Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

David Linden Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

It is up to each individual Member to reflect on whether they wish to declare an interest, but at least the hon. Member has given a timely reminder that those who wish to do so should, even in interventions, declare interests.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Evans, to be helpful to the House, given that a number of Members who spoke on Second Reading declared their interest, is it really necessary for them to do so again in Committee? I know that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) is new to the House, but perhaps he might re-acquaint himself with “Erskine May”.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am slightly more ambitious than the right hon. Gentleman, because I think that, in and of itself, clause 3—I hope Opposition Members will take note of this—is an argument for the existence of the House of Lords. I hope that their lordships will look at the clause and say, “That is simply not something we can pass into law as it is currently phrased.” The Government must accept amendments, and I hope their lordships will vote through amendments that clarify and set out in detail the powers that are desired.

Other than urgency, there are only two reasons for bringing forward extensive Henry VIII powers. One is that the issue is too complicated to determine. That is problematic, because if it is too complicated to determine for primary legislation, how can it be sufficiently set out in secondary legislation? That probably means that the secondary legislation in and of itself will not be well formed. This is where the Government’s interest—the Executive interest—and the legislature’s interest combine, because if the House passes good, well-constructed legislation, it is much less susceptible to judicial review. There is a Treasury Bench interest in good, well-crafted legislation, which, as I have been saying, this Bill is not. That is why the Government should be keen that the House of Lords, in the time available and with the help, I hope, of parliamentary counsel, will be able to specify the powers more closely.

[David Linden]

It is a pleasure to see the right hon. Gentleman back on the Back Benches as part of the awkward squad. Does he agree that part of the reason why we have ended up in this mess is that the Government have rushed the Bill, with a programme motion that allows for only five or six hours on the Floor of the House? They are attempting to ram it through and perhaps intend to use it as a stick or as a carrot to dangle during trade union negotiations. This is not thoughtful legislation; this is being rammed through, isn’t it?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not think there is any great need to “ram it through”, as the hon. Gentleman phrases it. The secondary legislation will not be written in time to affect the current set of disputes. Indeed, if the secondary legislation is already written and is in a position to be used, those measures ought to be in the Bill in the first place and there would be absolutely no reason for not having them. It is hard to understand the need to rush this through when, as I said, this Bill has been contemplated for many years, and therefore it ought to have been prepared in detail.

I think that it is helpful to refer to two very good reports from the House of Lords on the subject, “Government by Diktat” and “Democracy Denied?”, both published in November 2021. May I thank the Vote Office for hastily printing them for me? It has to be said that it is much easier to read what was said from sheets of paper than from a small mobile telephone. One of the points they make is:

“It cannot be emphasised strongly enough that the critical problem about relegating significant policy change to secondary legislation is that parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation is far less robust than that afforded to primary legislation”.

I remind the Committee that there were recently complaints about the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Primary legislation was specifically excluded for exactly this reason: when I was responsible for that Bill, it seemed to me that if Parliament passes primary legislation, it should not, as a matter of routine, be changed by secondary legislation.

The “Government by Diktat” report goes on to say:

“We are concerned that the underlying challenge to the balance between Parliament and government is not primarily attributable to the impact of ‘exceptional times’ such as Brexit and the pandemic, as the Permanent Secretaries appeared to assert, but is instead the result of a general strategic shift by government.”

It seems to me that this Bill, which has been thought about for so many years, falls into exactly that category.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee refers to “skeleton legislation”. This Bill is almost so skeletal that we wonder if bits of the bones were stolen away by wild animals and taken and buried somewhere, as happens with cartoon characters. The DPRRC takes the view that

“skeleton legislation should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances and that, where it is used, a department should always provide a full justification, including an explanation of the nature of those exceptional circumstances”

and

“why no other approach was reasonable to adopt”.

Again, that seems to be absolutely fair and reasonable. If I may quote further:

“Skeleton bills or skeleton clauses, by their very nature, cannot be adequately scrutinised during their passage through Parliament.”

We are trying to scrutinise the Bill and hold the Government to account. I want good legislation. I want legislation that achieves its objective and that clarifies the boundaries of power between the legislature, the King in Parliament and the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I think that was a rhetorical question. It was, unfortunately, Labour that led the charge against devolving employment law. Interestingly, the Scottish Trades Union Congress has made it clear that it supports devolving employment law to Scotland, so I urge the Labour party to reconsider its approach.

[David Linden]

I missed what my hon. Friend said. Did he say which party blocked the devolution of employment law?

[Alan Brown]

Just for the record, unfortunately it was the Labour party that blocked the concept of devolving employment law to Scotland—although, to be fair, it was also the Labour party that devolved employment law to Northern Ireland. If it is good enough for Northern Ireland, it should be good enough for Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

Let me begin by making it clear that I do, of course, want everyone working in the emergency services and the wider NHS to earn a decent living and to work in conditions that help them to perform at their best. I think that everyone wants that.

