Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Mullan]

The Government are committed to extensive consultation to set the minimum service levels, and that sets the spirit in which they want to reach the agreements. Agreements, and positive engagement with industry about them, are in place in Europe. As we have seen with the current strikes, it is not as if the will is not there to agree and recognise that there needs to be a degree of minimum service. As I have said, we have it in the police and it is part of legislation. I do not think it is right that we rely on voluntary agreements to secure others such as ambulance service workers. On principle, I do not think that it should purely be up to the negotiating process to decide that. We should aim for negotiation and for agreement, but not rely on voluntary agreements.

The Government expect to consult on this. It is not the huge attack that Opposition Members make it out to be, as we have seen with the police. We are taking a negotiated, compromised position, similar to many countries in Europe. On that, I conclude my remarks.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan). As a proud trade unionist, I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. For the avoidance of doubt, I declare that I do not have an £800,000 overdraft facilitated by the chair of the BBC, a multi-million-pound repayment with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or shares in a tax haven.

I wholeheartedly oppose this hurried, vicious and anti-devolutionary Bill in its entirety, and will vote against it tonight. I rise to speak specifically to the amendments in my name and those of right hon. and hon. Members. Our country is in crisis. Millions of workers are seeing their terms and conditions ground down and their wages eroded. Many are unable to meet their bills and are saying very loudly “Enough is enough.” Yet this Government’s response to strikes called successfully—despite the most severe, draconian balloting requirements and restrictions that they have imposed on trade unions—is to say no to legitimate pay demands and to negotiations, and to attack the very right to strike itself. Britain already has the toughest anti-union laws in Europe.

No worker wants to go on strike. It is a last resort taken at a financial cost. That desperation is evidenced by workers beating some of the strictest thresholds in the western world to do so. The reason that workers are pushed to strike is that in the face of a spiralling cost of living crisis, they have no other option. No amount of tightening the screws on trade unions will change that material fact. This Bill will do nothing to change the reality for millions of British workers who have seen their real-terms incomes drop dramatically since 2010.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I fully support all that he has said in his speech. Would he agree that the effect of the Government’s attitude, and of this and other anti-democratic legislation, is not only to increase support for strong industrial action to win decent pay rises but to encourage many other people who want to live in decent housing and do not want to live in desperate poverty to support this wave of industrial action and bring about a fairer society?

[Andy McDonald]

My right hon. Friend is right. People’s response has not been to lie down and accept the Government’s bidding; they have no choice but to stand up for themselves. Labour will have no truck with this terrible attack on working people, and once in government we will not only repeal this appalling legislation but, under the expert stewardship of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, bring in the new deal for working people to tackle in-work poverty head on. The real impact of this Bill will be that any employee who disobeys an order to work during a strike could be fired. That is simply unacceptable in a free society. I was staggered at some of the comments from Conservative Members that they did not think that was the impact of the Bill. It clearly is.

[Ian Lavery]

I tried to intervene on the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), who I believe was a GP, and my question would have been: if a doctor, nurse, transport worker or fire and rescue service rescue worker had voted for industrial action and was then instructed by their boss to cross a picket line and was compelled to work, what would that do in terms of the duty of care from the employer to the employee and the wellbeing and mental health of those individuals?

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is about targeting people. People will be selected for treatment under these work notices, and trade unionists will be singularly picked out to add to the humiliation and distress. It is a dreadful tactic.

[John McDonnell]

The practical reality is that for some workers this takes away the whole right to strike. An example in my constituency is air traffic control. There is no such thing as a minimum service guarantee in air traffic control, and the same can be said for rail signalmen. This process will extend the denial of the right to strike to whole batches of workers, and we need to acknowledge that in this debate.

[Andy McDonald]

My right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. There are workers who are going to be denied that fundamental right to withdraw their labour, and that is a step that should be taken with a great sense of foreboding and concern.

The Bill could also lead to bankruptcy for trade unions as they become exposed to lawsuits that could wipe them out. Notably, there is no minimum service required of the Government in the Bill. If workers are required to provide minimum service levels on strike days, why is there no such requirement for the Government and outsourced private providers on non-strike days? As we have seen in the course of these disputes, workers and unions are well aware of their legal and moral obligations, but this Government’s cynicism stinks. They are more than happy to sit on their hands when there are more than 500 excess deaths a month in our NHS, but they are suddenly sparked into action over concerns about public safety when strikes occur. If they were genuine in their concerns they would give those workers a proper pay award, but instead their real determination is to strip away their rights.

Patients are not dying because nurses are striking. As the RCN says so eloquently:

“Nurses are striking because patients are dying.”

Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, it is already unlawful to take industrial action in the knowledge or belief that human life could be endangered or “serious bodily injury” caused as a consequence. In short, life and limb cover is always maintained. I know that the Conservatives are itching to sack nurses, but the RCN handbook sets out in great detail how those nurses will provide “life and limb” cover—the very task that they have undertaken on our behalf before and during covid and will continue to undertake for as long as they have the energy to do so.

The reality is that if this Bill is passed, public services will get even worse. It has long been established that the right to withdraw one’s labour is a fundamental liberty, and it is trade unions who won us the basic rights of annual leave, sick pay, the two-day weekend, the eight-hour day, health and safety protections at work and much more. We need strong trade unions, not only as a right in themselves but to protect the rights we already have and to fight for more. By attacking the right to strike, and by extension the trade union movement, the Government put all this at risk and there will be even more disruption.

The only Government internal impact assessment found that imposing minimum service levels could lead to an increased frequency of strikes. The Transport Secretary admits the new laws will not work and the Education Secretary does not want them. Inside Government there is a recognition that public services will be the likely casualty of an ideologically motivated attack on the right to strike. Much has been said by Conservative Members and by the Secretary of State in particular about their sudden love affair with the International Labour Organisation, praying in aid the ILO’s approach to minimum service levels, but what the Government conveniently omit to mention is that convention 87 of the ILO sets out the criteria that this Government want to ignore. It stresses that the introduction of a negotiated minimum service as a possible alternative to the total prohibition of strikes should be contemplated only when the interruption of services would endanger life or the personal safety of the whole or part of the population.

The Government have also omitted to say that in other jurisdictions and economies there is much greater collective bargaining by trade unions for better terms and conditions for their members. The comparison with the UK is ludicrous. The ILO says that a minimum service should be a genuine and exclusively minimum service—which this Bill does not prescribe—and that unions should be able to participate in defining such a service. As the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has said, disputes should be resolved not by the Government but by a joint or independent body that has the confidence of the parties. There are examples, not only across Europe but across the world, where such practices obtain, but the Bill is as silent about them as it is about any sensible and proper safeguards, leaving the law by diktat entirely to the wide Henry VIII powers vested in the Secretary of State.

