Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Not at all. There will be further scrutiny of the minimum service levels when they are brought forward, in the usual way that legislation passes through this House. Those regulations will be considered by both Houses.

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

In response to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), the Minister indicated that the Government agree with the right to strike and want to protect it. However, rejecting Lords amendment 4B does not do that, because the consequence would be that employers would have the right to dismiss a worker taking part in industrial action, with no recourse to a tribunal. How does that protect the right to strike action?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Because it requires people who are named in a work notice to turn up for work, which is common in other jurisdictions that use minimum service levels in order to ensure that the public can go about their daily lives and businesses continue to operate. It does not interfere with that ability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

The shadow Minister is being very generous in taking interventions. The heart of the Lords amendment is to protect workers who have been dismissed so that they have recourse to a tribunal. That is a fundamental human right, is it not?

[Justin Madders]

One would have thought so, and that is probably why the Equality and Human Rights Commission has expressed great alarm at this Bill. If the Government want to give themselves the power to threaten every firefighter, every teaching assistant and every paramedic with the sack when they exercise their democratic right to withhold their labour, they should think very carefully about what they do with that power, because in a free society no Minister should hold that power—not that Ministers seem to understand what this Bill actually does, because the Minister said last time:

“The reality is that nobody will be sacked as a result of this legislation.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2023; Vol. 733, c. 103.]

I know that the Government chose to bypass the normal line-by-line consideration of this Bill, but one would have hoped that the Minister had read as far as the schedule, because it does actually contain the power to sack people for going on strike.

Even if the Government do not understand the powers they are giving themselves under the Bill, they ought to understand the principle of the withdrawal of labour in the event of a dispute. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) has mentioned, many Conservative Members withdrew their labour the other night. In fact, 200 of them had no difficulty in doing so. Indeed, former Prime Minister Johnson withdrew his labour after he disagreed with the report from the Privileges Committee. So they should understand that the principle of people withdrawing their labour is an important one. It is a basic and fundamental right that every one of our citizens should enjoy in a free and democratic society. We are not serfs required to provide toil to the lord of the manor or conscripts engaged in a war against an invading force; we are citizens of this country, and in a free country the right to withdraw labour should be protected and respected.

Even if Conservative Members believe that the requirement to send someone into work against their will is somehow consistent with a free and democratic society, they should at least consider the fact that the Bill as it stands means an employee can be sacked for failing to comply with a work notice, even if they say they have not received it. Yes, someone can be sacked for not complying with a work notice without any challenge to it legally, and they can also be sacked for not complying with it even if they have never seen it. How is that justice, how is that reasonable and how is that good industrial relations? It is a recipe for injustice, for toxicity and for abuse by employers who want to get rid of the most troublesome employees.

I will not list all the organisations that have condemned this Bill, but two of the main employers in the key rail and health sectors have called this out for what it is, because they know that rather than resolve industrial disputes, this Bill will prolong them. They know that the kind of restrictions this Bill places on people are anti-democratic and not in the best traditions of this country. It is no wonder that even members of the Cabinet have criticised this Bill. Indeed, this week we had the shameful news that the United Nations, through the International Labour Organisation, has called on the Government to respect international law, such is the threat that this Bill poses to it. No, we cannot accept this tawdry, vindictive, unworkable disgrace of a Bill. This Bill attacks the people who keep this country going, and the sooner the Government realise that the politics of division will not work, the better.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

All I can say about legislation like this is that the Government should be careful what they wish for. This is possibly the most significant piece of trade union legislation introduced in this country for a century—right back to Taff Vale—because it strikes at the basic human right to strike. Because it is so significant, wise people in the House of Lords—I rarely say that—have tabled Lords amendment 2B. All they are saying to the Government is, “This is such a significant piece of legislation that you really do need to consult on its detail and implementation.” Without that detailed consultation, I think that a whole range of problems will be exhibited.

I will give one example from my constituency, which I have raised before. How can there be a minimum level of service for air traffic controllers? It does not exist. Therefore, in effect, the legislation means that constituents who are air traffic controllers will not have the right to strike any more. If that is what the Government want, they should be honest and explicit about that.

Again, the Government should be careful what they wish for. Individuals who are trade unionists will see the Bill as the withdrawal of their right to strike, because at any time an employer will be able to say to that individual, “You have got to work.” If that individual says, “Well, I want to go on strike,” they could be sacked, and they would have no protections left in law. That is an attack on the basic right to strike. What will those individuals do? Large numbers of them will not comply. Then what happens? It will escalate into an even more significant dispute.

The legislation also says to a trade union, completely contrary to three centuries of history, “You will be required to discipline your members for not working.” That basically means that the Government will cause conflict within that particular union, or across the trade union movement overall. Maybe that is what the Government are all about.

When the legislation was brought forward, I thought that the motivation for it was one of two things. The first possibility was that the Government were panicking because of the scale of industrial action taking place, not realising that the vast majority of those industrial disputes would, as always, be settled by negotiation. That is what has happened with most of them. If it was not panic, it was something more sinister. It was Ministers thinking, “Why waste this opportunity? Why not bring forward the legislation that we have wanted for generations to undermine the right to strike?”. If that was the Government’s motivation, I tell them that they cannot implement legislation, no matter how hard they try, if it goes against the grain of our history, which is to respect workers’ rights, because those have been fought for over generations.

The Bill will exacerbate the industrial relations climate in this country. The Government should at least accept the Lords amendments, because they go some way towards establishing a piece of legislation that may be seen as implementable through consultation and through the protection of rights. If they go ahead like this, I can see nothing but further conflict. That will undermine the commitment across the House to try to develop a growth economy again, rather than one held back by disputes, some of which have been engineered in recent times because of the cost of living crisis.

[Chris Stephens]

I, too, refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In opening the debate, the Minister skirted round amendment 4B and just said that the Government were opposed to it. A number of us intervened at the time, but I really do think that he needs to consider the Government’s position carefully, particularly on that amendment, because it gets to the heart of the Bill and why so many of us are expressing concerns about the attacks on natural justice and on human rights.

Lords amendment 4B asks that employees receive a work notice in good time. It seems fairly uncontroversial that a work notice should be issued to a worker in good time if they are to attend their work. If we do not accept the amendment, we will end up with a scenario where someone returns to work after a day of industrial action and is told they are being dismissed with no evidence whatsoever that they have been given a work notice. Of course, the Government do not want to give the responsibility for the work notice to the employer, so the employer will have no obligation at all to serve an employee with a work notice, but they could dismiss them the very next day after industrial action.

Let me emphasise that the employee would have no recourse to an employment tribunal. Surely it is a fundamental human right, and fundamental to natural justice, that if a worker is dismissed, they have recourse to a tribunal to challenge that decision. That, to me, seems fairly self-evident and obvious, but the Government are allowing a situation where rogue employers will be able to dismiss a worker for taking part in industrial action with no recourse to a tribunal, and they will not need to evidence the fact that that worker was served with a work notice.