There is no doubt that our NHS has been under enormous pressure, and that continuing state of affairs has been the subject of much of the debate on this Bill, but I think we must recognise the record investment in the NHS. Demand has soared, and there are pressures on the service run by Labour in Wales and by the Scottish National party in Scotland. We hear the narrative of, “This party this” and “this party that”, but Labour Members keep their heads down when we are discussing the NHS in Wales. That just shows that they are making political capital out of the challenges in the NHS. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) shakes her head, but the problems in the NHS are exactly the same in the Labour-run NHS in Wales. That is a fact—and there is more money per head for the NHS in Wales than for the NHS in England.

That said, I welcome the additional steps to support the NHS that the Government have taken today. We need to come to terms with the existence of an ageing population and increasing demand, although I recognise that issue is separate from what we are discussing today, which is what reasonable legislative steps we might take whether public services are performing well or not, and whether or not there is pressure on employees and wages.

I will always defend workers’ right to strike as important, but it has always been a qualified right, not an absolute right. I intervened on the deputy Leader of the Opposition to make the point that we already have legislation—not a voluntary agreement—that states that police officers cannot strike. I have not yet heard of the Labour party putting in their manifesto that they would repeal that if they were lucky enough to win the next election, because they think that legislation on mandatory strike control is unacceptable. That makes the politics of this issue very obvious. Any successful society must balance the right of workers in certain sectors of the economy.

[David Linden]

Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that if the police were to go on strike, the Prime Minister would not be issued with another fixed penalty notice? It is quite important that the police are able to do their job.

[Dr Mullan]

Perhaps there would not be investigations into some of the historical misconduct in the SNP. We can all throw stones at one another about misconduct. It is not relevant to the debate, but I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s attempt to put me off.

We need balance in society when it comes to the rights of workers, businesses and individual citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

Before I speak to my amendments, I want to address a couple of points. Government Members always talk about ordinary hard-working people. Firefighters, nurses, teachers, doctors and train drivers are all ordinary hard-working people too. Indeed, they are the epitome of the hard-working ordinary families who the Tories talk about so often. I really wish they would stop othering people who are forced to strike. Indeed, I call them ordinary workers, but many of them do extraordinary things, and they include firefighters who run towards danger, like Barry Martin, who sadly died in the Jenners fire. I would like to pass on my condolences to his friends, family and colleagues.

I would like to speak to amendments 106 through 114, standing in my name and, in some cases, Plaid Cymru colleagues. Amendment 107 is fairly straightforward and would leave out Wales and Scotland from the extent of the Bill. Quite simply, the Tories have no mandate for this Bill—or any other, actually—in Scotland or Wales. The last time they won an election in Scotland, Tony Bennett was top of the charts and a three-piece suit in non-crushed velvet would set you back 59 guineas, or 12 shillings and thruppence—for the record, I do not have one.

[David Linden]

You’re wearing one.

[Gavin Newlands]

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) was wearing one when he was here earlier.

In every single election since then—17 UK general elections, six Scottish general elections, elections for district councils, regions, boroughs and counties, and elections for the European Union; ah, remember that?—the Tories have failed to win a majority in Scotland. There have been 68 unbroken years of failure, and rejection at the ballot box by the people of Scotland. Indeed, the only reason they had MSPs in the early years of the Scottish Parliament was due to a proportional representation system that they opposed, and continue to oppose for this place.

The Tories are a busted flush in Scotland, an archaic piece of electoral history, and they have been for decades, yet Tory Ministers have the gall to stand at the Dispatch Box and try to legislate to attack the rights of workers in Scotland. Scotland does not want this. Scotland is a modern country, and modern countries have a modern industrial relations policy. Modern countries treat their citizens like human beings, not a force to be crushed, and we have a mandate from the electorate for just that. Given that the Scottish Government have indicated that they will oppose this legislation, I say to the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation—who has just sat down on the Front Bench—and his colleagues: save yourselves the trouble, accept the amendment, or any of the others that do something similar, and exclude Scotland and Wales from Tory delusions.

Amendments 106, 109 and 111 would exempt transport services and exclude devolved services in Scotland from being subject to a work notice. ScotRail is safely under public ownership in Scotland. We are utterly opposed to forcing workers into work, but—dare I say this? Do not tell headquarters; we will keep it our secret—there is the possibility that the SNP might not form the Government in Scotland. These amendments would simply guarantee that, in the brief period between now and Scottish independence, a change in Government in Holyrood would not mean a change in operation of this Bill in Scotland. To be clear, if my amendments are accepted, the Bill would not operate at all for transport services.

No organisation or Government are immune to industrial disputes; what is key is how they are dealt with by employers. In ScotRail’s case, two separate disputes, with ASLEF and the RMT, were settled last year after constructive and mature dialogue and negotiation between employers and workers and their trade union representatives. That is how industrial relations should be conducted: with mutual respect and recognition. Sadly, that approach has not been replicated down here, despite calls by me and many others for UK Transport ministers to learn from their counterparts in Edinburgh.

More broadly, I doubt whether there is a single worker in the transport sector whose job is not in some way safety-critical, whether they are bus, train or taxi drivers, mechanics, signallers, guards, ticket collectors, cleaners, or anyone else involved in keeping our transport infrastructure running. I do not want my safety to be compromised by forcing those employees into work. I want safety-critical staff to be well motivated and happy in the job. I want them to be in an atmosphere that does not involve threats and coercion. I do not want them having to worry about criminal action or financial sanctions being taken against their legal representatives. I want them focusing on one thing: public safety. So to be clear, we will oppose this anti-trade union, anti-worker legislation every step of the way.

