Thomas Cook

Debate between Chris Stephens and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will take remaining questioners if they have a short sentence each, but if it is longer I am afraid I will have to cut it off.

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

Going back to the question of the £250 million, will the Secretary of State confirm that that was for credit purposes—that it was effectively in order for Thomas Cook to be able to say to the bank that it had that reserve fund of £250 million?

Priorities for Government

Debate between Chris Stephens and John Bercow

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I want to maximise participation and there is therefore a premium on brevity. I appeal to colleagues to be unselfish and to ask single-sentence questions without preamble so that they are also helping their colleagues.

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

The phrase “workers’ or employment rights” was absent from the Prime Minister’s statement, so will he make a commitment now that EU workers’ rights will be protected in the event of Brexit?

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Stephens and John Bercow

Thursday 20th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Stephens.

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

Tails never fails, Mr Speaker—thank you.

On a more serious note, two of my constituents were in the House on Monday as part of a Red Cross event for Refugee Week. One of them has a letter from Serco telling them to leave their accommodation—written to them two weeks ago, not this week as Serco is publicly suggesting. So can I ask, for the second week in a row, for the Home Office to make a statement or hold a debate on asylum seeker evictions in the city of Glasgow by Home Office contractor Serco?

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Stephens and John Bercow

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the hon. Lady has done so very successfully, not least to her own satisfaction. The observation that she has just made will be faithfully recorded in the Official Report, which she may choose to disseminate more widely, possibly in her own constituency or beyond. I hope that she will go about her business with an additional glint in her eye and spring in her step in the knowledge that she has taken early action to put the record straight, as she sees it.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, of which I have given notice both to you and to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson).

Last week, on the BBC’s “Question Time” programme, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire said that 80% of school leavers in Bearsden, in her constituency, went to university, and claimed that only 4% of school leavers in Govan did so. That has caused much consternation and offence in Govan, and it has been discussed by various organisations there, including Govan Community Council. As you would expect, Mr Speaker, I have written to the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, which has advised me that the

“statistics quoted on Question Time relate to the Govan and Linthouse intermediate zone and are based on one of the indicators used for multiple deprivation…These statistics are different from the school leaver destination statistics for the following reasons…the proportion is based on the overall 17-21 population (not just school leavers)…they relate to entries into a first degree course only…the time periods are different”.

As I have said, Mr Speaker, offence and consternation have been caused. Can you advise me first on how the statistics can be corrected, secondly on how we can ensure a more respectable debate on school leaver destinations, and finally on how the House can receive an apology from the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire for causing such offence to the people of Govan?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wished to raise this matter. I cannot say that it satisfies the criterion for a point of order, although it is not in a small minority in that respect, in terms of what purport to be points of order. Moreover, I am grateful to him for confirming that he has informed the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire of his intention to raise the matter: that is especially important in view of the charge he has levelled against her.

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows and as I have just said, that was not a point of order. I have no responsibilities for the accuracy or otherwise of what may have been said on a television programme, even one so notably august as the BBC’s “Question Time”, by a Member of this House. I did see “Question Time” last week, although I do not recall the particular use of statistics upon which the hon. Gentleman quite understandably focused his beady eye.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s inquiry about how he could achieve redress, let me say that I think that by raising the issue he has found his own salvation, and in the process, perhaps, that of the people of Govan, with whom he may wish to communicate further on this matter. It is not for me to plunge into an internecine conflict between colleagues. All that I will say, as far as the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire is concerned, is that in the 14 years for which I have known her I have always regarded her as a person of absolutely unfailing personal courtesy. We will leave it there for now.

Bill Presented

Vehicle Emissions (Idling Penalties) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Wera Hobhouse presented a Bill to increase penalties for stationary vehicle idling offences, to grant local authorities increased powers to issue such penalties, and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 395).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Stephens and John Bercow

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am a tad taken aback that the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) feels it necessary to disclose to his ministerial boss his personal habits in relation to such matters, but there we go.

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

T5. Yesterday, I was delighted to welcome to Parliament the Tea in the Pot women’s support service, and many of its staff are 1950s-born women. Will there be an equality impact assessment regarding the effect of recent pension credit changes on 1950s-born women? Will the impact on pensioner poverty also be measured?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Stephens and John Bercow

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Gosh, there is something of an internal Scottish National party competition. It is an invidious choice between three celebrated individuals, one of whom is a member of the Select Committee. I call Martin Docherty-Hughes.