The Government find themselves in a preposterous situation by opposing Lords amendment 4B, so I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of these questions. Is it really the Government’s position, as I have outlined, that it is okay for an employer to dismiss those on strike and that they will not need to provide evidence that the employee was obliged to go into work? It is ludicrous.

[Rachael Maskell]

While the Government clearly do not want workers to have access to justice through the employment tribunal, of course those workers’ human rights will have been infringed, so will they not have access to other courts to challenge this egregious legislation?

[Chris Stephens]

Hopefully the Minister will answer that question.

The Minister did say in answer to my intervention that it happens in other countries. Yes, it happens in Russia and Hungary. Are Government Members really going to justify the Bill by saying, “It happens in other countries like Hungary and Russia”? Is that the Government’s example? Let me name another country—Italy, where workers can be disciplined but short of dismissal. But the Government do not want to follow the Italian model; they want to be in line with Hungary and Russia. It is incredible that the Government have found themselves in that position.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We believe that it does. The ILO endorses the use of minimum service levels to make sure that the provision of public services is maintained during periods of industrial action. We are happy with our position on that.

We resist Lords amendments 4 to 7 on the principle that the Government have a duty to pass effective legislation. It is regrettable that Opposition Lords have sought to undermine that principle. Lords amendment 4 would mean that there were no consequences for a worker who did not comply with a work notice. The Government disagree with the amendment, as without those consequences, employers would be powerless to manage instances of non-compliance, and strikes would continue to have a disproportionate impact on the public. That would severely undermine the effectiveness of the legislation. Given that the amendment would make the Bill ineffective, as I suspect the Opposition intended, the Government cannot support it.

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

It looks as though the unelected House has a better understanding of what happens in the workplace than the Government do; that should worry the Minister. Can he name other countries where a worker could be dismissed in such circumstances?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

In some countries, such as those I referred to earlier, strikes are banned completely for those working for some blue light services. We already have that situation in the UK for the armed forces, prison officers and the police. There would be a breach of contract if people in those positions were to strike.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon]

I would. My hon. Friend is always light on his feet in the Chamber, as he has shown, but I would be happy to give way to the Minister if he has anything of merit to say as this pernicious piece of legislation passes through with no acceptance by the Government of the common-sense and democratic decency of the amendments from the other place. Their anti-strikes Bill is no one-off—this is why the Lords amendments are so necessary. It is part of an authoritarian drift by a Government who, as we have heard, are desperate to close off any challenges to their reactionary agenda, be that at the ballot box, on the picket line or on protests.

The Bill, this attack on the right to strike, follows restrictions on the right to vote through the disgraceful voter suppression strategy. It follows restrictions on the right to protest through the disgraceful Public Order Act 2023. This anti-strikes Bill, like the Public Order Act and voter ID, should be thrown into the dustbin of history.

It is deeply concerning that, in 2023, we are having to rely on members in the other place to send these Lords amendments back when we are facing such draconian attacks on democratic rights, including the democratic right to strike, the democratic freedom to withdraw labour and the democratic role of trade unions to represent their members—workers, not bosses and not the Conservative Government.

I end by refuting the Government’s empty claim that this legislation is really about bringing the UK into line with International Labour Organisation norms. That is absolutely not the case. I previously tabled an amendment, backed by 30 Members on a cross-party basis, to prevent this legislation from being enacted until a judge had certified that the UK was meeting its International Labour Organisation obligations. The Government refused to accept that amendment; I wonder why. Perhaps it is because they know that their claim that the Bill brings us into line with other countries and International Labour Organisation standards is hollow rhetoric. The truth, as the European Trade Union Confederation has said, is that

“The UK already has among the most draconian restrictions on the right to strike in Europe, and the UK government’s plans would push it even further away from normal, democratic practice across Europe.”

Members do not need to be trade unionists to understand the common sense and democratic decency of these Lords amendments, and they certainly do not need to be socialists. Any Member of this House who values the hard-won freedoms of individual workers and trade unions in our society should back these Lords amendments. Not to do so would be completely shameful and go against the hard-won democratic freedoms that we have secured in this country through struggle. Indeed, it is shameful that we have had to protest outside Parliament today and to argue for those freedoms in this Chamber tonight.

[Chris Stephens]

Let me start by referring the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests and the fact that I am a proud member of the Glasgow city branch of Unison, one of the largest trade unions across these islands.

Like many other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), I am completely puzzled as to why there seems to be industrial action on the Government Benches every time we discuss industrial action law. Could it be that Government Members are so outraged by this Bill, and indeed support the Lords amendments, that they are at the TUC rally outside? I doubt it somewhat. Or is it simply the fact—as I believe to be the case—that Government Back Benchers do not have the confidence in their own arguments for this legislation to come here and defend the Government’s position?

It seems that the unelected House—the comrades in ermine down the corridor—has a greater understanding of what happens in workplaces across these islands than the Government do, and we can see that in some of the amendments. It is quite incredible that the Government oppose an amendment that would make it the employer’s responsibility to serve a work notice. The Government then say that they want to keep the measures in the Bill for dismissing a worker. This is quite incredible.

Imagine the scene. The day after industrial action, a poor individual who went on strike goes back to their work and is asked by the employer, “Where were you yesterday?” They are going to answer, “I was on strike.” But they are then told, “Well, you were served a work notice,” and that person will rightly say, “Where’s the proof from you as the employer that I was served a work notice?” The employer is going to say, “Under the legislation, we don’t need to serve the work notice, but we have the right to dismiss you, because we think you should have been served one,” and they will end up being dismissed—with no right, incidentally, as I understand the legislation, to an employment tribunal. You really could not make this up.

The Government also oppose a sensible amendment to ensure oversight of the powers in the Bill. A Government who are confident in their own legislation should welcome an amendment to ensure oversight of the Bill and a Committee of each House to look at how the powers are exercised. Of course, as the Minister has indicated, he opposes that Lords amendment, too.

Then we have Lords amendment 1. I heard the Minister say that industrial relations is reserved. Well, not quite, Minister, because when there are elections to Scotland’s Parliament or the Senedd in Wales, political parties—at least the sensible and good ones—will have in their manifestos how industrial relations should be addressed in areas of devolved competence. That would seem the sensible approach for a good political party to take, which is why there are debates in both those devolved Parliaments about the fair work agenda. We should have more of those debates in this place—but of course, the Government would not know fair work or the fair work agenda if it crossed them in the street.