Similarly, amendments 108, 114 and 110 would remove services provided by devolved Governments from the Bill. Amendment 110 would ensure that a work notice were valid only if its provisions were submitted by an employer to the three devolved institutions and received the support of over 80% of elected Members in each Chamber. But as has been noted, when this Government encounter opposition, their response is not to argue their case on its merits or otherwise; it is usually simply to legislate that opposition away. We have seen that in elections for Mayors in England, where the supplementary vote system was scrapped and replaced with the discredited first-past-the-post system, despite no evidence that that will improve governance.

When the Government discovered that the Welsh Government had used their powers to disallow the use of agency staff to replace strikers in the public sector, they announced that they would simply overrule the Senedd and repeal that legislation. When Transport for the North became too bothersome and vocal about the UK Government’s appalling record of rail investment in north of England, they slashed its budget. Shamefully, only a couple of weeks ago we saw the veto of legislation passed by 70% of Members of the Scottish Parliament, using hitherto untouched powers.

The Government are even afraid of letting the people of Scotland decide their own constitutional future, so it is clear that they should not be involved in the industrial relations of devolved Administrations or metro authorities. They simply cannot be trusted. Indeed, we remember how Thatcher’s hatred of opposition from metropolitan areas in the 1980s reached the point where large English conurbations were left with little or no effective regional governance, after she wiped the metropolitan counties off the map. She was simply setting a precedent for the current Government’s contempt for political opposition from other elected bodies to their agenda.

My amendments would prevent a Westminster power grab from the English cities and the devolved Administrations and ensure that the voters of those areas retained the ability to determine their own industrial relations and elect politicians who want to work in partnership with workers and unions, rather than engaging in perpetual war.

Amendment 112 would exempt occupations and employees subject to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 from any regulations allowing a work notice to be issued. I do not believe that anyone engaged in supporting and providing critical services should be forced to work. Each of those sectors is vital to the continued functioning of a healthy society. The Secretary of State’s argument is that he believes that that is why they should be prevented from striking. My argument is that that is exactly why they should not.

To conclude, workers’ data, which is the subject of amendment 113, should not be subject to less protection simply because those workers want to exercise the right to strike, especially if they live in a jurisdiction that roundly rejects this Bill and this Government. I am proud to say that Scotland not only rejects this Bill utterly, but rejects the Tories, as it has each and every time for nearly 70 years. With nonsense legislation like this, it will be at least 70 years before they become relevant to Scotland once again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), who made a passionate speech.

As a proud trade union member, I begin by referring the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I speak today in opposition to the Government’s proposed measures. The decision to go on strike is never taken lightly, especially as families struggle with the financial effects of the cost of living crisis. Opting to lose a day’s wages, particularly for workers such as teachers and nurses, is always a last resort when all others have failed, as I know because I have been on strike as a low-paid teacher.

I will focus my brief remarks on amendment 1. The Bill currently allows for workers who do not comply with a work notice to be sacked. The Labour party does not believe that any worker should be sacked for taking industrial action. As a former state school teacher, and as an MP representing a coalfield area that has previously suffered from Tory attacks on unionised workers, most notably during the 1984 miners’ strike, I have seen at first hand the importance of the right to strike and how it would be fundamentally unfair for people to lose their livelihood for taking the decision to withdraw their labour.

This goes beyond public sector workers. For example, transport services could include road haulage and distribution, both of which are key to South Yorkshire’s regional economy. The Bill allows two ways to enforce a so-called work notice: employers may either sue a union for losses, or they may sack individual workers.

One of the clearest examples of how this legislation targets workers and is not fit for purpose is in the transport sector. The train operating companies do not make losses due to strikes. Operators get a fee regardless of whether their services run, meaning they have no financial incentive to settle industrial disputes. Frankly, my constituents are lucky if they can travel across the Pennines, whether or not it is a strike day, but that does not touch the companies’ profits under the current system. Surely the only power that this Bill provides in such cases is to sack the workers in question. In an industry facing massive shortages, it is a strange solution to sack staff. It is hard to escape the conclusion that, instead, employers are simply being encouraged to target union activists, which is why amendments 64 and 68 are also important.

Fundamentally, minimum service levels are ineffective. Comparable countries such as France and Italy, which already have legislation in place for minimum service levels, have seen an increase in strikes rather than a decrease. The Government propose this Bill as a solution to the current levels of industrial action in the UK, but the reason why the number of strike days is at its highest in a generation is because this Government have given us a low-wage, low-growth economy for 13 years. These strikes are a symptom of Conservative economic failure. Key workers kept our country moving throughout the pandemic. This Government should stop threatening to sack them; they should pay them a fair wage.

[David Linden]

I rise to speak to amendments 21 to 24, which are in my name. In doing so, I am happy to support the amendments in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). I declare my interests, as other hon. Members have: I believe in democracy and I am a member of Unite.