Universal Credit

Debate between Chris Stephens and John Bercow

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point of some power. It warrants a better response than I am confident I can give off the top of my head. If I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, I will reflect on his point and come back to him.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister for Employment very kindly offered his services to every single Member of Parliament, to pick up their universal credit cases, which I guess would be a considerable number. Could you advise on not only the pressures faced by constituency staff, but how we can seek a statement on the pressures faced by the already beleaguered staff in the Department for Work and Pensions who are dealing with universal credit?

[Mr Speaker]

I was not here at the time, so I did not hear that exchange. The Minister was obviously in a very generous mood and wanted to offer satisfaction. As for how that is resourced, it is a matter for the Department. I can take some responsibility for the resourcing of the House of Commons—and I do take some responsibility for that, including by supporting and initiating projects, either capital or revenue-based, that have cost considerable sums of money—but although the hon. Gentleman is keen to invest me with additional powers, I am afraid that my powers do not extend to increasing or reducing the budget of the Department for Work and Pensions. That is well beyond the ambition and scope of Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman’s point has been heard. I think that to some extent he is drawing on his experience not only as a Member of Parliament, but as a trade union negotiator. I do not think that a trade union negotiation can be entirely conducted across the Floor of the House, and certainly not via the Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Stephens and John Bercow

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Very well.

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

If the objective is to roll back Daesh, then surely the Kurdish community have done that more than any other. Is not what Turkey is doing therefore counterproductive to that objective? Is that something that we should expect from a so-called NATO ally?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Chris Stephens and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: Second Day: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

To speak very briefly, for 20 seconds, I call Chris Stephens.

[Chris Stephens]

I hope the Government will consider workplace protections in the Bill, because many of us do not trust the Government in that regard.

[Mr Speaker]

Very well done. I am immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who was even briefer than I expected. The Minister has just under 20 minutes to reply.

Point of Order

Debate between Chris Stephens and John Bercow

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have sent you a copy of a letter that I received from the chief executive of Serco two days ago, which caused great concern to me and to constituency office staff. I gently describe it as being an intemperate letter. It gives an interpretation of data protection from the Data Protection Act 1998 and says that Members should seek approval from constituents. Mr Speaker, could you please provide me with an interpretation of data protection as it applies to Members?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of it. I am sighted on the matter both because he alerted me to the thrust and because I have seen the letter, a substantial letter, that he has received from the chief executive of Serco, which has caused him considerable disquiet, not to say consternation. I expect all organisations dealing with hon. Members or their staff to respect the constitutional responsibility of Members of Parliament to pursue issues on behalf of their constituents and to be both helpful and courteous to them in doing so, just as I am sure that we would expect ourselves and our staff to be in our dealings with others.

I can make no comment on the substance of the disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and the chief executive of Serco, but I can confirm that, in the words of the Information Commissioner’s guidance, the Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002—a matter raised in the House some months ago on which I ruled at the time—provides a basis for the disclosure of sensitive personal data by organisations responding to Members acting on behalf of individual constituents. The order does not place an obligation on organisations to disclose sensitive personal data to Members who raise matters on behalf of constituents. However, it provides a legal basis for doing so, and removes unnecessary bureaucracy and delay. Consequently, in the great majority of cases, organisations will be able to release sensitive personal information about the particular constituent to the Member without advising the constituent of this, provided that the disclosure is reasonable and necessary for the purposes of, or in connection with, responding to a request from the constituent. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and that, when Members beetle across to the relevant office to obtain a copy of the Official Report and study my response, they will similarly conclude that it is helpful.

I see the beaming countenance of the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). I wish him all the best for Christmas and the new year. Indeed, seeing as there have been so many festive greetings this morning, perhaps I should take the opportunity to say now to Members who will not be here much later, that I wish them all a merry Christmas. I thank them for their huge and unstinting efforts over this year and express the confident expectation and hope that they will redouble them next.

Sexual Harassment in Parliament

Debate between Chris Stephens and John Bercow

Monday 30th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Similarly, I am very happy to meet the union, and I look forward to hearing from the hon. Lady. There should be an opportunity for a troika, a quartet, or perhaps something larger—I don’t know. It is important and should happen sooner rather than later.