The reason I think the Lords have got it right in their amendment 1 is that the Government seem to believe, and take the position, that they know better than the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Senedd about devolved areas of responsibility. In seeking to reject Lords amendment 1, the Government are arguing that Ministers at Westminster level have the expertise to know what the minimum service levels should be in transport, health or anything else in Scotland or Wales, when they cannot even manage their own minimum service levels in this Chamber. What chance have we got that they will understand?

If anyone seriously believes that a Minister in this place has an understanding of what the minimum service level should be in a devolved competence, then I would suggest that they must be a right Michael Blackley. Frankly, you could not make it up. It is laughable position, and the Lords have got it right. In this respect, the law should apply to England only, and then England’s representatives should decide whether, possibly, the legislation should apply at all.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making excellent points about the importance of industrial relations and Scotland having the expertise to deal with that. Does he agree that industrial relations in Scotland in recent years have been much improved on the situation under the Westminster Government, certainly in negotiating pay and conditions for workers in Scotland?

[Chris Stephens]

I thank my constituency neighbour for that excellent intervention, because as my good Friends the Members for Glasgow East and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) indicated earlier, the area of the United Kingdom with the least industrial action is Scotland. That is because there seems to be a mature relationship between employers and trade unions in Scotland—far more mature, it would seem, than in England, for example, where we see Government Ministers bashing trade unions on a daily basis on the sofas of breakfast television.

I want to end my remarks, because I am conscious that others want to speak in this debate. The fact that the Government want to dismiss workers for exercising the human right to withdraw their labour is what makes this an absolutely despicable and disgraceful piece of legislation, which would tie them in with countries such as Russia and Hungary. We might think that those are not examples that the Government should follow. It seems quite frankly bizarre that they do want to follow them. I will be in the No Lobby tonight, because I agree with these Lords amendments.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I would like to declare my interests as a proud trade union member all of my life.

Obviously I want to discuss the amendments from the other place, but I have to say that this should basically be classed as the anti-strike Bill. This is a Bill that very few people want, far less like. Despite the fact that there are very few people on the Government Benches, we will watch them flow through the Lobby tonight—again, to attack working people of this country. Nor should we be surprised by any of this, because when the Government are down—when they are out; when they are under pressure; when they are out of steam and have nothing left to say, after 13 years of destruction of this country—what can bring them together? The answer is attacking trade unions, attacking working people and, we should not forget—and we will never forget—attacking key workers, because that is what this Bill does. It is about culture wars and politics of distraction. Like rats when cornered, they revert to type.

The amendments from the other place are extremely important. The thinking behind each of the amendments is that people understand the real intentions of the Bill. They are not what has been suggested by the Minister and others on the Government Benches. We need to be honest about what the Bill is actually about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

It is extremely important that people understand that once we see nurses, doctors, teachers and key workers facing the sack, there will be resistance in this country. I kid you not, there will be resistance in this country like we have never seen before, because these are basic human rights. We cannot instruct ordinary hard-working people; key workers; the people who got us through the pandemic; the people who put the Great in Great Britain. We cannot, under any circumstances, allow this legislation to sack individuals.

Lords amendment 4 refers to the work notice. My friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), eloquently made the point about the notification of a work notice. If someone has not had notification of a work notice, how could they ever be accused of breaching it if they are not aware that they have it? This is pretty simple stuff. I am not a barrister or a solicitor, but I understand it. And you know what, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Members on the Government Benches understand it, too. There is no doubt about that. When those people are asked the following day, “Why weren’t you here? You had a work notice,” and they reply, “I didn’t have one”, they will be told, “You did. How did you not understand that?” They can be sacked for that. Under this legislation, they can be sacked for not adhering to something that they did not even know they were part of. How bad is that?

[Chris Stephens]

It is actually worse than the hon. Gentleman is presenting it, because the person dismissed would not have the right to go to an employment tribunal.

[Ian Lavery]

Absolutely. I fully agree with those sentiments.

When employers are considering who they might wish to give the work notice to, Lords amendment 3 suggests that when deciding whether to identify a person in a work notice, an employer cannot consider whether the person “has or has not” taken part in trade union activities, made use of their services or had a trade union raise issues on their behalf. That amendment should not be needed in the UK in 2023, because everybody clearly understands that if bosses give work notices, they have a clear idea who they will give them to: the trade union reps and the people who do not have a fantastic employment record. That is why that Lords amendment about who the company identifies for a work notice is really important.

In reality, this legislation is simply a battering ram against ordinary working people. I have mentioned the resistance that will be shown in this country if we start sacking the nurses, the teachers and the posties. Blaming the posties for breaking the universal service obligation; blaming the teachers for education in their classes; blaming the nurses for the backlog—you name it, that is what the bosses will do. That will start under this legislation, as they will have the power to sack people. This is a sackers charter, no doubt about that, criminalising our heroic workers.

There will be resistance like we have never seen before. The difference is that the public are on the side of the workers on this one, so be ready. I raise a stark warning: be ready. When the bosses have the books out, ready to sack individuals, and when the Government are telling them who to sack and what the reasons might be, they should be ready for the resistance, because there will be huge issues. How can the Government expect a trade union to take responsibility for individuals who might not want to accept a basic human right? It is bizarre. It is absolutely crazy. I am trying to explain it, but it is very difficult; it is not simple. The trade unions have a huge role to play.

The Bill not only escalates an already febrile atmosphere in this country; it is a vicious attempt the pin the problems that we have on trade unions, from a party that has completely run out of steam. When will the Government start doing their job, for heaven’s sake? How many more hospital appointments need to be set back? How many teachers need to be made redundant or letters and parcels be delivered late before they stop making excuses and demonising workers, and get on with the job that they were elected to do?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank all Members, on both sides of the House, for the robust debate we have had as the legislation has passed through both Houses. It is fair to say that the discussion and debate about the legislation has pretty much divided along party political lines. Our position is that this legislation strikes a balance between the right to strike and the right of the public to go about their daily business and daily lives.

It is also fair to say that we could have chosen an option that went much further. As I said earlier, the USA, Australia and Canada have completely banned strikes in certain sectors, prohibiting them completely. Spain and Belgium have similar legislation on minimum service levels. Indeed, in France there are penalties of up to six months in jail for anyone who is under a requisition notice to return to work.

It is interesting that many Opposition Members have talked about restricting the right to strike. Well, we already restrict the right to strike for the armed forces, the police and prison officers. Will Opposition Members repeal that legislation to allow people who work in those parts of our society to strike? There are already some restrictions; we are putting in place sensible restrictions that are already in place in many other countries.

The guidance from the International Labour Organisation says:

“A minimum service may be set up in the event of a strike, the extent and duration of which might be such as to result in an acute national crisis endangering the normal living conditions of the population.”

It is clear the ILO supports the kinds of measures we are putting in place. I have heard Opposition Members say that no one wants this legislation but interestingly, when surveyed, 56% of the public say that they do, against 31% who do not.