Before I speak specifically to the substance of amendments 21 to 24, I will say a few words about the Bill and develop some of the points I outlined on Second Reading. To be blunt, this is a bad Bill that I believe is in total violation of the fundamental human right to withdraw one’s labour. Since Brexit, and throughout this Parliament, we have been promised an employment Bill but, alas, none has materialised. Time and again, we have been told there is insufficient parliamentary time for such legislation to go through both Houses of Parliament but, miraculously, the British Government have suddenly found parliamentary time to ram through a hugely controversial Bill, albeit a short Bill, that will radically alter employment law and trade union relations on these islands.

This Bill will be railroaded through its remaining stages in just six hours tonight, which is a total disgrace that makes a mockery of those who say Parliament is taking back control. We are about to confer huge, sweeping powers on a Secretary of State who, at the stroke of a pen, will be able to force employees to work against their wishes. I do not know how often it needs to happen for Ministers to take it seriously, but when the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) suggests this Bill is going in a dangerous direction, it is a clear indication that they ought to think again.

It is clear from the few speeches we have heard from Conservative Members tonight that the British Government see the foundations for this Bill as being the fact that some European countries have provisions for minimum service levels. Leaving aside any surprise at the UK suddenly benchmarking itself against legislation from EU member states, we see nothing on the continent that is anywhere near as strict as what is proposed in this Bill and drafted in a way that gives one man in Government such wide-ranging powers.

[Chris Stephens]

Is my hon. Friend aware of anywhere else in Europe where an employee could be dismissed, with no right to a tribunal, as proposed in this legislation?

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is spot on with that question. That point has been made throughout the debate by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West, when she makes the case that if we looked for countries that do that, we would find ourselves in with the unholy club of Russia and Hungary. Perhaps the policy of global Britain has changed and the Government are seeking to emulate the policies of Hungary and Russia. That would be a courageous electoral strategy if they are, but none the less my hon. Friend makes that point.

I wish to say one more thing about international comparisons before moving on to deal with the amendments. Many Government Members suggested on Second Reading that the Bill enjoyed the support of the ILO, but it has since clarified that that is not the case. So that nullifies that line from the British Government, which, when scrutinised, is found wanting on just about every clause in this tawdry Bill.

I am conscious of the fact that there are well over 100 amendments in 50 pages on the amendment paper, as well as multiple new clauses, so I will seek to confine my remarks solely to those that stand in my name, and I will start with amendment 21. Many of us know that this legislation is only the thin end of the wedge; I do not think that Ministers will stop here. For many on the Tory Benches, this is an ideological war. It is a blatant attempt to finish what Margaret Thatcher started: bringing the unions to heel. We have heard it tonight, with language such as “union barons” “the paymasters” and so on. Fundamentally, the Bill is about the victimisation of trade unions and working people, and it is all about creating a wedge issue for the next election.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic point about who is being victimised here. Instead of attacking working people and families, should this Government not be going after those who are not paying their taxes, so that we can get some more money? We could also go after those who are wasting billions of pounds as well.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend seeks to lead me into an area that could probably land me in a lot of hot water, in terms of naming Members and breaching “Erskine May”, so I will avoid straying into the area of affairs of taxation for the Conservative party. He is right to put that on the record and I am sure it will be ringing out in Stratford-on-Avon.

On amendment 21, the Bill already makes provision for six wide-ranging sectors that the British Government have identified for restrictions at a time of industrial action. Quite apart from the fact that “life and limb” cover is already provided for in statute, the list is already incredibly far-reaching. My amendment seeks to tighten up this part of the Bill, making it harder for Ministers to add further sectors of service provision. I am thinking specifically of Royal Mail, where our trade union colleagues in the Communication Workers Union are currently engaged in a dispute.

I have no doubt that this is not about “life and limb” cover, which unions already negotiate in advance of strike action. Ministers’ language has already evolved in recent weeks and months to “lives and livelihoods”, which gives them carte blanche to add in whatever sectors they fancy later on. I firmly believe that they will draw in other industrial disputes to be covered by this Bill and use it as a signal to bad bosses, the likes of Royal Mail’s Simon Thompson, who seems to be content with being at war with trade unions. The effect of amendment 21 would be to prohibit any addition to or any reinstatement of the six categories of service to which the Bill applies, while facilitating the ease of removal of any of these categories.

Amendment 22 relates to the devolved nature of employment law in Northern Ireland. As hon. Members will be aware—although perhaps not those who think it is impossible to devolve employment legislation to Holyrood —Northern Ireland already has legislative competence for employment law, so the territorial application of this Bill is not extended there. However, with no functioning Assembly or Executive, my amendment 22 would provide that this anti-worker power grab from Ministers could not be imposed on workers in Northern Ireland in any circumstances, including in the event of direct rule. In short, no devolved consent means no anti-strike legislation in Northern Ireland. However, for a party that purports to be so passionate about the Union, it is somewhat bizarre that, by passing this legislation, it is essentially engineering a situation whereby UNISON’s health service members in Northern Ireland would be exempt from the legislation that would directly infringe their very peers on this island. Perhaps we could call this particular amendment the anti-strike protocol.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will make some progress, if I can—

[David Linden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, I will not.

On the other points, the impact assessment will be available shortly. It is fair to say that we see the Bill as having a net benefit to the economy. Individual impact assessments will support secondary legislation.