It therefore makes sense—as envisaged by amendments 83 and 84, which I commend to the House—to engage the CBI and the TUC in these matters and to pursue resolution disputes through ACAS if it comes to that. In any event, the High Court certification set out in new clause 1 is necessary to ensure that this country meets its full obligations, in respect not only of convention 87 of the ILO but of the obligations set out in the European social charter of 1961 and under the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement. We are parties to all these treaties and we need to make sure that we abide by them. New clause 1 addresses that. As it stands, we have not seen any risk assessment testing those obligations. Professor Keith Ewing told us in the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee that

“we cannot remove the EU social rights inheritance, because of article 387, where the removal is motivated by trade and investment, which seems to be the motivation here.”

He went on to say:

“Brexit does not mean release from international obligations or even from our continuing obligation to comply with European law.”

In 13 years of Tory rule, numerous pieces of anti-trade union legislation have been passed. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill is only the latest attempt to neuter the power of workers, and there is no reason to assume that it will stop there. This dreadful, ideologically insane Government are thankfully on their last legs, but in the time they have left, they are clearly determined to continue their attack on the rights of workers and the services they work in. It will be another sad day for this country if the Bill passes its Third Reading tonight, but the Government should be in no doubt that, in doing this, they will be hammering another nail into their own coffin.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Farris]

The hon. and learned Lady is right that negotiation is required. I was shocked to find that, in France, the sanction for a person who refuses a requisitioning request is via the criminal courts. I did not know that, and I did not know it is the case in Canada, too. It may be that I have misread the legislation, and that it is a “life and limb” exemption—I am not familiar enough with French legislation.

[Andy McDonald]

I will help the hon. Lady. Is she aware that the ILO is saying that unions should participate in defining minimum service levels, and that any disputes should be dealt with not by a Government but by an independent body? Does she agree with that? It is not in the Bill.

[Laura Farris]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and it is a good point. Even though the ILO has set out, in black and white, the services in which it says the right to strike might lawfully be restricted, and even though its list includes every single service that the Government have included in the Bill—in fact, the ILO goes much further—the Opposition, for some reason, seem to wish to take out every one of those essential services. They would say no to a minimum service level when the schools are on strike, no to any key worker being able to put their kids in school and no to any vulnerable child being able to be looked after. They would say no to the trains running at all during the rush hour. The Opposition need to be clear with the British people about why their amendments deviate so far from international norms. It seems to be the case that, in their view, the country should grind to a standstill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

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

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

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

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

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

[Andy McDonald]

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

[Chris Stephens]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for their contributions.

Consistent with the contributions that have been made, this Government firmly believe that the ability to strike is an important element of industrial relations in the UK—it is rightly protected by law—and we understand that an element of disruption is likely with any strike. However, we need to maintain a reasonable balance between the ability of workers to strike and the rights of the public, who work hard and expect the essential services that they pay for to be there when they need them. We need to be able to have confidence that, when strikes occur, people’s lives and livelihoods are not put at undue risk.

[Andy McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will make a little progress and then bring the hon. Member in, although I might cover his point in my next comments.

To respond to some of the points made in the debate, particularly on scrutiny and process, clearly the consultations offer plenty of opportunities for hon. Members, their constituents, employers and unions to play a role in shaping minimum service levels before regulations are made, and both Houses will be able to provide additional scrutiny.

[Andy McDonald]

A lot of the remarks made this evening have focused on safety, but section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides workers with the means to contest the adequacy of safety arrangements and withdraw their labour—they can walk away. Given that, can the Minister explain to the Committee which statute would take precedence: the Employment Rights Act 1996 or this Bill?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think it is quite clear. I was interested in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) when she talked about the International Labour Organisation and its specifying of minimum service levels. It has stated that they do apply to essential services but could also apply to other services, such as education and railway workers. We think the legislation is consistent with international law and the International Labour Organisation.

[Andy McDonald]

rose—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will give way one last time; then I want to make some progress.

[Andy McDonald]

I am sorry, Minister, but that really does not address the point I made. There is an inalienable right under the Employment Rights Act 1996 for people to withdraw their labour. It is nothing to do with the International Labour Organisation. We are going to have two UK statutes that are in direct conflict with each other; which one will prevail—that Act or this legislation?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm that point, but we absolutely believe that this legislation is lawful and compatible with human rights legislation and international obligations.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) made a typically insightful and thoughtful speech that no doubt provoked thinking on both sides of the Committee. He talked about the Henry VIII powers in the legislation, but I reassure him that they are restricted only to genuinely consequential amendments. I do not believe they are as wide ranging as he set out.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) was absolutely right—this was also reflected in the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth)—that we are not anti-union, but we are pro-protecting the public.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It was always going to come to this, where the ideological and deliberate attack on workers, along with the carefully choreographed under-resourcing of the public services that the people of this country hold dear over these past 13 years, which have been so blatantly carved up by the spivs and the profiteers, comes hard up against the inevitable neoliberal endgame of in-work poverty; and where workers are left with no choice other than to stand up for themselves and their service by withdrawing their labour. They do so not simply because their wages are insultingly, woefully insufficient and shrinking in value, and do not pay enough for them to pay their soaring bills, and rip demand out of the beleaguered and disastrously managed economy; they do so also in order to save the very service that they so cherish.

What is the response from this lot on the Government Benches? Instead of listening to workers and coming up with a fair deal that they can accept, or producing a plan to sustain public services into the future, they hit out and turn the screws, depriving working people of their basic civil liberties and human rights to organise and campaign for a better deal. I am proud that the Labour party has made it abundantly clear that this anti-worker, anti-trade union, “sack the nurses” Bill will be immediately repealed when Labour comes to power, and that we will bring in the new deal for working people that our people so desperately need.

This attack is not new; at every turn, especially in the Thatcher era and during the past 13 years, the Conservatives have demonised trade unions as being the enemy within, instead of seeing them as the force for good and for economic and social change for the benefit of the working class that they truly are. With their nasty, pernicious propaganda spewed out by their chums in the right-wing press, this Tory Government have delivered the biggest rallying call to working people that there has been for many a year. I urge all those workers who want to protect themselves and their industry, profession or calling to join a union today, if they have not done so already. Yes, I am urging them to take back control and join the fight for a better deal for themselves, their families and communities.

This Bill is not the way to build good industrial relations—it is the exact opposite—so this is an important moment in our history. I have no doubt that the British people will have their say in fulsome measure when they turf these dreadful Tories out of office, and that day cannot come too soon.