Earlier today, the deputy Leader of the Opposition tweeted her support for the 121 politicians who have condemned the Bill. May I gently urge her to look at some of the people who signed that letter? Some of those signatories are anti-Zelensky, anti-Ukraine, anti-Israel and pro-Russia. I urge her to look at that again and withdraw her tweet.

We believe the legislation strikes the right balance between the right to strike and the rights of the public to go about their daily business and protect their livelihoods. There have been over £3 billion of costs to our economy because of these strikes, which is putting many businesses and many jobs in danger. The Bill presents a fair balance between the rights of workers and the rights of the public.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister is generous in giving way. He mentions balance. Can he tell me what is balanced about a piece of legislation, which he supports, whereby an employee who does not get a work notice can be dismissed?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There have to be measures that employers can use to make sure people comply with the work notice—that is how it works in many other countries. The reality is that nobody will be sacked as a result of the legislation. There are other disciplinary measures that can take place. We already have derogations in place on a voluntary basis that do not always prove ineffective. We are formalising the process to allow these measures to take place in other vital public services.

The amendments would make the legislation ineffective, which is why I urge all Members on both sides of the House to vote with us and disagree with the amendments.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Unpaid Work Trials

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Yes—and no, in terms of the Minister’s final point about there being a difference. The unpaid work trials contribute to the figure of £3 billion. I am not saying that the trials are worth £3 billion, but the study by the university concluded that that was part of the bigger £3 billion picture. I confess I do not think there has been an updated study. I do not know if the Government have anything to share with us this afternoon. I would be amazed if that figure had not grown since that study was done six years ago.

Among all the good will to try to stop this miserable exploitation, the Opposition and the Government arrived at different conclusions. I was of the view, supported by colleagues in the Opposition, that legislation was required —an amendment to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998—to outlaw the practice. The Government took the view that guidance was adequate, but it is not. It was proven not to be as recently as December last year in a court ruling. The ruling in Ms P Karimi and Ms C Patricio v. Fadi Ltd, published by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service on 2 December 2022, found that the claimant was entitled to the minimum wage for all hours worked during the trial period. Reasoning the judgment, the employment judge, Judge D Wright, stated that the

“legislation does not give explicit guidance”

as to how long these unpaid trial shifts may last.

An exploitation had taken place, whereby someone had worked in an unpaid trial, and the tribunals service determined that they should have been paid for it, but the judge said that the guidance is not sufficient on the regulation of work trials. I am not against work trials. I entirely support an employer’s right to say to someone, “Come in and show us what you are made of. Come in and show us that you actually have the skills and experience that you set out in the interview process.” What I do not support is exploiting people for jobs that do not exist, or for covering staffing shortages and doing so for 40 hours, as in the extreme examples that I mentioned at the start of my remarks.

Forty hours is an extreme and unusual example. What I thought I would find initially was that the norm would be two or three hours—half a shift or a morning. What I found more often than not was that the time was longer, and the physical experience of the unpaid work trial was demeaning. The number of people—mostly young people—who would work their unpaid trial shift and then just be left, not told whether they had a job, confused as to what was supposed to happen next, clearly tells us that better regulation of trial periods needs to be forthcoming from the Government. I do not think that that is too much to ask in this day and age. A fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay; it could even be said that it is a broadly Conservative value. It is something that even my colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) can rally around.

Let us be clear about what my proposed legislation was not; it was not about banning trial periods, and it did not concern itself with things like unpaid internships. Although I find them objectionable, I felt that would require its own piece of separate legislation. The aim of my proposal—the banning of exploiting people through unpaid work trials—remains an entirely just one.

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

I thank my good friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. There is another way of dealing with this issue. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government have been promising an employment Bill for the last six years. For some reason it is yet to become a reality. Does he agree that if the Government were to put forward an employment Bill, that would allow both of us to table amendments to address this topic?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

With all things around employment law, in my party I defer to my hon. Friend. He has a strong history of standing up for employment practices and a knowledge that surpasses mine when it comes to the detail of modern-day employment law.

To conclude my remarks, I think the aim of my Bill —although I suppose it is now an ex-Bill—was entirely just and reasonable. It has been shown in the time that has passed since the falling of that proposed legislation that the guidance the Government produced, although perfectly sensible and reasonable, is not enough. I still get emails, as do many Members from across the House, from people who are being exploited by unpaid work trials or, worse, fake work trials for jobs that do not even exist.

I will end with the example of a young Glasgow student, Ellen Reynolds, who petitioned Parliament a few years ago. She successfully gained the number of signatures required to have a debate in Westminster Hall on an unpaid trial shift that she was asked to take part in. There was no guarantee of a job at the end of it and she even had to buy here own uniform to take part in that unpaid trial shift. That is not an uncommon experience. All across Britain today, there are people working a couple of hours, half a shift, or half a morning —whatever it is—to show what they are made of, and they are not being paid for it, and they should be paid for it. They are not getting expenses for it, and they should be, at the very least.

We have a quirk of the system here, where exploitation is rife. I would bet that every person who can hear the sound of my voice knows somebody who has gone through an unpaid work trial at some point in their life, especially if they know groups of young people. The Government and this House have a duty to bring this exploitation to an end. That would not cost industry enormous amounts of money. It would bring in a bit of regulation that is right and proportionate. It would give some dignity to applicants, and some dignity into the workplace that is currently missing.

This is a small gap in the broad structure of employment law, but one that very much needs attention and could very easily fixed be with an amendment to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. When the Minister gets to his feet today, I suspect he will not be able to furnish the House with new legislation, but I hope he will be able to say something positive on statutory changes to end the exploitation of unpaid work trials and closing that loophole, which at the minute means that people do not get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, and to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I hope he enjoyed his birthday celebrations at the weekend; I noticed that he was a social media sensation, with all the well-wishers wishing him a happy birthday.

I congratulate my good friend and constituency neighbour, and fellow left winger—I use the definition loosely—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on securing this debate on an important issue that affects far too many people in these islands. My good friend talked about one of the more extreme examples, the tea company Mooboo, but he undersold what was going on at that particular workplace. That situation really did go from the bizarre to the ridiculous. I recall that when this story hit the headlines, myself and my good friend were actually sitting next to each other in the Chamber of the House of Commons on a Thursday morning at business questions—the Minister was usually at business questions in those days—as we discussed this great matter.

Those of us who were contacting Mooboo tea on the social media platform Twitter were finding ourselves blocked for asking why unpaid work trials were happening in that workplace. Members of the pubic who were asking Mooboo, “Why are you blocking Members of Parliament for asking basic questions?”, were finding themselves blocked. It was getting to the stage where Mooboo was blocking more people than it had followers. It was one of those ridiculous situations. Even journalists were asking Mooboo those questions and finding themselves blocked, until Mooboo relented and started to engage with Unite—Bryan Simpson, who is a fantastic trade unionist and a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South, and who does great work in organising trade unions in such areas, where exploitation takes place.