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

Many employers, as well as independent grievance procedures, have stand-alone independent bullying and harassment policies, so that complaints of bullying and harassment are dealt with separately under a different procedure. Is the possibility of a separate policy being explored, and does the Leader of the House agree that trade unions, if they have any Members’ staff coming to them with complaints, should be invited to bring them to you, Mr Speaker, and herself?

Workers (Definition and Rights)

Debate between Chris Stephens and John Bercow

1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the definition of worker; to make provision about workers’ rights; and for connected purposes.

My last ten-minute rule motion, on free telephone calls to Department for Work and Pensions helplines, has today been made Government policy, so it is appropriate that I ask leave to bring in a Bill to define the status of workers in law; to refine the current definitions in light of recent Supreme Court judgments; and to provide greater protection from day one of a person’s employment, eliminating zero-hours contracts and providing greater protection for those in precarious work, such as in the hospitality sector.

For too many years, workers’ rights were rarely debated outside of trade union conferences, but since the 2008 crash, when the failures of big business landed the least well off taxpayers with the bill for the corporate gamblers and their reckless handling of the global economy, there has been a growing sense of outrage that hard work is not properly rewarded.

Far from addressing an unbalanced economy that rewards failure so long as it is on a global scale, the Government have clung to the supremacy of the market over workers’ rights. However, all the evidence shows that a healthy economy values workers and that achieving the correct balance between profit and reward is the biggest spur to long-term growth instead of short-term profit.

Many voices are now challenging the sheer scale of exploitation and poor working practices that all age groups experience but that often hit young people the hardest. I commend the private Member’s Bill tabled by my comrade, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald). The Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill would make it clear that, if a trial period is offered, the employer must pay up for that period whether or not a full offer of employment is made.

In many ways, there is a false narrative about the modern world of work that suggests that 21st-century technology has created a different dynamic and that workers have to adapt to be more flexible and more open to different ways of working, leaving behind outdated notions of security and guaranteed reward. The clear implication is that full-time secure employment with rights, a pension and clearly defined hours is an outdated 20th-century concept, instead of the peak of a hard-fought struggle to redress the balance between employer and employee—or, at its most extreme, exploiter and exploited. I make no apology for putting the issue in stark terms. We need to stand up and take on the siren voices that want to cloud a simple issue that has existed for as long as one person has agreed to pay another for their work. If fairness is not nailed down in legislation and enforced, there will always be employers who push their advantage to the limit and beyond.

I strongly believe the time has come for a full debate about what is fair work and how it should be properly rewarded. My Bill would bring some clarity to the definition of “worker” by defining what rights are available and consolidating a single statutory definition of the people to whom employment rights and duties apply. It would also give the House the opportunity for more debate about the issues currently being explored by Committees following the Taylor report.

The Taylor report is useful in one sense: workers’ rights are front and centre. With Brexit on the horizon, we should all be aware of how easily the rights we take for granted could disappear. The report correctly identifies that clarity in the law could be improved, but I take issue with the proposed solutions, particularly that of creating a new category of worker—“dependent contractor.” I have a strong sense that the Taylor report’s main focus is not primarily the worker. It gives more weight to the interests of consumers and employers; when Mr Taylor gave evidence in Committee his responses indicated an anxiety that nothing should be introduced that “harmed” or “affected” consumers and employers in a negative way, even if it improves workers’ rights.

Mr Taylor admitted that his report was influenced by the Treasury submission on costs. He also admitted that if he had known that the Supreme Court was going to rule against the Government on employment tribunal fee costs, he would have been more robust in his report on the case for abolishing those costs. That was quite a revelation about how the report was produced—“nothing too radical” was evidently the starting point. There was quite a contradiction when he said that good businesses should not fail because other businesses are prepared to run a more profit-driven, exploitative model, but the report proposes no concrete legislative changes or enforcement to support companies that undertake good practice.

One of the more puzzling aspects of the report and Mr Taylor’s evidence was the stress on the importance of empowering workers through access to information and advice without once acknowledging the role of trade unions. In many respects, the choice of employers is given priority throughout. It is odd that the United Nations International Labour Organisation standards and the four pillars of decent work—employment creation, social protection, rights at work and social dialogue—are not referenced.