Industrial Action

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are trying to correct a problem that is very current. Ambulance workers and the unions have not provided a national level of guaranteed safety for the strike that is due on Wednesday. Right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches could help us get that in place across the economy, particularly in vital services, so that even though we take this primary power, we never need to use it. That would be the ideal solution. Why do they not help us bring safety to their constituents, which would help both them and the unions?

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has said that he supports the right to strike—by banning workers from striking. Does he not see the ridiculous position he has got himself into? The whole point of having an assessment of policy is to find out whether it will work. When the Government are told that their policy is bonkers, the sensible thing to do is to bin it. Where does he think declaring war on working people will end?

[Grant Shapps]

As I have mentioned a couple of times at the Dispatch Box, the hon. Gentleman will need to explain his position to his friends and colleagues in countries as radical as France and Spain, where they have these rules in place and act already. On the impact assessment, which is a point that has been made several times, including from the Opposition Front Bench, the final impact assessment—which will come through primary legislation, with secondary legislation in the form of statutory instruments to bring it into place—is yet to be published, so he is wrong about that as well. How can anyone seriously argue that guaranteed rescue by ambulances of somebody who is seriously ill could have a harmful impact? It is simply beyond belief.

Draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 General Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I understand it, nothing is different, but I will check with my officials and come back to the hon. Lady before the end of the debate.

The outdoor equipment manufacturer I referred to will be able to continue to access international markets more easily when assessment is facilitated in the way I described, thereby increasing its exporting potential and customer choice. The MRA benefits that the UK experienced for years as an EU member are maintained through the provisions of the new MRA with Switzerland.

The statutory instrument we are considering implements the MRA by amending an earlier set of regulations made last year: the Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) and Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The Minister is explaining to us that this is putting the UK and Switzerland in the same position as now, making a temporary arrangement permanent. On a point of clarification, is there any differential between the relationship with Switzerland on those matters, as compared with that with the rest of the EU? Is there any difference or are similar arrangements being made?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The rest of the EU uses the CE mark. If we want to export products to the EU, we use the CE mark. That is a European certification process. These are relationships simply between the UK and Switzerland, not with the rest of the European Union. We have a separate arrangement for that.

The 2021 regulations are amended by the instrument we are considering so that they are also included in the Swiss MRA. I will return briefly to that point when discussing the territorial scope and the specifics of the regulations.

I will now consider each of the areas in greater detail. For goods coming into the UK that are in the scope of the MRA, we have committed to recognising the results of conformity assessment procedures carried out by recognised Swiss CABs and appointed bodies against our domestic regulations. The statutory instrument makes clear that assessments carried out by a recognised body based in Switzerland should be treated as equivalent to those carried out by a UK-approved or appointed body when products are placed on the market in Great Britain.

Draft Internal Market Information System Regulation (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2021

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2022 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Internal Market Information System Regulation (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2021.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Robert. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 20 July 2021. Right hon. and hon. Members will understand the importance of the need to protect citizens and businesses through the effective operation of the Northern Ireland protocol. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that it is also important that our statute book provides a clear and up-to-date picture of UK law for the benefit of UK public authorities, businesses and citizens.

The statutory instrument tidies up the statute book by removing provisions relating to access to the EU’s internal market information system database that are redundant or inoperable as a result of the UK’s departure from the EU. It also forms part of the UK’s delivery of the Northern Ireland protocol. The IMI is a secure online tool used to facilitate the EU single market. The tool was created to resolve problems of ineffective, insecure and inefficient communication between the European Commission and EU member states. It is hosted and maintained by the European Commission. At the end of the implementation period, the UK’s access to the European Union’s networks, information systems and databases was blocked by the EU, save for specific exemptions.

Under the Northern Ireland protocol, the EU can grant the UK access to such systems as it considers necessary to enable the UK to comply with its obligations under the protocol. In a decision of 16 October, the European Commission granted the UK limited access to the IMI to enable the UK to fulfil certain obligations under EU legislation that continue to apply in respect of Northern Ireland under the protocol. I will set out those obligations in more detail shortly. The UK’s access to the IMI has otherwise been removed.

EU regulation 1024/2012 on administrative co-operation through the IMI sets out the framework for use of the IMI. That regulation is retained EU law under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and applies in areas where access to the IMI is retained. The draft regulations do not make any policy changes, impose new obligations or create new powers. They remove redundant provisions that are inoperable because access has already been removed by the European Commission on the grounds that UK access is no longer required. In particular, they remove references concerning legislative areas in respect of which the UK does not have access to the IMI, which include patient rights relating to cross-border healthcare, posted workers, public documents, the services directive, the recognition of professional qualifications and non-road mobile machinery. They also clarify that regulation 1024/2012 applies in respect of Northern Ireland only to facilitate communications and the exchange of information for three general purposes, which I will set out.

The first relates to the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed. The relevant EU directive sets out the procedures for the return to an EU state of objects that are national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value that have been unlawfully removed from that EU state to another. An EU member state can enter a case on the IMI to send a notification of the EU member state to which it is believed that that object has been taken. On receipt of the case, all reasonable steps would be taken to locate the object and protect it until such time as it can be retrieved, unless it cannot be located or has been found to have been legally imported. All actions taken would be recorded on the IMI. The UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for cases on the IMI module on the return of cultural objects.

The second purpose relates to the acquisition and possession of weapons. The relevant EU directive sets out the minimum standards for civilian firearm acquisition and possession in European economic area states for the purpose of controlling the movement of weapons between EEA states. The IMI is used by EEA states to notify other EEA states where they have granted authorisation to a business or an individual to acquire a firearm from, or transfer a firearm to, another EEA state. The UK Department for International Trade is responsible for all such communications through the IMI module on the control of firearms.

The third and final purpose is to facilitate mutual recognition of goods. The relevant EU regulation sets out a framework for ensuring that goods lawfully marketed in one EEA state can be sold in any other EEA state as long as they are safe and respect the public interest. It provides that economic operators who consider that their rights under this regulation have been breached by a public authority of another EEA state can use the single market problem-solving network, SOLVIT, to try to find solutions without the need to resort to action in court.

The SOLVIT network is hosted on the IMI. If a decision was made by a UK public authority to deny entry to the Northern Ireland marketplace of goods sold in an EEA state, and the EEA economic operator considered that to be incompatible with this regulation, he could lodge a case through the SOLVIT network. The IMI SOLVIT co-ordinator for the UK would then review the case and engage with the responsible authority in the UK in order to agree a response to the case, to be submitted through the IMI.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving a very detailed account on this important issue.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am nearly done!