I want to make it very clear that the SNP is still calling on the UK Government to ban exploitative unpaid work trials and to protect workers, but we should not have to wait for the Government to act. As I alluded to in my intervention, we have waited six years for this employment Bill to appear before us. In 2017, the Government said they would bring forward an employment Bill to ban exploitative practices that were happening in the workplace, and then we were told, “Well, Brexit’s taken over.” Recently we have been told, “We’ll bring forward an employment Bill if there’s sufficient parliamentary time,” but that does not stop them introducing immigration Bill after immigration Bill. They can find parliamentary time for that, rather than for the very real issue of the exploitative practices that are happening in far too many workplaces across these islands. Will the Minister update the House on when we will finally see an employment Bill tabled by the Government to address unpaid work trials and all the other issues that come with it, which I will come to?

As my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South, said, he introduced an Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill in July 2017. Guess what, Mr Hollobone—I know you will be shocked when I say this—it was talked out by a Minister. How many private Members’ Bills have been talked out by a Minister? I hope that we will review how private Members’ Bills are put forward in this place and that we stop the practice whereby Ministers are allowed to keep talking until 2.30 pm on the button, when the Bills disappear. That is really disappointing, and that view is shared by others across the House.

My hon. Friend has led in a number of debates and been a consistent campaigner on unpaid work trials. I hope that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), and indeed the Minister, will praise him for his work in shining a light on these issues.

In response to a written parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South about legislative proposals, the UK Government said:

“Existing legislation already bans unpaid work trials that are not part of a legitimate recruitment process”,

yet he has given example after example, as did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), of unpaid work trials happening all over the economy and not being part of a recruitment process. As my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour said, they are being used to deal with staff shortages or fill in for people who have been off sick, which is a scandalous practice. Then there are those who are having to buy uniforms to go to unpaid work trials, which is an absolutely ridiculous practice—I hope the Minister noted what my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Strangford also said about that. The Minister will need to answer for how we can deal with that kind of exploitation, because that is what it is.

As my hon. Friend said, trial periods can be a legitimate way to assess a candidate’s skills and suitability. They also give individuals the opportunity to assess whether a workplace suits them, which can be just as important. I note that the Department for Work and Pensions is trying to force people to take up more hours, and there are issues in relation to that. However, if an employer offers someone a trial period, it should be paid. There should also be feedback. Many examples have been given of unpaid work trials where nobody hears anything afterwards—whether it is a day, a couple of days or even a couple of hours, they do not hear anything from the employers. That practice needs to end. Perhaps an employment Bill could deal with some of that.

It is interesting that the UK Government have confirmed that unpaid working time, which can include unpaid trial shifts, was a factor in 29% of cases when 208 employers were named for failing to pay £1.2 million to around 12,000 workers, and ordered to pay £2 million in penalties. If there is adequate legislation in place, and the practice is still happening to the degree outlined by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Strangford, perhaps there is an enforcement issue.

Perhaps the Minister can tell us what enforcement is taking place within Government to ensure that unpaid work trials are not exploitative. Perhaps he could start by telling us how many vacancies currently exist in the national minimum wage compliance unit. If we had more workers employed by the state to enforce the national minimum wage, as the Government said in their parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend—if we had more enforcement officers—perhaps we would find out that the practice is as the two hon. Members suggested: still widespread, and still happening in too many workplaces.

The UK Government could have supported my constituency neighbour’s private Member’s Bill, or they could have brought in their own legislation. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what legislation is proposed and what timetable will be allowed for an employment Bill. We might not agree with every single provision in that employment Bill, but it would give every single Member of the House an opportunity to raise other issues, put forward amendments and deal with this issue.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

My hon. Friend speaks to an important issue that he touched upon earlier, which is the practice of talking Bills out. I got an assurance from the then Minister that the Bill would not be talked out, and that it would be given a fair hearing and allowed to go through the process, but he then rather dishonourably did the opposite of what he had told me. We ended up with the Bill not having a fair hearing in the House, and not being given the proper readings that it ought to have been given as a Bill from a Member of Parliament. The result is that we are back here six years later, discussing the same problem.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As I recall, it might very well have been in the debate on his private Member’s Bill when the then Minister rose to his feet and said, “I will be concluding my remarks at 2.30 pm.” That was at the beginning of his remarks. That is a completely scandalous way of dealing with it, but my hon. Friend is right. We have had assurances before that Bills would not be talked about and then, lo and behold, on the day that the Bill is up for discussion, that is exactly what happens.

We firmly oppose this practice. Because of the sectors of the economy that my hon. Friend referred to, we also oppose the inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts. Sometimes they go together, where there is an unpaid work trial for a zero-hours contract job. They are both exploitative practices. These non-standard types of employment that offer workers minimal job or financial security really have to end, particularly in a cost of living crisis. If the Government are really serious about helping people to earn more money, they need to put forward legislation to stop unpaid work trials and exploitative zero-hour contracts.

[Jim Shannon]

When that Bill was introduced approximately six years ago, we anticipated that it would go through Westminster and address this anomaly. Does the hon. Gentleman, like me, feel aggrieved—I am sure he does—that, in the six years since this legislative change, people have been exploited and thousands have lost out on what was rightly theirs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

I agree.

I will remind the House why the promise of an employment Bill came about: it was because of the Taylor review. It was the Government’s own task. Matthew Taylor reviewed the working practices taking place across these islands, and the Taylor review listed a whole series of recommendations, many of which have still not been dealt with through legislation. If the Government are going to ask people to carry out that sort of work, we would expect them to back it with action. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, it is quite extraordinary that they have refused to do that.

The Scottish Government and the other devolved Administrations can do their bit, but they can do only so much, because employment law is reserved to this place, unfortunately. I would suggest that if employment law was devolved, including to the Scottish Parliament, work practices across the board would be a lot fairer.

I am conscious of the time. Let me end by saying that if the Government viewed trade unions as a key social partner in this country, these sorts of practices would come to an end in the workplace. I wholly support what my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South, is trying to do in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on introducing this important debate, and on his persistence. I think it is his seventh year of talking about this issue. He rightly feels strongly about it. He, like me, the rest of Government and probably every parliamentarian, absolutely believes that people who are at work should get paid the national living wage. I am delighted to be the Minister responsible for national living wage policy and workers’ rights.

Broadly, I agree with the points the hon. Member made. As others have said, if employers are engaging in the behaviour to which he referred—I accept that there is some evidence that some are—that is a scandalous practice. It is absolutely our case that all workers should be fairly rewarded for their work. Most people think that. Who would not agree with the point that a fair day’s work should mean a fair day’s pay? We are all on the same page on that.

