Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Soubry]

We need to remind ourselves, of course, that the Government have been clear that ending six-figure payments should apply to all public sector organisations, with few exceptions. Of course, it is the taxpayer who picks up the cost of exit payments and employees who have specialist skills should not automatically be exempt.

I was a little troubled by the contribution from the hon. Member for Wakefield, and not because I disagreed with her for one moment about the dreadful accident the day before yesterday at Didcot and the subsequent fatalities. It is undoubtedly the case that many people do dangerous jobs. I am reminded, of course, of all those who work in the fire and rescue service; we often forget that the fire brigades provide the rescue service as well. They do incredibly dangerous work, not only when they are fighting fires but when they are rescuing people. Although it is extremely rare, if it ever happens, that we make firefighters redundant, nevertheless they are also included in this new provision. I do not think that the fact that someone does a dangerous job should in some way exempt them.

The list of exempt organisations will be set out in the regulations, not in the Bill itself, and of course they will need the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The guidance accompanying the regulations will set down the criteria that Ministers, or those who have been delegated the responsibility, must consider in decisions to relax the cap. In other words, there are exemptions that can be made, but they will be determined in a list that, as I say, will require the approval of both Houses.

Regulations relaxing the cap can apply to individual cases and to groups of individuals, to cater for cases where Ministers may wish to consider organisational cases for relaxing the cap. So there is already a mechanism in place for organisations to be considered for exemption. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.

The regulations implementing the cap will be in force from October 2016 at the very earliest. However, as I think I have explained—it has certainly been explained in correspondence, but now I will make it very clear again—Magnox employees who are in the current redundancy programme and due to exit by September 2016 will not—repeat, will not—be caught by the cap, and the cap will not affect the core terms of the pension scheme available to Nuclear Decommissioning Authority staff, in other words Magnox employees, such as the retirement age or the basis on which their pensions accrual rate is set.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West used a particular example, of course, from somebody who had quite properly written in, which is absolutely the right thing to do. In relation to that point, I will say that I have indeed had meetings with MPs. I have not met the unions, not because I have any difficulty in meeting unions, but only because—unfortunately—my diary is pretty hectic.

However, I particularly made the point when I met the MPs, and I have made it clear to the unions by way of a letter, that people should please use their MPs to make full representations to me. As we all know, in this place Members can lobby a Minister in a corridor, or anywhere we bump into each other. That is the quickest and easiest way, but it is not a slight on the unions. I have specifically said to Members of Parliament, “Get back to them, and tell them about our meeting. Use your good self to communicate through.”

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Soubry]

In just a moment. I have drifted off, and I want to come back to my point on Magnox pensions. These are employer-funded costs that form part of the exit payment, and the cap does not affect the core terms of the pensions. That is important, and everyone is beholden to ensure that employees get the facts, not the myths or the spin. The cap does not affect the core terms of their pensions, such as accrual rates and normal pension age. I hope that might be of some assistance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I want to make a few remarks as the Minister did not allow me to intervene earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield made a point about consistency and the treatment of workers, whether they are senior bank executives or Magnox workers. Reasonable people might expect similar and decent treatment from the Government, whether they work in a bank, in decommissioning in the nuclear industry, or anywhere else. That is the grave concern about some of what we have heard and about the clauses tabled by the Government, which we want to amend. I tried to intervene on the Minister’s comments on trade unions. I do not doubt her desire to engage with trade unions or her understanding of the importance of talking to the trade unions.

The Minister is right that constituency MPs have a crucial role in discussing with Ministers the impact of legislation on their constituents. Workers in the nuclear industry who are extremely worried, with good reason, about the proposals in the Bill are rightly being represented by their Members of Parliament and by members of the Committee. Indeed, representations were made on Second Reading and will be made on Report in two weeks’ time. The Minister made comments about the pressures on her diary, but I gently say to her that partnership between Government, business and the workforce, especially through its trade union representation, is a hallmark of successful economies.

As success comes in large part from the relationship between the Government and the trade unions, in order to do the Magnox workers justice, the Minister should have made it a priority to meet their trade union before we got to this point in Committee. It is a great pity that she did not.