To respond to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), we do not believe that the Bill reduces requirements for employers to adhere to health and safety and equality legislation. It is compatible with convention rights and international obligations—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, I am making some progress.

The Bill does not target union members, as clearly stated in proposed new section 234C(6) on page 4 of the Bill. In terms of devolution, we believe that minimum service levels are necessary across Great Britain, but we are of course keen to engage with the devolved Governments through consultation.

[David Linden]

rose—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I give way one last time.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The Welsh Government and the Scottish Government have already made it crystal clear that they oppose this legislation; why is the Minister seeking to ram it though at the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons and completely ride roughshod over the devolution settlement?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

This legislation is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This is the Parliament of the United Kingdom: it has every right to legislate. We believe this is needed across Great Britain, and industrial relations are clearly reserved to this Parliament.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

David Linden Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Anna Firth]

No, I won’t because of the time.

This is about balancing the right to strike with the right to a minimum level of service for those who are paying for it. Of course, the right to strike is something that we on the Conservative Benches consider to be important. It is a key right.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anna Firth]

No, I won’t because of the time.

That right has been a key part of our labour laws since 1906. If I can introduce just a moment of levity into this debate, one could say that collective action actually started in 1381 with the peasants’ revolt, which started in Essex.

However, it is undeniable that strikes are incredibly disruptive. In October last year, we lost 417,000 working days due to strike action, and 2022 is set to have the highest number of days lost to strike action since 1990. Whether it is our trains, ambulances, hospitals or postal service, the strikes disproportionately affect the poorer people in my constituency. Two million people journeys were made from two stations in my constituency of Southend West. These are people who cannot work from home, who cannot afford taxis to get to and from work, who are not allowed the indulgence of hotels that—let’s face it—those of us who work in this place are able to claim. And this affects children. People travelling to our brilliant grammar schools in Southend generally do so by train from different parts of Essex. Our children’s education has suffered enough due to covid. There must be minimum levels to ensure that our children get the education they deserve when they are in school.

On fairness and equality, by ensuring that we have minimum safety levels in our public services, we are ensuring that a service funded by taxpayers equally, serves every taxpayer equally. How could anybody object to that?

This should not be a controversial opinion. Police officers and members of the armed forces are already prevented from taking strike action. Too often, we have to rely on the armed forces, who cannot take strike action because theirs is an essential service. Life and limb are involved. Yet we rely on them—

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Have we not been told so often throughout the course of this Parliament that one reason we do not have an employment Bill is that there is no parliamentary time? Yet when we see on television the likes of Mick Lynch and Dave Ward, who the Government seem to think have a big button to cause chaos, all of a sudden a Bill comes forward that gives huge amounts of power to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Frankly, looking at clause 3 of the Bill, I would rather put Robert Mugabe in charge of the Electoral Commission than allow the Tories the opportunity to be in charge of workers’ rights.

It is already incredibly hard for workers to exercise their most basic, fundamental human right to withdraw their labour. The thresholds are already very high, and the people I stand alongside on picket lines, whether at Royal Mail or Glasgow Central station, do not want to be on strike. They are doing it knowing they will lose a day’s pay. The attitude of the Government and, in particular, this Secretary of State towards unions is about creating a wedge issue, trying to generate a huge division and pit worker against worker. The reality is that we in this country—or in these countries—already have a very large public service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) said, huge numbers of people, in our families and in our neighbourhoods, are taking industrial action.

In reality, this legislation is not necessary. It is not national security legislation. It does not have to be rushed through in a day. The tawdry programme motion would ram the Bill through in the space of five hours even though we would be radically altering people’s terms and conditions and their ability to work. That raises bigger questions about the direction of travel that this Government have taken.

As colleagues have said, the Government already want to remove people’s ability to protest and the ability of the Scottish Parliament, which is democratically elected, to vote. Tonight, they are seeking to block legislation that has been passed by two thirds of that Parliament, which has legislative competence. This Government are going in the wrong direction. Frankly, to respond to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), this makes the case for us. It is why we and the people of Scotland do not want to be a part of this absolutely crumbling democracy that has no legitimacy in Scotland.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am really grateful to those of you who have kept your remarks to well under three minutes; it is good.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

In response to questions regarding the consistency of this legislation with the UK’s—

[David Linden]

I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has said that it will cost the Government £28 billion to settle the dispute with our public service workers. The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that it will actually cost the public a significantly lower figure, £14 billion, to meet the public sector demands. Is there a way in which we can get the Minister to correct the record on the Floor of the House?

Royal Mail and the Universal Service Obligation

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing the debate, and offer my support to the CWU in the dispute with Royal Mail. I was privileged to stand on picket lines with Craig Anderson, Councillor John Carson and many others at the Glasgow south-east delivery office in Fullarton Drive, as well as at the Gartcraig delivery office. During those visits to picket lines, I heard one resounding message from the workforce: no one wants the strike. No one wants to lose their pay, particularly during a cost of living crisis; and no one wants to risk their employment. Our posties are striking because they do not want a vital service to be destroyed and torn apart, and they want to be paid fairly for the work that they contribute to the service.