We are also all on the same page on a related and very important point. As Minister responsible for national living wage policy, I am pleased to see the largest ever increase to the national living wage: a 9.7% increase to £10.42. That applies from Saturday. It is great to see it go over that £10 mark. Some 2.9 million people across the country will benefit from that measure, including 210,000 in Scotland and 160,000 in Northern Ireland. It is a very welcome move.

We should pay tribute to the vast majority of businesses and employers who—I think we all agree—are decent, do the right thing and do not engage in these scandalous practices. It is really important that we reiterate that, as well as the fact that lots of businesses are already struggling in the cost of living crisis, not least because of high energy bills, for example. They are suffering because of numerous cost pressures, and their paying this increase in the national living wage will not only affect the people on the bottom rung of the pay ladder, but have a knock-on effect on others in their workforce. We are determined to build the high-skill, high-wage economy that most people would like to see.

We have further ambitions. We want the national living wage to reach two thirds of median pay by 2024. That remains our ambition. It is the right thing to do. We are putting in place other measures that reinforce our point that we are absolutely protecting and indeed strengthening workers’ rights. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) made an interesting point about finding parliamentary time; we are effectively finding parliamentary time for a number of pieces of legislation, including six private Members’ Bills for which I am personally responsible. Those Bills include measures to ensure workers get full allocation of tips and service charges; to protect neonatal care for new parents who have difficulties with a newborn, ensuring more leave—up to 12 weeks; to entitle everybody to at least a week’s carers’ leave, which could help many people in the workplace look after dependent relatives; and to ensure redundancy protections pre and post maternity, which, again, is a welcome change.

A further change, and a key measure in the Taylor review, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is the right to request predictable terms and conditions. It will give people on, for example, zero-hours contracts the right to request predictable hours. We support legislation on that, and on making flexible working something that people have the right to request on day one. Those are all things that we are doing to strengthen workers’ rights and make the workplace more attractive.

[Chris Stephens]

I have been listening to the Minister very carefully, and I welcome what he says about the right to request, but a right to request does not necessarily mean that the right will be given. Will the Minister talk about how he intends to enforce that legislation, and increase enforcement around unpaid work trials?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not want to get too distracted from the issue at hand, but I am happy to address that point in detail afterwards. We think those measures strike a balance. The recommendation from Matthew Taylor was not that there be a right to insist; it was the right to request. The employer could reject that request only on one of eight grounds, and in doing so, has to adhere to a process. We think that strikes a balance and meets the needs of businesses. For example, businesses can refuse a request in order to ensure that they have the right customer service availability and are not put under an undue burden. Those criteria have been set out, and I am happy to have that discussion with the hon. Member after the debate.

On the issue that the hon. Member for Glasgow South raised, there are two things that the Government would question about his policy: is it necessary, and what is the extent of the problem? It is important that we reflect the actual extent of the problem. He said that there is £3 billion of unpaid work; clearly that is a different issue. Following my intervention, he clarified that unpaid work trials are an element of that. The figure of 29% is also about unpaid work; the hon. Member for Glasgow South West said that among the 29% of employers that use unpaid work, work trials were a factor. The extent of the problem is not clear. I would describe people who are abusing the system as rogue employers, rather than something to benchmark.

Anybody who is defined as a worker should receive the national living wage. We updated the guidance in 2018, probably prompted by the work of the hon. Member for Glasgow South. The guidance is clear on the time that someone is allowed to have a work trial for. It says:

“in the Government’s view an individual conducting work in a trial lasting longer than one day is likely to be entitled to the minimum wage in all but very exceptional circumstances”.

Employment tribunals, for example, have a basis on which to make a judgment, and there are other bases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for all the good work he does in this House. In all the debates he speaks in, he is a champion for doing the right thing. As he said, we have been on the same side of the fence in debates on many occasions, and I am sure that will continue despite my ministerial position. I will come back to both of those points shortly.

Six different criteria apply in deciding whether an unpaid work trial is appropriate. The first is the length of time. The trial should be no longer than a day. Observation is another: is the employer observing, or is somebody just working unobserved? Other criteria relate to the nature of the work, and the value to the employer—is there a value to that work? That would be inappropriate. If the worker is observed, the work would have less value, because somebody has to observe them, and they might as well be doing the work themselves. All those things are taken into account in judging whether that shift should be paid.

There are reasons for having an unpaid work trial; for example, a teacher might be required to do a model lesson. It might be appropriate to ask teachers who are being interviewed to show what they would do in the actual situation. It would not be right to ban the practice altogether.

On having more specific guidance, which the hon. Member for Glasgow South mentioned, the problem is that being too specific in guidance could result in a race to the bottom by some employers—something that he is looking to clamp down on. If we said, “This categorically is the perimeter of work trials,” rogue employers may well take advantage. There needs to be a balance of judgment, rather than exact criteria.

The Government think that work trials can be a legitimate recruitment exercise at times, which is why we are not legislating in this area and do not intend to. I know the hon. Member disagrees, and I respect his opinion, but we do not think it is right to legislate further in this area. What we already have strikes the right balance.

[Chris Stephens]

On the one hand, the Minister says that the Government do not collect data, and on the other, he says that legislation is not necessary. That seems a bit confusing to those of us in the House who study these matters. Before the Government decide whether to legislate, would it not be better to do some investigation into the root of the problem to see how widespread it is?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Of course, we will always look at information and evidence. As parliamentarians, we get information and evidence from lots of different sources, but we tend to work by seeing where there is obvious detriment and therefore loopholes that we need to close. I do not think it is practical for the Government to look at every single problem and then decide where to legislate; it is usually the other way round. I think we disagree on that, but we will always look at information. If the survey was updated and specified unpaid work trials as an issue, the hon. Gentleman would have a more compelling case.

On uniforms required for a place of work, deduction of the cost of the uniform should not take a person’s earnings below minimum wage. If it did, the employer would be guilty of an offence under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. It can be appropriate for an employer to say that there is a uniform that an employee must wear, at the employee’s cost, but that must not take that employee below the minimum wage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)]

The Secretary of State has been very clear: it is about the deal, not the date. We will not tie our hands by setting an arbitrary deadline. I am pleased to confirm, however, that round eight of the discussions is currently under way. Both nations have committed to and are working together for a mutually ambitious deal. We are working through substantive issues such as goods, market access, services and investment. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s continuing commitment. It is vital to expand on the deal with India, with £35 billion in bilateral trade sustaining half a million jobs in the two countries.