[Kevin Brennan]

I thought the Minister’s response was disappointing, given the weight of the evidence submitted to the Committee and the strength of feeling among hon. Members and their constituents. The workers have made their plans and taken decisions on the basis of guarantees and promises given by Government. As far as we can surmise from the limited information that the Minister is prepared to provide about the Government’s intentions, it now appears that the Government are going to take action that will affect them.

To listen to the Minister, one might think that the workers would not be affected at all. She seemed to be dealing with all sorts of shibboleths that were nothing to do with what is in the new schedule, rather than telling us directly whether the workers’ pensions and prospects would be affected by the exit payment cap. The Minister rehearsed arguments about all sorts of scares, which may have been put about by mythical people she was not prepared to name, but going by the evidence submitted to us, the workers in question will be affected—and to quite a large extent.

We represented those arguments and made the case on the workers’ behalf, and quoted, albeit selectively, from a heavy weight of evidence that they submitted to us about their circumstances. All we got from the Minister was a response to issues that had not been raised in the workers’ letters to us and a vague reference to secondary legislation at some later date that will name some as yet unknown entities that may be excluded from the cap.

I am sorry, but I was brought up not to buy a pig in a poke, and if I were the Magnox workers I would not fall for that for a second. It is the oldest trick in the book for Ministers to say “We might do something at a later date, but let something through in the meantime.” That is not why we are here. We are here to get on the record the Government’s position, and whether they accept the arguments about Magnox and other workers that we have set out in the new schedule. We want to know whether they are prepared to exclude those workers, through secondary legislation, from the exit payment cap. At the very least, will they give a strong indication that that is how they are minded to act?

All we got from the Minister was an empty sheet of paper, with nothing written on it. I am afraid that is not good enough for the constituents who have written to us and who are directly affected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

Actually, we are enhancing the position for both employers and shop workers. We are improving shop workers’ rights and giving better access to and understanding of those rights; we are putting a bigger duty on employers to notify their staff of their rights; we are increasing the penalty for employers who do not abide by the rules; and, importantly, we are giving wider opportunity and choice to local economies and people who wish to work longer on a Sunday or to spend time with their families either by shopping on a Sunday or before or after they have shopped.

Let me be clear to the Committee more generally: if a shop worker suffers detriment, or is dismissed for exercising, or even just planning to exercise, their opt-out rights, the employer will be breaking the law. It is important that that is on the record so that anyone can see it.

[Bill Esterson]

How does the Minister envisage the rules being enforced? One concern that has been expressed is that the Government can legislate all they want on these sorts of things, but in the end it comes down to the balance of the relationship and whether anyone is prepared to challenge their employer. When a law has been broken, it comes down to whether anything meaningful—anything with teeth—can be applied. How will it work and how realistic are the proposals?

[Brandon Lewis]

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that, if during the lunch break he looks back over what I said just a few moments ago, he will see that we are increasing the penalties on employers who do not abide by the rules. Not only are we increasing the financial penalty and, therefore, the benefit for an employee who is unfairly treated, but we are giving further responsibilities to the employer on the notice period that they need to give.

It is important that people understand what workers’ rights are, which is why we are increasing the number of ways for people to understand them and know how to exercise them. I say it again: a very large number of people in this country want to work longer hours and want the flexibility to be able to work more hours on a Sunday as opposed to other hours in the week.

Some retailers I have spoken to have been clear that in some areas Sunday is the easiest day of the week for them to recruit staff who want to work. It is good for family opportunities, and it is particularly good for women and students who want to work. We want to ensure that we create that opportunity for more local areas so that they have economic growth and create more jobs, and so that there are more opportunities for people to work if they want to, all while retaining the flexibility for both the local area and shop workers to have the choice.

[Bill Esterson]

rose—

[Brandon Lewis]

I can see that the hon. Gentleman is very keen to intervene again.