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

On SOLVIT, the dispute about the tracing of goods has been one of the major issues around the Northern Ireland protocol. When we speak to people in Brussels, they tell us not only that they are sad to see us go but that they have a solution. That solution relates not only to GB-Northern Ireland and resolving perceived difficulties through co-operation, but to repairing the trade imbalance that now exists between the EU and the UK. That means that what we can solve in GB-NI, we can also solve in EU-UK. Do the draft regulations, albeit narrow and targeted, not suggest that we are going in the wrong direction in our attempts to work better with our European Union partners, for the benefit of our trade?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Co-operation is always the best way. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to be pragmatic in finding solutions. This statutory instrument is not about resolving things that have gone wrong in the past; it is about removing things that are no longer needed and that would potentially conflict with other pieces of legislation. However, I agree with him that, in terms of co-operation, it makes sense to come to agreements that suit both sides. Both parties are involved in the negotiation, of course, and we have to tread a pretty fine line in trying to get to the right place.

The IMI SOLVIT co-ordinator is based in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

In conclusion, this statutory instrument simply makes technical amendments to reflect the current position regarding the UK’s access to the IMI. It removes provisions that are no longer operable following the end of the implementation period and it retains only those provisions that are necessary in respect of Northern Ireland, to ensure that the UK can comply with certain obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. This statutory instrument ensures that UK public authorities can continue to access the IMI, to allow them to deliver these obligations securely, effectively and efficiently, where necessary. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I thank the Minister for setting out the intent of this delegated legislation. I also thank the two separate parliamentary Committees for their work in scrutinising it—the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments—neither of which reported issues with this SI to the House.

Co-operation between nations, mutual understanding, shared trade regulations and, indeed, values are part of any effective trading relationship, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough has suggested, and they are at the heart of the internal market information system. The IMI is a secure, multi-lingual online tool that facilitates the exchange of information between public authorities. The IMI helps authorities to co-operate and fulfil their cross-border administrative obligations in multiple single market policy areas. The IMI regulation sets out the framework for the administration of the IMI system by Government officials and those bodies exercising regulatory authority. It requires that each member state has a co-ordinator to look after the effective functioning and correct use of the IMI system and that all communications are handled securely in line with the relevant data protection rules.

As we have discussed, this statutory instrument amends the IMI regulation for two main reasons. The first is to revoke redundant retained EU legislation, and the second is to remove inoperable provisions. Together, this allows limited access to the IMI in Northern Ireland. It is clear that part 1 and chapter 1 of part 3 extend to all of the UK. Chapter 1 of part 3 revokes redundant retained EU law relating to the IMI regulation. Part 2 extends to Northern Ireland and amends the IMI regulation. Chapter 2 of part 3 extends to England, Wales and Scotland, revoking those provisions of the IMI regulation and retained EU law that no longer apply. In short, and as the Minister has said, the amendments introduced by this statutory instrument are technical operability changes and do not include any policy changes. However, these operability issues are a consequence of the UK leaving the single market on 31 December 2020.

I am sure that the Minister and the Committee will be pleased to note that Labour does not intend to oppose the draft regulations. However, I would be grateful to the Minister if he would address some questions. I must also express concern about the legislative landscape into which this SI is entering. The revocation of any laws, chapters or paragraphs in legislation should be done with the utmost care. As I have said, this SI has had the scrutiny of two Committees—as well as this Committee and, indeed, the assurance of the Minister’s entire Department—to ensure that there will not be any adverse implications for any organisation, public body or group of people. It is for that reason, however, that I am confused as to where the Government’s priorities and approach lie.

We accept that the SI rectifies a small area of our legislative landscape. The problem is that Conservative Members and the Government could be blowing a gigantic hole in it through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Why is the Minister introducing this very limited and narrow SI when, at the same time, the Bill will soon be at Report stage? Why is the Bill not being used to address this issue? And why are all the EU laws and legislation that the Bill is going to tear out of our statute books not worthy of the same amount of consideration as this change? Why has this SI received the focus and attention of the Government when they are willing to have a bonfire of 2,417 other pieces of retained EU law without, it appears, any consideration? That is not just inconsistent; it is downright dangerous.

The Government’s reckless Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill will rip up vital legislation on trade, employment, environmental protection, health and safety in the workplace, parental leave, private pensions protection and food safety. I am very grateful to the Minister for setting out the detailed implications, in very narrow areas, of this SI, yet at the same time the Government’s Bill will just tear them all apart.

[Andy McDonald]

Is my hon. Friend aware not only that employment rights and protections are in grave jeopardy with the inclusion of a sunset clause, but that all the case law will, in effect, be wiped out? There is real anxiety in the business community and among employment advisers that the whole landscape will disappear, leaving employment relationships in total turmoil. It is another added complication. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman]

In a word, yes. All of us in the Business Department are focused on the point that my hon. Friend raises—namely, the pressure on businesses from the energy price spike this winter. In the autumn statement the Chancellor announced the Treasury-led review of our energy bill relief scheme beyond March, and we are actively working as a Department to make sure that that review has all the necessary data and evidence from businesses. Our energy bill relief scheme supporting energy-intensive industries has put in £2 billion of relief since 2013, and our 2022 energy security strategy announced that the EII compensation scheme would be extended for a further three years. We are also looking at making similar changes to the related EII exemption scheme. The Business Department absolutely gets how much difficulty businesses are facing through energy.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The north-east of England process industry cluster has advised me that major companies on Teesside currently obtaining their energy via a private wire relationship do not qualify for the energy bill relief scheme, with some major employers paying millions more for their energy and facing the real prospect of ceasing operations and moving overseas. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how their concerns can be addressed?

[George Freeman]

Even better than that, I can make sure that the energy Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), meets the hon. Gentleman. We are aware of this problem and we are actively working on it.

Britain’s Industrial Future

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman]

Let me just deal with this point.

We are investing more than £600 billion to transform our country’s infrastructure—roads, rail, broadband and more—and we plan to procure 8.5 million tonnes of steel as part of that over the next decade; the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) touched on procurement. We published an updated steel pipeline in June 2020, to help the industry plan ahead. The value of UK steel procured by the Government for major public projects in 2021, which I checked before coming to the debate, was £268 million—an increase of £160 million from the previous year. The steel procurement taskforce, which we set up as a joint working group between Government and the steel industry, published seven recommendations in February this year, and those are being implemented through updating the Cabinet Office procurement policy note. As the hon. Member will see—he asked a good question—we are taking serious steps on procurement.