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

T8. In all the discussions about the Post Office, the Minister did not mention meeting the trade unions. Is he aware of current research by the Communication Workers Union on the opportunities to develop the role of the Post Office and postal workers within the communities of Scotland? Will the Minister engage with the trade unions to discuss the work of protecting post office services across these islands?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I have met CWU representatives. I am always keen to listen to new ideas on how we make the post office network more sustainable, so yes, I am absolutely willing to do that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put them in touch with me.

World Down Syndrome Day

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point, because we can pass as much legislation as we like, but if the professionals at the sharp end, who are required to implement any changes or guidance, do not have sufficient understanding of the problem they are facing, we are all at a deficit in our response. I think the issue of professional education is so important not just for teachers, for whom it obviously is important, but for the medical profession, the social work profession and those involved in local government, who will deal with some of those issues relating to care, particularly long-term care. I think it is an extremely important issue.

I was able in the UN debate to show how the United Kingdom has a very proud record in legislation in this general area. The UK has a long-standing tradition of ensuring that the rights and liberties of disabled people are protected. We ratified the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities in 2019. Internationally, our disability inclusion and rights strategy sets out the ambition to embed disability inclusion across all our diplomacy, policy and programmes. The Equality Act 2010 legally protects people in England, Wales and Scotland from discrimination in the workplace and in wider society. We also have the Mental Capacity Act 2005, covering England and Wales, to ensure that every attempt is made to support someone to make decisions about their own lives, and that of course includes people with Down syndrome.

I would like, if I may, to say a word about the Down Syndrome Act and remind us why we passed this legislation. Primarily, it was about empowerment. The Act legislates not for Down syndrome, but for people with Down syndrome. It requires the Government in England to produce Down syndrome-specific guidance relating to health, social care, education and housing services. I hope that Members from Scottish and Welsh constituencies may be able to update the House on how this legislation is being adapted and implemented there. I will come back, if I may, to the point about its being Down syndrome- specific, because I have some concerns that that may be being lost in some parts of the consultation process.

It is important to remind ourselves about the legislation. Under the Act, public authorities such as hospitals, schools or social care providers cannot ignore the guidance when commissioning and delivering services. The guidance must set out what the unique needs of people with Down syndrome are, and what public authorities should be doing to ensure that the support needs of people with Down syndrome are met to enable them to live fulfilling lives. I will come back to this element of the guidance, because one of the issues we discussed in Committee—this has been a controversial issue in this House in relation to other legislation—is when does the guidance become instruction. If Ministers are issuing guidance that is in effect instruction, surely that should be laid before the House of Commons so that we can recognise the importance of that and scrutinise how ministerial authority is being used.

I think that for too long there have been too few levers available for individuals, families and their advocates, including us as Members of Parliament when it comes to getting fair treatment for our constituents with Down syndrome. After all, what is the point of rights in legislation if we cannot enforce them and if there is no mechanism to do so? That was one of the key elements we discussed during the passage of the legislation, and it led to two very important and, I think, innovative changes: the first is on parliamentary scrutiny, and the second is on individual empowerment.

One of the problems we have faced before is that, when Ministers issue guidance, there is very little ability for parliamentary Select Committees to take direct oversight of it. One of the principles we established—and I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), who is now the Secretary of State for Education, for her support in establishing this principle—is that if the guidance is in fact instruction, the guidance would be laid before Parliament, which of course means that the Education Committee, the Health and Social Care Committee and local government can all look at it in real time.

One of the things we considered was whether we would have to put a sunset clause on this legislation to enable Parliament to look at it again. The mechanism that we decided on—I think rightly—in this House and in the other place was that, in publishing the guidance, we would have real-time oversight, because when our constituents bring problems to us, we are all able to write to the Chair of whatever Committee it is and ask them to look into that particular aspect of how the Down Syndrome Act is functioning. That gives us, as Members of Parliament, a lever that we did not have before when we simply wrote a letter to a Minister and hoped for the best, which is not sufficient to implement the rights of our constituents in the way that I think we envisaged during the passage of the Act.

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

This will be very important for people in the Down syndrome community who believe they are being diagnostically overshadowed and that things are being missed. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that that is particularly important when enforcing someone’s rights in relation to healthcare?

[Dr Fox]

It is. Diagnostic overshadowing is very important, in that we should not miss things in people with Down syndrome because we are looking the other way, or we are distracted by the diagnosis and not looking sufficiently at the person. Greater professional education—and this goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier)—is a key part of the empowerment of the individuals for whom this legislation was produced. I know from my own medical education that there was not a great deal of it that involved us learning about specific needs. For the medical profession, the sort of overlooking that the hon. Gentleman describes is a real risk if the thought is not there that someone may see a different position from the one they should because of the very overshadowing that he describes. I imagine he may enlighten us further on that particular issue, and I hope he will because it is a real issue that needs to be examined fully.

The second important change in our legislation was that we included in it the need for a named individual on the new integrated care boards to be responsible for the implementation of the Down Syndrome Act. A very senior Member of this House said to me during the passage of the Bill in Committee, “Do the Government realise the floodgates that they may be opening in agreeing to this?” I said that I was not sure, but that it really was not my problem. I think this is a tremendous innovation, because all too often we have an anonymised bureaucracy when it comes to the delivery of the things that Parliament intends. We can vote for things in this House and, with taxpayers’ money, we can fund them, but if we do not know who is responsible for the delivery in our own locality, it becomes difficult for us as Members of Parliament to know who to get in touch with.

The de-anonymisation of the civil service, which is something I have long and profoundly believed in doing, received its first outing in that Act. It may be a by-product —in my mind it was not that; it was an essential principle —but none the less it is extremely important. With this new system, for the first time, individuals, families and advocates for people with Down syndrome will know who is responsible. For once, there will be a named person in our system who people can turn to for either assistance or redress, depending on the nature of the problem. I hope we will extend that principle further in the provision of public services. For too long in this country, taxpayers have provided the funding, but they do not have accountability in the delivery mechanisms of those public services. It is, in many ways, a quiet revolution that I hope this Act will usher in. It is a principle and a precedent that has been much understated in the interpretation of what Parliament has done.

The guidance itself has been subject to long and detailed consultation, and I look forward to the draft publication in the summer. The Government face a number of challenges with this, which are worthy of debate. One question that was frequently raised in both Committee and the House was, “What about those with problems similar to those with Down syndrome; are we effectively creating a ladder of preferment in the provisions of public services?” Quite wisely, the Minister at the time said that it would be reasonable to consider those with overlapping problems at the same time as we were looking at the implementation of the Act. I say gently, however, that while that is absolutely right, we must also remember that the Act is specific to Down syndrome. When it comes to Down syndrome there is no doubt about the diagnosis, and unlike many other conditions where there are overlapping symptoms and signs to consider, there is no doubt about it. Down syndrome is not a subset of other conditions or of learning disabilities, although on a Venn diagram there will be a huge overlap; it is a specific condition and we must regard it as such.