The research methodology, the time frame and the resources available to produce the report all point to this being a bit of a fig leaf to hide the Government’s true stance and intentions towards workers and their rights, which are more accurately reflected in the debates on the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016—the Taylor report does not call for the repeal of that Act. The two Supreme Court rulings this year in favour of Unison on tribunal fees and the right to consultation also support the need for reform of the law.

The UK has not yet consolidated a single statutory definition of the people to whom employment rights and duties apply. Through the Supreme Court there is already an emerging body of case law to support workers’ rights, in particular the landmark 2011 judgment in Autoclenz Ltd v. Belcher, which makes it clear that just because signed contract documentation makes it look as if a person is self-employed, that is by no means the end of the story. Employment tribunals must take into account the inequality of bargaining power between employer and employee, and they must look at the whole context to ensure the written contract document genuinely reflects what the parties intended the employment relationship to be.

The time has come to secure legislation that uses the court judgments to clarify the nature and status of workers today. We should not overcomplicate the issue by pretending that the age-old struggle between labour and capital has magically vanished in the digital age. The Conservative party is not, and never will be, the party of the workers, despite the good intent adhered to or advocated by one or two well-meaning Members. During the passage of the Trade Union Act, in which I participated, the true intent and nature of Government policy was revealed and written into Hansard for all to see. I wonder whether the crackdown on workers’ rights goes far enough for some Members, who look fondly on 18th and 19th-century employment legislation—namely, the Master and Servant Acts designed to discipline employees and repress the combination of workers in trade unions—and whether they would happily vote for their reintroduction. However, I believe that is a minority viewpoint.

The time has come for an Act of Parliament to address the issue of precarious work, and I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Chris Stephens, Neil Gray, Mhairi Black, Grahame Morris, Ruth George, Deidre Brock, Tommy Sheppard, Albert Owen, Kirsty Blackman, Jonathan Edwards, Kelvin Hopkins and Mr Alistair Carmichael present the Bill.

Chris Stephens accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January 2018, and to be printed (Bill 114).

[Mr Speaker]

19 January is a splendid day, my birthday.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Stephens and John Bercow

Monday 9th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed. I think he will have been attending keenly to the Prime Minister’s statement. On the assumption—I think, safe—that he was doing so, he will have received some encouragement. I think the Prime Minister gave a fairly clear indication of an intention on the part of a Minister to make a statement on that matter. I do not mind letting the hon. Gentleman know, just between us, that I myself have had an indication from the Government that this matter will be treated of sooner rather than later. Statements to the House have concluded for today, and we will shortly move on to other business, but there are other days ahead, and knowing what an eager beaver the hon. Gentleman is, and how assiduous he is in the representation of his constituents’ interests, I feel sure he will be in his place, for example, tomorrow.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last month, the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) raised a point of order, and I have informed him that I wish to raise this point of order, in relation to the procurement of repair work to Big Ben and the potential award to a company that has been described as being at the heart of the blacklisting conspiracy. Members of this House received a statement by email from the House of Commons Commission saying that that contract had been awarded and that the cost had, indeed, increased. Can you advise us whether the House of Commons Commission will make a statement to this House so that hon. Members such as myself, the hon. Member for Streatham and others can raise our concerns at the awarding of this contract?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The simple and short answer is that there are questions to the representative of the House of Commons Commission in this Chamber. It is perfectly open to the hon. Gentleman to question the representative of the Commission, and I have every expectation that he will do so.

I would just add en passant that the House of Commons Commission, of which the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) is the hon. Gentleman’s party’s representative and, therefore, is well familiar with all this, has considered this matter carefully. We are conscious of our obligations to conduct any tender process fairly, and we expect the highest standards of our contractors. This is the subject of statements by the House authorities, with which I think the hon. Gentleman implied he is familiar, but all matters can be the subject of further questioning and scrutiny, and that is perfectly proper. I am sure he will be in his place to participate in any such exercise.

Public Sector Pay Cap

Debate between Chris Stephens and John Bercow

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Now that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) has been sitting in a state of almost Buddha-like repose for some minutes, I think it is safe for the Chamber to hear from him.

[Chris Stephens]

Mr Speaker, as a passionate trade unionist for 20 years sometimes my emotions get the better of me.

Will the Chief Secretary confirm that pay is so low in some Government Departments that 40% of employees in those Departments are in receipt of tax credits? Will she publish, for each UK Government Department, how many employees are in receipt of tax credits?