In 2021, the Secretary of State for Defence acquired specialist steel producer Sheffield Forgemasters, with £400 million of investment over the next 10 years, and Sheffield Forgemasters is working with other companies, including Rolls-Royce and the Canadian company General Fusion, on the development of nuclear power generation. In March this year, we successfully secured an expansive removal of US section 232 tariffs on UK steel and aluminium products, which means that UK steel and aluminium exports to the US can return to levels not seen since before 2018. We have also extended our steel safeguard measures for a further two years. I simply do not accept, and I do not think anyone listening to the debate would say, that the Government have done nothing and are doing nothing on procurement. It is simply not true.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have heard what he has to say, but what does he say to the people of Teesside about his Government’s inaction in 2015? The Italian Government intervened at the Ilva plant in Taranto and came to the rescue of 25,000 workers. The French did the same in Florange, but this Government did absolutely nothing to protect our core industries at Redcar—and we have not forgotten it.

[George Freeman]

I would point out that last week, Green Lithium announced the UK’s first large-scale merchant lithium refinery and the first such refinery in Europe, to be built in Teesport, supported by the automotive transformation fund.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In 2015, under the Tories, more than 150 years of steelmaking in my part of the world came to a shuddering halt with the closure of the SSI blast furnace in Redcar. The very concept of industrial strategy came to the fore in a unique and graphic manner. The received wisdom of Government Members meant that they had no truck with industrial strategy and they simply allowed markets to dictate and determine whether our industries, such as steel, survived.

We move on and look to the very lands on which the steelmaking industry sat for development now and in the years ahead. There is unanimity of purpose in securing the new industries of the future, focusing on renewable energy development, hydrogen, carbon capture, utilisation and storage, and offshore and onshore wind among many others. There has been much promise of creating 25,000 jobs. I regret to say that there is little evidence of that coming to fruition any time soon. However, the objective is the correct one. What is not correct is the way in which the Tees Valley Combined Authority under the auspices of the Mayor, Ben Houchen, has set about the business.

Vast sums of public money—some £375 million—have been expended on acquiring and remediating the land on the south bank of the Tees for development. No one objects to that ambition, but what happened was that a joint venture company styled under the title Teesworks was formed initially as a public-private partnership whereby the Tees Valley Combined Authority had a 50% share along with its private partner. The sad reality is that the private venture partner got involved only because of its acquisition of an option to purchase land—a ransom strip—which put it in the key position when the combined authority entered into the joint venture. There was no procurement or tendering process whatsoever. A marriage was made simply between the public and private sector in those ratios, but, as we approached the end of the available funding from central Government, a totally and utterly unacceptable decision was made whereby the 50:50 share was transferred to 90:10 in favour of the private sector joint venture partner. Those shares—public property—have been transferred for nothing. For nil. For zero. For zip.

There is a real sense on Teesside that these matters have been conducted in a clandestine manner and an atmosphere of secrecy, with a total absence of any proper, effective scrutiny and a distinct lack of accountability. There is also a sense of there being something unseemly about those benefiting directly from the contracts so massively.

All of that happened without a proper procurement process, and the Public Accounts Committee does not have the locus to investigate. The National Audit Office claims that it has no responsibility for those moneys and is content to leave it to external auditors. That means that Private Eye has been leading with its detailed and thorough examination. It comes to something when we have to rely on a satirical magazine to undertake forensic examination of how public money is spent, but we need only look at the Tees Valley Combined Authority’s website to see how its board minutes and agendas in respect of not only the South Tees Development Corporation but the freeport board are put beyond our gaze and deemed to be confidential. It is a common experience that freedom of information requests are met with resistance and obfuscation. We need to have a clearer look at these elements, but it is evident that any demand for better scrutiny and better governance is constantly met with cries of disloyalty and a lack of ambition. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is about progressing the agenda, looking after public money and pursuing development in the interests of the people, not simply enriching further the already extremely wealthy.

There will be a day of reckoning on these business transactions. We need to get to the bottom of how these things have been allowed to happen. There is a real challenge to central Government more broadly as to how they exercise control and scrutiny over the expending of such vast amounts of public money. I hope that day will come very, very soon.

Fairness at Work and Power in Communities

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

We remain undiminished in our commitment to balance, as I outlined, the flexibility of the labour market with protections for workers. Indeed, we have already been working on a number of areas. We have made really good progress in extending the right to a written statement of core terms of employment to all workers—we have made access to that a day one right—and quadrupling the available aggravated breach penalties used in employment tribunals to £20,000 as well as any number of other issues, many of which I will outline in the debate. However, we clearly want to do more, and we will do that as parliamentary time allows.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Talking about the protection of workers, would the Minister like to tell the House what protections were afforded to the 800 P&O workers who lost their jobs over a video call?

[Paul Scully]

I will cover P&O a bit later in my speech, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. While we celebrate the flexibility of our workforce and the employers that do the right thing, clearly, there are egregious examples, such as P&O. We continue to address those through the work of the Insolvency Service and through the harbours Bill, which was announced in the Queen’s Speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

That is the careful balance that we in this place rightly have to achieve in our legislation. The entire philosophy behind removing exclusivity clauses is that it is for people on the lowest wages. They should not be bound to one employer. Clearly, people should not be forced to work in many jobs to earn a living wage. That is not the purpose of our proposals. We want to ensure that we remove discrimination by extending the protection against exclusivity clauses.

To come back to P&O, on 1 April, following a request from the Business Secretary, the Insolvency Service confirmed that, following its inquiries, it has commenced formal criminal and civil investigations into the circumstances surrounding the recent redundancies made by P&O Ferries. The Harbours (Seafarers’ Remuneration) Bill that was announced in the Queen’s Speech will protect seafarers working aboard vessels visiting UK ports by ensuring that the ports have powers ultimately to refuse access to ferry services that do not pay an equivalent to the national minimum wage to seafarers while in UK waters. That means that all ferry staff will receive a fair wage while in UK waters when operating regularly to or from UK ports, helping to avoid a legal loophole between UK and international maritime law that P&O Ferries ruthlessly exploited.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister said a very important thing: that a criminal investigation had started. An assurance was given to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee that there would be advice on the legal position by 8 April. Will he please inform the House whether he has received that advice and whether a criminal offence has been made out?

[Paul Scully]

I said that the Insolvency Service would respond by 8 April, which it did, and that is why it has launched its criminal and civil investigations. That is ongoing.

We have also recently committed to producing a statutory code on fire and rehire practices to strengthen the rights of all employees. The new code will deter employers from using controversial tactics and from failing to engage in meaningful consultations with employees. The Government’s approach is clear: when bad bosses do not play by the rules, we will act.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to face the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for the first time, but from what he has said today, I have to ask: where is the employment Bill that was promised? Where is it? The Labour party has a long and proud history as the party of working people and for working people. It is simple: we believe that people deserve a high-quality, secure job and a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Everyone deserves a job that they can build their life on and the security to be able to start a family, no matter who they are or what job they do.