I would like the Government to consider some specific areas, one of which relates to education rather than health. This is a formal request to Ministers to add Down syndrome as a separate category to the annual school census. Why? Because there is currently no Down syndrome-specific school data available, including numbers, location, or educational settings, because individuals with Down syndrome are included only in the general special educational needs and disability school numbers. If we are to have specific legislation, it makes sense to have specific data with which to interpret the success of its implementation. Children with Down syndrome in the education system will have specific speech and language issues, significant fine and gross motor delay, cognitive delay, hearing loss, visual issues—we detailed that on Second Reading—social and emotional needs, and specific and unique learning profiles associated with Down syndrome. Some of those conditions will be shared with other syndromes and medical conditions, but many will be specific to Down syndrome. If we are not to get the overshadowing problem, we must be clear about what we need to know about this.

In New York I was able to set out the sort of cases and advances that we have made in this country by being able to utilise a range of tools that enable people with Down syndrome to make more decisions for themselves. As we have a better understanding, for example among social workers and community medical staff, we are increasingly able to deploy those tools to ensure that those who have a voice—a voice that would not necessarily traditionally be recognised in our system—are able to make more decisions for themselves. That was at the heart of what the UN 12th World Down Syndrome Day meant.

I do not wish to speak any longer than necessary and take up colleagues’ valuable time, so I will end with this quote from Heidi Carter, who I have come to know increasingly well. She is a valiant campaigner for Down syndrome rights, and she states:

“I have shown everyone that Down syndrome is not something to be scared of and that people with Down syndrome live happy, amazing, fulfilled and independent lives!”

Congratulations to her and her husband on their marriage. I wish them well. She said:

“We are not going to give up. I think that all human life is valuable and should be treated with respect however many chromosomes we have!”

I do not believe there is a single one of us in this House who would not agree with that sentiment.

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) on securing this debate, and on the passage of his Act. I enjoyed his contribution this afternoon, advocating for individuals in the Down syndrome community. I assure him that I was at the parliamentary event on Wednesday, and there were people from Scotland down in the Lobby discussing some of those issues. It was a privilege to be there. It is also a privilege to be an elected representative, and one of the privileges that come with that is that we meet those we represent who speak truth to power. On Saturday, my constituent, Danielle Urie, came to see me at my Ibrox surgery. She asked me to participate in this debate, which is why I am here this afternoon. I asked Danielle to write to me about some of the things she wanted to say, and after the exchange I had with the right hon. Gentleman about diagnostic overshadowing, I am afraid that, sadly, there is an example of that coming up.

Danielle is currently going through the complaints procedure with the health service in Scotland to discuss some of this. I asked her, and her son Steven, to go through their experiences, and I will read what Danielle sent to me last night:

“My name is Danielle Urie. If my son Steven could speak, I’m sure this is what he would say. ‘My name is Steven I am 11 years old. From 2019 to 2021 I was diagnostically overshadowed by doctors which resulted to damage in my body that can never be reversed, while sitting in chronic pain and bleeding for two years. I am now left with a permanent stoma and my large bowel being completely removed. During this time I had been treated with no respect, and left with no dignity.’ If Steven was a typical child who could voice for himself I don’t think any of this would have happened. I want you to all know the catastrophic consequences that can happen with diagnostic overshadowing, because it’s real and it happens more than you all think. To have no control on what happens with your child’s healthcare is terrifying . I don’t want my child or any child in fact to be added to the statistics of people with Down’s syndrome dying as a result of being diagnostically overshadowed.”

I want to thank Danielle for having the bravery to write to a Member of Parliament to share that particular experience.

The right hon. Gentleman invited us to talk about what is happening in other devolved nations, and I have some constructive criticisms about what is happening in Scotland. I do not think that everything is wrong with what the Scottish Government are doing, but I have some comments to make. The Scottish Government’s position is that they take a wider view and are committed to introducing the learning disability, autism and neurodiversity Bill as part of their programme for government. There are opportunities there. In delivering the Bill, the Scottish Government want to improve opportunities, outcomes and support for people with Down’s syndrome.

There will be a consultation on the Bill later this year. I will certainly be assisting Danielle, and any others, as a part of that. It will provide an opportunity for people to view the policy options that could be included in the draft Bill, including whether it should establish a commissioner. As part of their scoping work, the Scottish Government ran events with a wide range of Scotland’s disabled people-led organisations and national charities. The Scottish Government are working towards a human rights-based approach to ensure the Bill is fully co-designed with people who have lived experiences. It is very important, when shaping legislation, that people with those lived experiences are involved from the outset.

I would like to see the words “Down’s syndrome” included in the title of the Bill. I think that would be welcomed by those who came down from Scotland to the event in Parliament on Tuesday. Why do I think that is important? People with Down’s syndrome are more likely to be born with a heart condition and more likely to get leukaemia. People in the Down’s syndrome community are more prone to infections and thyroid problems, and more susceptible to eye and hearing problems. We want to ensure that those with Down’s syndrome get extra health checks, for example, and have access to speech therapy. It is very important that people with Down’s syndrome have those opportunities. Those are some of the reasons why I want the Down’s syndrome community in Scotland have the words “Down’s syndrome” in the title of the Bill. I will be working with Danielle and others to ensure that that is the case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Miss Dines]

A wide range of work and training is going on within schools to ensure that young people understand more clearly what is and what is not acceptable. On more national interventions, we have the Ask for ANI scheme in pharmacies and the Enough social media campaign, which has really cut through—the responses we have had to that campaign have been unprecedented. This Government are committed to, and making good progress in, assisting young people to understand what is and is not acceptable.

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

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Minister for Women (Maria Caulfield)]

I wish everyone a happy International Women’s Day, when we celebrate 51% of the population. I am proud of this Government’s record on supporting women, whether that is young girls playing more sport in school or the first ever women’s health strategy, which this year will see the rolling out of the prepayment certificate for hormone replacement therapy, pregnancy loss certificates this summer, and the levelling up of IVF access. Today I am proud to announce £25 million to roll out women’s health hubs across England—the one-stop shop for all women’s health needs that will drastically improve women’s experience of healthcare in England.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister will be aware—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. People cannot walk in front of a Member when he is asking his question.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister will be aware of a legal agreement under the Equalities Act between McDonald’s and the Equality and Human Rights Commission over the handling of complaints of sexual harassment. Does the Minister believe that that is solely an issue of a toxic culture at McDonald’s, and will she look at whether women working on zero-hours contracts across the economy are at increased risk of experiencing sexual harassment because of depending on male managers for future shifts?

[Maria Caulfield]

We take sexual harassment in the workplace very seriously—[Interruption.] Oh, to be shouted down for the entrance of a man.