Let me speak directly to Simon Thompson at Royal Mail. His behaviour throughout the dispute has been appalling. In a Zoom interview, someone wrote his lines on a whiteboard behind the camera; that was symptomatic of the intransigence of the Royal Mail senior management team. My constituents did not go out on their doorsteps on a Thursday night to clap for key workers only for Mr Thompson to treat his staff like crap. He must up his game, and if he cannot, he must resign. It is increasingly clear that he is the biggest stumbling block to a resolution to the dispute.

The truth is that consecutive Governments in Westminster have overseen the degradation of our postal services. If this Conservative Government let the USO end, it may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. It is widely known that Royal Mail is the designated provider of the universal postal service. It delivers six days a week to 30 million addresses on these islands, and one price goes anywhere. That seemingly unalienable fact is now under threat.

Royal Mail bosses have shamefully approached the British Government seeking to change that agreement. They have asked to move from the minimum six-day delivery service to a five-day delivery service for letters; Saturdays would be excluded. They say that is to protect the sustainability of the universal service. The SNP entirely recognises the importance of the USO, particularly for our rural communities in Scotland, which are so important. We will continue to fight for its protection.

We need to look more at the obscene profits from Royal Mail. While it plans to cut services and pay for postal workers, it pays out excessive sums to its shareholders. In May 2022, Royal Mail Group announced record-breaking profits of £758 million in 2021, £567 million of which was promptly paid out to shareholders. Only weeks later, Royal Mail announced significant losses, alleging it was losing over £1 million a day. Shortly after that, it approached the British Government requesting to move from a six-day to a five-day delivery obligation. The senior leadership of Royal Mail have also used their mismanagement of funds to justify scrapping up to 10,000 postal worker jobs from the service by 2023, while they continue to recruit and retain many thousands of agency staff.

Is it any surprise that CWU members have gone on strike? After all—some Ministers would do well to realise this—the right to withdraw one’s labour is one of the most fundamental human rights. It is a right that the British Government are now seeking to deny. Let us be clear: the CWU is in dispute with Royal Mail over unacceptable changes to terms and conditions and the abandonment of mutually agreed plans for modernisation, and in defence of the service that postal workers provide. There is also the proposed 2% pay increase. The CWU is also asking for an inquiry into the mismanagement of Royal Mail and how that will undermine the USO.

I do not think that Royal Mail senior management are listening. It appears that every time I tweet something about Royal Mail, a letter arrives within days disputing what I have said. Perhaps Royal Mail’s senior management team should spend less time monitoring my Twitter account, and more time at the negotiating table with our colleagues in the CWU.

The end of Royal Mail would exacerbate regional inequalities at a time when the British Government claim to be levelling up these islands. Royal Mail must be renationalised, and a commitment must be made to ensuring that the USO remains an unalienable fact of the postal service. To sum up in four words: stand by your post.

Industrial Action

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

When the Tory party spoke about taking back control, none of us thought that would mean suppressing votes with voter ID legislation, a policing and crime Act that curbs the right to protest, a House of Lords with unelected clerics and a Government who are withdrawing the basic fundamental human right to strike. How much longer will this Government continue to claim that this silly little island is a functioning democracy?

[Grant Shapps]

I am pretty sure the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber from the beginning, otherwise you would not have called him to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. He will therefore have heard me say, not once or twice but three times now, that this legislation is compatible with the International Labour Organisation rules that the unions themselves sign up to and many of our European neighbours follow. I am struggling to follow the hon. Gentleman’s argument that this is somehow unfair, undemocratic or against international law.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

David Linden Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about consent, because the Scottish Parliament has never agreed to this. I am sure I speak for future Scottish Parliaments, while the SNP are in government, when I say that we will never consent to having our rights taken away by a Government we did not elect.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

In answer to the point made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), the difference in how the European Union treats its members is that, in our current Union, Scotland has 59 out of 650 MPs, so we do not have a proportionate say. The European Union’s members are equal, so a country with the population of Malta has the same say as Germany.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Again, I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I could not agree more with what he says. He is right to say that the way Scotland has been treated by this Government is disgraceful and it cannot continue, and this power grab will be called out for what it is.

Let me ask the Minister this: what would happen if the Scottish Parliament decides that we will remain aligned to the European Union and we ban the sale of chlorinated chicken, but this place decides that cheap, imported, chlorine-washed chicken is acceptable? Exactly what power will the Scottish Parliament have to stop lorryloads of chlorine-washed poultry crossing the border and appearing on our supermarket shelves? Similarly, what happens if the UK agrees a trade deal that sees the UK flooded with cheap, factory-farmed, hormone-injected meat but our Scottish Parliament decides to protect Scottish consumers and Scottish farmers by adhering to existing standards and protections? Can he guarantee that the Scottish Government will be able to prevent that inferior quality, hormone-injected meat from reaching Scotland’s supermarkets? What happens if the Scottish Parliament decides that it will stick by long-established best practice in the welfare and treatment of animals but Westminster chooses to deregulate? Can he give a cast-iron guarantee that the Scottish Parliament will be able to prevent animals whose provenance is unknown and whose welfare history is unaccounted for from entering the food chain?

Can the Minister guarantee that should this Government decide to “relax” the regulations on the labelling of food packaging but the Scottish Parliament decides to remain aligned to the EU’s rules, that this place, using the provisions in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, will not force labelling changes on Scotland and have Scottish consumers unwittingly subjected to chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-injected beef, genetically modified crops and animals of questionable provenance?