More than that, I believe that working people should earn enough so that they can have cash spare at the end of the week to enjoy the fruits of their labour and balance work and life. Going out for dinner or taking their kids to the cinema should not be a luxury item for people who are working. What a miserable vision of our country it is when older people who ride buses to keep warm are told that they should be grateful for that privilege, when 2 million people in our country cannot afford to eat every day and when a further 250,000 UK households face destitution in 2023. That is the Conservative Government in action, and it shows how we on this side of the House differ. We are not all the same.

The Minister opened the debate today by talking about the importance of growth, yet today’s GDP figures show no growth in February and a fall in GDP in March. Working people across the country have been betrayed by the Conservative Government. The employment Bill that was promised to follow the withdrawal agreement has never happened. They did not get it done.

In yet another Queen’s Speech the Government offer jam tomorrow while millions of people in our country cannot afford either to eat or to heat. This week, families needed to see a proper proposal from the Government to put money back in their pockets. Parents getting a late-night text to tell them their working hours and tearing their hair out organising last-minute childcare to cover their shift, and social care workers working two jobs who cannot afford to take a break or get sick, needed to see fair pay agreements or a basic minimum wage that is enough to live on. The bus driver who worked all through the pandemic but was fired and rehired on less money and longer hours needs to see the outlawing of this obscene practice. They need real help, right now. Instead, they get warm words and wishful thinking.

Time and again—in fact 20 times—Ministers promised an employment Bill that would protect workers and put an end to warehouses run like Victorian workhouses. They then promised they would make it illegal for bosses to sack long-standing staff members and then rehire them on worse pay and hours, to avoid a repeat of the P&O scandal. They promised that enhanced rights and protections were just around the corner. Well—mañana, mañana, mañana. Twenty times, Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box and said that we should await the employment Bill, and await it we did. Where is it? Three years now and we are still waiting.

Now we can see that the Government were never going to come good on that pledge. The promise to introduce a single enforcement body and take action on tips and sick pay—gone. The promise to consult on making flexible working the default without good reason not to—ditched. The promise to introduce extended leave for neonatal care—dropped. The promise to make it easier for fathers to take paternity leave—disappeared.

The promise to extend the entitlement to leave for unpaid carers to a week—abandoned. The promise to create a preventive duty against sexual harassment—missing. The promise to extend redundancy protection for pregnant women—nowhere to be seen. And the promise to end the cruel practice of fire and rehire—up in smoke. The truth is that this Government are presiding over a bonfire of workers’ rights and breaking their promises left, right and centre. They pledged to enhance rights and protections at work, but yet again they have failed to deliver.

If the Conservatives were serious about spreading opportunity, prosperity and power across the country, they would start by introducing plans to pay people a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, but this Government have yet again failed to make the choices required to stand up for working people, because they are not on working people’s side. While prices continue to skyrocket, we see no plans—no plans—to tackle the cost of living crisis. The Prime Minister said that more help is on its way, and then his own spokespeople and his absent neighbour at No. 11 furiously denied it, while Ministers took to the airwaves to put on silly voices and mock those who are struggling. This is not a serious Government.

The Government continue to try to pull the wool over our eyes, telling us that skyrocketing prices are just a global problem, that offering people help is somehow silly, that nothing can be done. But here is the problem: as bills soar across Britain, the Prime Minister is enforcing a tax-hiking Budget. He is the only G7 leader to do so. The Prime Minister and his Chancellor chose—they chose—to hike taxes on working people at the worst possible time, and they chose not to introduce a windfall tax on energy companies to help people with their energy bills. We need an emergency Budget now to sort out this mess and to tackle the cost of living crisis.

I constantly get mail from constituents who are struggling to make a pay cheque last until the end of the month. They all deserve better, a decent wage that is enough to raise a family on and to afford bread and, yes, some roses, too. Better pay would end the self-defeating low wage, low investment and low productivity cycle in which the country has been trapped for the past decade. Boosting people’s income is not just the right thing to do for them; it is the right thing to do for our economy.

The fact is that, right now, people do not have the money to spend in our shops, businesses and local economies, so high streets are suffering. Places that were once a source of great pride are now a source of great sadness, as independent businesses are replaced with plywood shutters.

Britain’s insecure work epidemic is not just punishing workers and communities; it is starving the public finances, too. New research from the TUC this week shows that insecure, low-paid work costs the Treasury £10 billion a year in lost tax revenue and increased social security payments, which means less funding for our cash-strapped hospitals, care homes and schools. That is a choice—it is the Government’s choice—and, under this Government, the people who worked to rebuild this country have been forgotten. In towns up and down the country, people are working harder and paying more but getting less every year.

In places like Stockport, where I grew up, families are suffering. While travelling across the country during the local election campaign, I saw at first hand how the Conservatives have frozen wages, overseen widespread inequality and increased poverty. From Bury to Bletchley, and from Barnet to Burnley, the people and places that once proudly powered Britain, that contributed to our economy, are being rewarded with low wages and insecure work. They are underpaid, underappreciated and undervalued. It is high time that the key workers who got us through this pandemic, and all other working people, were given the dignity and security at work that they deserve, but under the Conservatives, work does not mean security any more, and it does not mean fairness, either. That is why we have proposed a new deal for working people. Within the first 100 days of a Labour Government, we would legislate to introduce fair pay agreements, which would bring together workers and employers to agree terms in each sector, starting in social care.

We are ambitious for our country, and our ambitions do not stop there. Labour will strengthen the protections afforded to all workers by ending qualifying periods for basic rights, which leave working people waiting up to two years for their basic protections. Labour will end this arbitrary system, and will scrap qualifying time for basic rights such as those on unfair dismissal, sick pay and paternity pay. With a Labour Government, working people will have rights at work from day one, but this not just about workers; so many businesses play by the rules and try to do the right thing but are undercut by the offshore and the unscrupulous. Many of them are the small and medium-sized businesses that are the backbone of our local and regional economies, and they deserve better, too. We would scrap business rates to help our high streets flourish. Just today, Deliveroo and GMB union have reached a groundbreaking agreement, which shows how innovation and a voice at work can go hand in hand. It is good that there are successful businesses that understand the value of trade unions in a modern economy.

This Government could also learn a lesson or two about the role of women in our economy. Having been a single parent, I know only too well the challenges of trying to balance work with being a good mum—of running from work to the school gates, and of missing out on parents evening. Rather than stacking the odds against working parents, Labour would deliver stronger family-friendly rights. Labour will ensure that all workers have the right to flexible working as a default from day one. During the pandemic, so many workers have shown how flexible they can be, and we should build on that flexibility. We are committed to extending statutory maternity and paternity leave, introducing the right to bereavement leave, and strengthening protections for pregnant women by making it, as a default, unlawful to dismiss them within six months of their return to work. Labour will set stronger family-friendly rights in stone.

