I ask the Government to reflect on, before any consultation—post-legislation or during the passage of legislation—goes live, is that it is reasonable that those who are expected to put in meaningful and thoughtful contributions to that consultation on how the measures will affect them, will be applied in the real world and will need to be complied with, have as much notice as possible, so that they can put their thinking caps on and, if necessary, bring in professional advice where that is practicable or affordable.

In that way, when the Minister ultimately has the opportunity to read through every single consultation response with, I am sure, great attention to detail, before coming to a recommendation and drafting the necessary statutory instrument to bring about the exact regulations, the detail will be there. This should not be a rush job, but something to which the people out there in our country who actually run businesses, risk their capital and fundamentally create jobs and employ people are able to give as much thought as possible, so that the Government can come to a proper conclusion.

While I am glad that remuneration will be capped, I am still worried that the provisions in the Bill are not necessarily as proportionate as they could be for businesses. Sometimes an employer will have to cancel or curtail shifts through no fault of their own. We went through that issue at length on Tuesday, on a different point. I will not repeat the arguments now, other than to remind the Committee of force majeure. Events outside any employer’s control can happen; that is a reality of life.

It seems unfair in those instances that employers should have to bear the costs of not being able to complete the work on time, as well as having to remunerate employees for hours not worked. I stress, as I said on Tuesday, that that will be a minority of cases. It will be the exception, not the norm, but it is vital, when looking at this amendment and clause that there is an acceptance that those rare cases can and unfortunately will happen in the real world.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

I refer the Committee to my membership of the GMB and Community unions. We had a lot of back and forth on this point on Tuesday. I want to clarify what the shadow Minister said on Tuesday. In the extreme circumstances where employers are not able to continue with their work, the shadow Minister made the point that it was not fair on the employer to bear the cost. He also said that it was not necessarily fair for the employee to bear the cost, and that the cost should be shared. If the cost is not being borne by the employer, who does the shadow Minister expect to share that cost, other than it being placed solely on the employee?

[Greg Smith]

I do not want to repeat the whole debate that we had the other day as we might not hit the clause that the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues are trying to get to today. I fully accept his point that the situation is not fair on the employee, but equally it is not fair on the employer, given that those circumstances, events or eventualities are quite literally outside anybody’s control.

I urge the hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleagues to reflect on how to put in place a better and more proportionate system to share the burden. I accept that nobody wants or plans for those eventualities. I refuse to believe that any employer ever wants to have to turn somebody away at the door as they turn up for work. They actually want to make those products, provide those services, ensure people have a good night out or whatever it might be. That is the core of their business. That is how they make money. That is how they grow and create more jobs in the first place. I refuse to believe that any business wants to turn someone away and say, “Sorry, that shift isn’t available,” or, “Only half that shift is available today.”