There is a genuine fear that this Bill and the power it confers on this place is a potential death sentence for the Scottish agricultural sector, which in my constituency requires a hefty subsidy to in order to manage the land, keep the lights on in our hills and glens, provide employment and stem the tide of rural depopulation, while producing high-quality, high-value beef, lamb, and dairy products. My Argyll and Bute farmers know that the lowering of food standards, the relaxation of rules on labelling and animal welfare, and the mass importation of inferior-quality products will be an unmitigated disaster for Scottish agriculture.

I know, as the Minister does, that Angus Robertson, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, has already raised these serious concerns directly with the Government. The Minister knows that if the UK Government choose to act in policy areas that are wholly devolved, they will do so without the consent of Scottish Ministers or the Scottish Parliament, and that that will represent a significant undermining of the devolution settlement.

This Bill is the starting whistle on a deregulatory race to the bottom; one in which individual citizens will surely lose out to the spivs and the speculators and, no doubt, to the “politically connected”, who will be fast-tracked into making a quick buck at our expense. Because despite the Government’s assurances, which we heard earlier, that the UK will have the opportunity to be bolder and go further than the EU in securing consumer and environmental protections, there are clauses in this Bill that will prevent Ministers from imposing any new “regulatory burden” on anyone. To me, that suggests strongly that this is headed in one direction only: to deregulation. That deregulation will make it easier to circumvent our existing legal obligations on labelling food for allergens; to row back on safe limits on working hours; to change those hard-won rights on parental leave; or to avoid paying holiday pay.

The Government will be aware of the fury that will follow should they move to weaken the existing controls on polluting substances being released into the air or to lower existing standards for water and in any way dilute the protections and defences of our natural habitats and our wildlife. It seems that for some Conservative Members there is no price too high in their desperate, deluded pursuit of the mirage of Brexit. They are prepared to put at risk our natural environment, food quality, animal welfare standards, consumer protection, workers’ rights and even our natural environment in order to achieve it.

As I said earlier, this is not a road that Scotland has chosen to go down—rather, this is a road that Scotland has been dragged down. Our nation rejected this Tory Brexit fantasy, but our democratic wishes have been ignored at every turn. This is not Scotland’s doing, but because of the constitutional straitjacket in which we find ourselves, we are having this done to us by a Government we did not elect. Thankfully, Scotland has a way out and will, as soon as possible, rejoin the European Union as an independent nation. I sincerely wish the people of the rest of the United Kingdom well in finding their way back, too.

The Government should be under no illusion that SNP Members will oppose the Bill every step of the way. Not only are the Government coming for the rights and protections that we have all enjoyed for decades, but they are coming for our Parliament as well. I urge them, even at this late stage, to perform another of their trademark, almost legendary, U-turns and abandon this disastrous Bill. Not only does it undermine the devolution settlement, but it diminishes the role of MPs, with a plan to deal with everything via secondary legislation, conveniently avoiding scrutiny measures by Parliament. A former Secretary of State said that this was taking back control, but we have to ask who is taking backing control. It is not Parliament, as the Government have gleefully announced to the press that

“the amount of parliamentary time that is required has been dramatically reduced.”

Taking back control for this Government appears to mean finding a group of a hand-picked party loyalists and putting them on a Delegated Legislation Committee, which has a built-in Government majority, so that they can bulldoze through change after change after change, as required. In the history of DL Committees, in the past 65 years, only 17 statutory instruments have been voted down—and that has not happened since 1979. While there is a role for such Committees, it is not to make wholesale and fundamental changes to vast swathes of the law, covering everything from the environment and nature to consumer protection.

As we have heard, parliamentary scrutiny is being avoided because, in their desperation or fervour to rid themselves of any European influence, the zealots at the heart of this collapsing Government have arbitrarily included a sunset clause, meaning that 2,500 laws will be removed and not be replaced. Unless the Government grant themselves an extension, those laws will simply disappear from the statute book.

Energy Prices Bill

David Linden Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whitehead]

I am delighted to hear that, and it is one gain from this evening’s debate.

On the third part of the Bill, I very much concur with a lot of what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) said. The Bill gives powers to the Minister and the Secretary of State that provide for sweeping arrangements not only to intervene in energy markets, but to override Ofgem in various licensing arrangements. There is a power to give direction and a power to change licences, and a whole range of other measures. A number of industry figures are certainly concerned about the stability of investment they can undertake with those powers on the statute book, not knowing whether those changes could take place at short notice and in a way that may affect their investment decisions and the investment landscape for the future.

At the weekend, a senior source at one energy supplier suggested that the Secretary of State had undertaken a power grab “worthy of Henry VIII”. Obviously, our modernist Secretary of State may well be modelling himself on Henry VIII. I do not know whether he is, but this source said that this

“gives absolute power to the secretary of state over all rules governing all aspects of the UK’s energy industry, in perpetuity.”

He continued:

“That means bypassing Ofgem and the entire licensing and regulatory regime without any safeguards or time constraints and no consultation or appeal process for anyone—supplier, generator, networks—affected by any decision.”