We will also put mental health on a par with physical health in our workplaces. This week is Mental Health Awareness Week, and Ministers would do well to remember it. Labour will also act to close gender, disability and ethnicity pay gaps. This Government’s programme is completely lacking in any plans to tackle the inequalities facing black, Asian and minority ethnic people, which were so visibly exposed by the covid-19 pandemic. Yet again, the Government have reneged on their promise to introduce ethnicity pay gap reporting, ignoring calls from both the CBI and the TUC.

[Andy McDonald]

My right hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does she share my admiration for Baroness McGregor-Smith, and the work that she did to persuade many companies to embrace pay gap reporting, though that was thwarted by those on the Government Benches? Is it not a sad indictment of the Government that business, the TUC and everybody else are way ahead of them on this issue?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend, not only for his work on Labour’s plan for employment, but for the crucial point he makes. This Government’s pattern of behaviour is to not work with or listen to anybody at the moment. It is all about rhetoric, rather than working collaboratively to make things better for the people of this country. It seems that nobody is immune to that these days, whereas once it was just a select few who the Government felt were partisan in their views. The ideas of quite a lot of people are now frozen out, and it seems the Government are not willing to listen.

Our country is riven with inequalities, which we on the Opposition Benches are focused on fixing in order to ensure that the working people who create our nation’s wealth get their fair share of it. Meanwhile, the Government propose a Procurement Bill that looks increasingly unworthy of the name. We need a Bill that allows us to use Government contracts to support British businesses, so that we can make, buy and sell more in Britain. As we recover from the pandemic, we have a chance to seize new opportunities to shape a new future for Britain—opportunities to give people new skills and jobs here in the UK, to invest in local businesses, and to help our high streets to thrive again.

A Labour Government would ask every public body to give more contracts to British businesses, using social, environmental and labour clauses in contract design. We would work with colleges and universities to make sure that we hone the skills and apprenticeships that we need for the jobs of the future. The Tories have cynically abused procurement rules and handed out millions of pounds of public money to their mates; Labour will use public procurement to support good work and good British businesses. From good green jobs in tidal power and offshore wind, to fintech, media and film, we must grow modern industries to build a long-term economy that provides good jobs and is fit for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

It is pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). The Queen’s Speech contains the most dispiriting programme of legislation that I have known during my time in Parliament. Following a pandemic that has ripped through our communities, killing upwards of 175,000 of our fellow citizens, and as we now face a cost of living crisis, with people being left in the dreadful situation of having to choose between heating their home or eating, this Government have proposed a programme that will do absolutely nothing meaningful to help. Instead, they have decided to spend the next year enacting what can only be described as some of the most reactionary and authoritarian legislation in living memory. It follows a raft of recent laws passed at the very end of the last Session designed to drive a coach and horses through our civil liberties: the Elections Act 2022 contained measures to deter people from voting; the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 banned noisy protests, and criminalised Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities; and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 gave the Home Secretary powers to strip dual citizens of their British citizenship without notice, in contravention of the UK’s international obligations, criminalising many of those seeking asylum, who now risk being shipped off to Rwanda thanks to the Home Secretary’s cruel and inhumane scheme.

The Government have now said they intend to bring forward yet more draconian laws to stifle our democracy: the Orwellian “Bill of Rights” is pure doublespeak. a terrifying attack on our hard-won human rights laws; the Public Order Bill is an outright assault on peaceful protest, and tries to push through a matter that has already been voted down by this Parliament; and the boycotts, divestment and sanctions Bill seeks to criminalise a legitimate form of political dissent, while also smearing the campaign for Palestinian human rights. It ought to worry any person who cares about this issue, or about other human rights abuses, climate activism, the arms trade, or indeed any expression of solidarity with oppressed peoples struggling for justice across the world. Not one jot or scintilla of those Bills will do anything to support hard-pressed families facing the cost of living crisis, including the many thousands living in poverty in Middlesbrough. They will have been sick to the pits of their stomachs—as I was—to have heard from those on the Government Benches yesterday that their crises are of their own making and because they cannot budget, cook properly and manage to live on 30p a day.

One thing that could have been of help to working people is the introduction of the long-promised employment Bill. Since legislation was announced three years ago, Ministers have committed to bringing forward a Bill no fewer than 20 times, yet when it came to the Queen’s Speech on Tuesday, such a Bill was nowhere to be found.

Whether in respect of the lies about widespread law-breaking under the Prime Minister’s own roof or the hollow promise to make Britain the best place to work, why should the public have any trust in a word that Conservative politicians have to say? It appears that measures that had been announced—such as the creation of a single enforcement body, offering greater protections for workers; provision to make flexible working the default; and the extension of redundancy protection to prevent pregnancy and maternity discrimination—have all since fallen by the wayside. The Government are clearly more focused on attacking those protesting against the climate catastrophe or the crime of apartheid than they are on caring for those who are most in need across our country.

The strengthening of employment rights and protections is critically urgent, yet the Government are not taking the necessary steps to address the stark imbalances of power in the workplace. The sorry situation we now find ourselves in was made plain for us all to see in March this year, with the unlawful and utterly disgraceful decision of P&O Ferries bosses to make almost 800 of their workforce redundant over Zoom in a pre-recorded message, having chosen to break the law and not consult or engage with trade unions, as required by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Those loyal and hard-working seafarers, some of whom had been with the company for decades, were removed from vessels by security guards with handcuffs, while agency workers on as little as £1.80 an hour were brought on board to replace them.

Ministers have heralded the proposed harbours (seafarers’ remuneration) Bill as a silver bullet to protect seafarers from such bully-boy tactics on the part of rogue employers, yet the British Ports Association and the TUC have dismissed the plans as unworkable or insufficient. The announcement of a consultation process means there will be further delays. All the while, as the Government kick the can down the road, they have freely admitted that P&O Ferries has got away with forcing out its unionised workforce, either by making them redundant or through the pernicious practice of firing and rehiring seafarers on less-favourable agency contracts.

Back in March, the Prime Minister said that his Government were taking legal action against P&O Ferries bosses; well, we are two months on, so where is it? Ministers could and should have immediately taken concrete action to seize the vessels, reinstate the workers and impose unlimited fines on the company. Instead, those on the Government Benches have sat on their hands as hundreds of lives and livelihoods have been turned upside down, because when it comes down to it, the only thing that matters to them and their fat-cat friends is profit, not people.