[Bill Esterson]

Well, it is an incredibly important point. I was talking about the penalties. How likely is it that the rules will be enforced and the penalties used? We are told that there has been an impact assessment, but it has not been published yet, so we are in the dark as to just how effective the remedies are going to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I can repeat what I said for the hon. Gentleman very clearly. First, where the employer fails to comply with the notification requirement, the notice period for both opt-outs will reduce automatically: from one month to seven days at large shops, and from three months to one month at small shops. Secondly, we are enabling an employment tribunal to make a minimum award if an employer is found to have failed to notify shop workers of their opt-out rights in the context of a related successful claim. With that, I commend the new clause to the Committee.

[Bill Esterson]

Finally, we have the long-anticipated debate on Sunday trading. Until the eve of Committee stage, uncertainty reigned as to whether we would be debating it at all—as it was, of course, only the week before that the Secretary of State had announced that Sunday trading would be part of the Bill. From what the Minister just said, it seems that the new clause might be more correctly called the “Harrods clause”, given that Knightsbridge is the only part of the country he could cite where there is support from the high street for the Government’s proposals.

[Brandon Lewis]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recollect, I explained the matter to him. Think of the impact across the country. Even in a constituency such as mine, where tourism in its high street is looking to compete with out-of-town shops and online, it is a massive opportunity. I gave an example to highlight just how big these numbers are and how many jobs will potentially be created. I hope he understands that.

[Bill Esterson]

Those are points I will come to. I did not know that Harrods had a shop in the Minister’s constituency or that it contained the Knightsbridge of the east.

The other description might have been the “domino clause”. The Minister talked about local leaders having the opportunity. The Opposition fully support the proper devolution of powers and responsibilities, and the ability to make a difference in the local area. Although he talked about local leaders, he did not talk about the views of the local community, the workers affected or the small independent retailers and the impact the proposals will have on many small shops.

The problem is that, when talking to local authority leaders and chief executives, as some organisations have done, one main reason given for saying they may well end up implementing these provisions is that they feel they have no choice. Their neighbours having allowed Tesco, Asda or out-of-town shopping centres to have extended opening hours on a Sunday, they fear that loss of trade within their own boundaries will force them down the route of using these provisions in their own local authority area.

The Government knew full well that any attempt to reform Sunday trading legislation would spark significant debate and opposition from a wide range of stakeholders. The Prime Minister’s spokeswoman wrote on 20 April last year to the campaign group Keep Sunday Special assuring them that the Conservatives had no plans to relax Sunday trading laws. Indeed, it was not in the Conservative party manifesto. She wrote:

“I can assure you that we have no current plans to relax the Sunday trading laws. We believe that the current system provides a reasonable balance between those who wish to see more opportunity to shop in large stores on a Sunday, and those who would like to see further restrictions.”

There we have it. Presumably, in the Conservative party, the Government and the previous coalition Government, when the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson spoke it was on his behalf and we should take as gospel what she said at the time. The country as a whole should have trusted what we were told on 20 April. The Government knew this would be opposed and were that worried about it that they went so far as to reassure the country before the election that they had no plans to change Sunday trading laws. They knew it would be opposed, cause problems and break the consensus that had stood for 22 years, since the Sunday Trading Act 1994.

The amendments we are considering include a change to the name of the Bill in amendment 77, as the Minister has just said, to include Sunday trading. We have to wonder what is going on when a Bill started in the Lords and went through the entire Lords proceedings without any mention of Sunday trading. Only on Second Reading in this House was Sunday trading mentioned. In fact, it was so late that Members who oppose changes to Sunday trading did not even know the Bill would consider it.

I spoke to a number of Members on the Government Benches on the day of Second Reading and they had no idea that the issue was in the Bill because they were not in the Chamber to hear the Secretary of State mention it in his opening speech. Had they been, they could have made their opposition clear and raised their concerns but there was no such opportunity for Government Members. That is a great shame.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

With the leave of the Chair, I beg to move that the Committee be now adjourned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

My speech would take us all the way through the lunch period, which may not be popular with Members.

[The Chair]

I understand that Mr Esterson will have the opportunity to make a second speech if he wants to return to the topic later in the debate. He may wish to avail himself of that opportunity.

[Bill Esterson]

Thank you. I will take advantage of that.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Stephen Barclay.)