The Government’s inaction has not just let P&O Ferries off the hook: it has given other businesses the green light to trample over workers’ rights, and that will continue for so long as the situation exists in which law-breaking is good for a company’s bottom line. This “break the law and pay people off later” Bullingdon Club mentality runs through the upper classes and establishment in our society. Be it the bosses of big business or the Prime Minister, they know that they can get away with acting unlawfully, either because they will not get caught and held to account, or because they know that if they do, they will still come up trumps in a system that always has their backs.

If the situation is allowed to go on without correction, it will not just be operators across the maritime industry that feel compelled to follow suit, spelling an end to any residual UK maritime workforce; we will see a race to the bottom right across the economy, as businesses take the lead from P&O, knowing that they can blithely commit crimes of corporate thuggery, and decimate workers’ rights and protections in the process.

If we are to see an end to this corrupt, immoral system, in the first instance we need a strengthening of employment rights and protections, including the total outlawing of fire and rehire tactics. Legislation must be passed that stops such injurious industrial practices being profitable. The fact that the Government stood in the way of the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) in the previous Session, and their failure time and again to vote in favour of motions to outlaw fire and rehire, has done much to create a culture of impunity among predatory exploitative businesses that will use “greed is good” opportunities to steal a march on those good and decent businesses that behave ethically and care for the people who work for them.

If we are to rebalance the economy, improve wages and save working people and those most in need from bearing the brunt of soaring inflation, now more than ever we need a new deal for working people, as we set out in the Green Paper that we published last year. Our programme would not only outlaw fire and rehire tactics but transform the world of work. It would ensure that people were treated with dignity and respect, and address the imbalance of power by unshackling trade unions to do their job: bargaining for and protecting their members. I am gravely fearful that the Government plan to move in the opposite direction and further weaken working people’s rights and protections.

The provisions that have been outlined in respect of the so-called Brexit freedoms Bill to amend, repeal or replace retained EU law—including, I expect, those laws that protect workers’ rights—are deeply concerning. The Minister for Levelling Up Communities is not in her place, but I wanted to offer her the opportunity to intervene and state categorically that the Government will not permit regression on a single piece of employment legislation, be it on the transfer of undertakings regulations or limits on working time. We will get no answer, but this is a dark and desperate moment. I can only assume from the Government’s continued refusal to rule out such measures that our fears are well founded.

This is the moment for working people across the country to realise that, far from representing their interests, this Government are coming after their rights, which generations have fought so hard to win. If we on the Opposition Benches can come together, hopefully with some Government Members, in opposition, we stand a chance of defeating the Government’s devastatingly draconian plans and the betrayal of working people that lies within them.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark). I will concentrate much of my speech on employment, which is ironic, given the collective industrial action that appears to be taking place on the Conservative Benches. I just hope that the ballot was conducted in a legal way.

I may be alone in this, but I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) is no longer in his place. The anti-immigration rhetoric that he was using is in stark contrast to the reality of the situation. I do not believe that any human being is illegal. When we use words like “illegal” about fellow human beings, we are on very dangerous ground indeed.

In stark contrast, though, I have been in tears of joy over the past few days, but I can assure Members that it is not over the Queen’s Speech. I am delighted to say that it is over the great news of the council elections. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the good people of Glasgow South West are among the most sophisticated electorate in these islands. In the Greater Pollok ward, they hit it out of the park. They have elected the great Roza Salih, who becomes the first refugee elected as a councillor in Scotland. What a wonderful achievement that is for this “brilliant young woman”, as the First Minister of Scotland said. This is someone who has served with distinction in the Glasgow South West constituency office. She was so good that she has been promoted twice: she is currently the office manager, and has helped to serve constituents diligently. She will make a fantastic councillor. Is that not something, when we hear the rhetoric from some on the Government Benches about “immigrants”? They use this anti-immigrant language, when we have a brilliant young woman who is now engaging in public service. That is why I want asylum seekers to be given the right to work.

The Blair Government made a mistake when they stopped asylum seekers having the right to work. It is absolutely scandalous that we allow asylum seekers to live on the equivalent of what I was earning as a youth trainee with Strathclyde Regional Council 30 years ago. It is not right. After a period of time—say, six months—asylum seekers should have the right to work and make their contribution to this economy.

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on this issue. The Government’s Homes for Ukraine scheme has a lot to recommend it, if only it worked properly for everybody. It is absolutely right that people should have recourse to public funds and to work, but surely that should apply to every refugee; it should not simply be restricted to one group. I am delighted that this group has that, but should it not go across the board universally?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree with the hon. Member. People who seek sanctuary in this country want to make a positive contribution across these islands. There should be a right to work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am making the point that we do not need an employment Bill to deliver employment legislation.

[Andy McDonald]

rose—

[Kemi Badenoch]

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

Sub-Postmasters: Compensation

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

Yes. In the same way as with the HSS, we can work with the estates to ensure that compensation is paid through them. That is my understanding.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on securing this urgent question. I also congratulate the Minister, who has stuck at this and been candid with us on every occasion. This is one of many battles—it is won, and I congratulate him—but the purpose of compensation is to put people in the position they would have been in had the insult not occurred in the first place. It is essential that this scheme properly compensates people for their past and future pecuniary losses, as well as compensating for their pain, suffering and loss of amenity, including the loss of liberty. Will he ensure that those principles are adhered to in this scheme, because nothing less than that will satisfy the people who have been so badly wronged by this terrible episode?

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. In terms of loss of liberty, that comes up with the overturned convictions. In terms of the overall losses, as I said, the HSS works by looking at the past losses as well as what is ongoing and making an assessment of that with an independent panel behind it. I envisage that there will be the same scheme for the 555 so that there will be parity in their compensation.

Corporate Transparency and Economic Crime

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend is right. This idea that the City of London does not want regulation is a travesty and a disgrace. It is a slur on the reputation of our financial services. He is also right to say that there is a distinction to be drawn between what needs to be done immediately and can be done expeditiously, and other matters that need a great deal of thought and consultation, on which I am happy to engage with him and other colleagues.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The introduction of this corporate transparency work is welcome but way overdue; it is a shame that it took the invasion of Ukraine to bring it forward. While he is at it, will the Minister please encourage the chair of his party to conduct a review of the money that has come from oligarchs to Tory MPs and demand to know what was expected of them? Are they going to give that money back?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I would like to make a point about donations to political parties. We all know that we do not have state-funded parties. Any citizen can fund and give donations to political parties. I also want to say gently that not every single person of Russian origin is an oligarch. People come here—many of them have British citizenship—and they give freely of their funds.