So we are very concerned to ensure that those powers taken by the Secretary of State should at the very least have a sunset clause on them when the energy crisis has abated a little. As we can see from the legislation, no such sunset clauses are provided, which leads to a suspicion that this is a potential serious power grab by the Government, and these are powers to oversee the energy process without any of the checks and balances that we have in the system at the moment. If that is the Government’s intention, it is to be deplored. Again, I hope that at the very least the Minister could clarify his intentions on that section of the Bill and how he intends to limit the activity of these things over a period of time.

We have tabled a number of amendments, and as they relate to some of the comments I have made, I shall briefly address them. Amendment 1 would ensure that the full cost of reductions is passed on to customers. Although a passing through arrangement is contained in the Bill to deal with people such as landlords, park home owners and various others who are taking the rebates on bills on behalf of customers and supposedly passing them on but not actually doing so—I very much welcome those clauses—there are other arrangements for third parties in receipt of funds where they are not necessarily required to pass those rebates on to customers at all. For example, the Low Carbon Contracts Company gets money in from contracts for difference but is by no means obliged to pass that back to customers. It is supposed to pass this back to energy companies, but it does not have to do so, and the energy suppliers themselves have no obligation to pass it back to customers. The amendment tries to close some of those loopholes to make sure that all moneys related to this area are passed on to customers.

New clause 2, on the marginal cost of electricity, was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North on Second Reading. The new clause would ensure that we would not be in this situation in the first place. If we had sorted out the whole question of the marginal cost of electricity as it relates to all electricity being effectively determined in retail price as if it had derived from gas and the much lower cost of renewables that we have at the moment in the system being effectively discounted, we would not have some of those renewable generators making “super-profits” and being perhaps subject to the ministrations of clause 16. That is because they would be working in the market on their own prices and looking competitively at a price set by their own boundaries, rather than working through gas in the first place. We think it is important that the Government take action on that quickly, which is what our new clause suggests we do.

I know we are running out of time, but let me come to our amendment on the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022 arrangements. Again, as my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading, they were deplorable, as where fossil fuels are concerned 91% of profits can be returned back to those companies, and do not come to the customer to help reduce their bills, if they have investments in fossil fuels for the future. No such arrangement is provided for in this Bill as far as renewable generators are concerned; it is just a request for payment and nothing else. We want the Government to urgently look at this and bring forward a report on what the effect of reducing that 91% arrangement to 5%, for example, would have on the money that would be coming through to help customers pay their bills for the future.

Finally, as we mentioned on Second Reading, we have tabled a couple of amendments to start the process of payments from September, rather than the end of this year, as is proposed in the Bill. We think that would produce quite a lot more money for customers’ bills to be assured in the process. We understand that the Scottish nationalists are moving a manuscript amendment, new clause 18. It would worry us as it is calling for all the arrangements to be sorted out as far as what happens after six months is concerned within one month. We would prefer that we all united behind new clause 8, which would require full disclosure of the profits and turnover of oil and gas companies and various other generators over the next two years.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I suspect the hon. Gentleman is probably only clearing his throat and getting on to his speech, but may I ask him what his objection is to new clause 18? If I heard him properly, he suggested at the beginning of his speech that if the Government had brought forward a manuscript amendment, he would not necessarily be too upset. Given that the SNP has done that, via manuscript and new clause 18, what is the Opposition’s objection to that?

[Dr Whitehead]

We think that most of what is new clause 18 is unexceptionable as far as information that is required. We do not think that all this has to be or should be resolved within one month, as is proposed; getting all that information on the table about the profits and turnover of companies over the next two years is a better way to do this.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

rose—

[Dr Whitehead]

I am about to finish my remarks, but we might well have a debate about new clause 18—

[David Linden]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Dr Whitehead]

I am sorry, I cannot give away further because I am right out of time, and I know that the Chairman is encouraging me to bring my remarks to a close, which is precisely what I intend to do.

Subject to what the Minister says, we may wish to divide on new clause 3 and amendment 2. I am anxious to hear what he makes of our various other amendments, but although we probably do not wish to proceed further with them, that is not to say that they do not merit important consideration in our proceedings on the Bill. We hope the Minister will be cognisant of that.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Dr Whitehead, are you giving way?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

We can normally get through a Chancellor in 28 days, so it is ample enough time for the Government to come forward with a review.

[Alan Brown]

It is a fair point and, as my hon. Friend pointed out earlier, Labour Members also have a new clause, which they want to push, calling for a report to Parliament in 28 days, so it seems to be a timeframe that we can all agree on.

New clause 18(2) would mandate the Government to assess what average household bills will look like when the pledged support scheme ends next April. I appreciate that estimating future energy bill increases is not an exact science, but the Government should be able to come up with an indicative price range, which should also give a look-ahead at the supposedly two-year support period of the so-called energy price guarantee. This is an important exercise, because it was the Prime Minister who told us that the two-year policy would stop average bills hitting £6,000 a year. As I said earlier, the explanatory notes for the Bill state that these mitigations will prevent so-called average bills of £2,500 from rising to £4,200. That means that, without further support, average household energy bills will, on the evidence before us and according to this Government, rise to something like £4,200 to £6,000 per annum. How on earth is that affordable? Clarity is required urgently.

New clause 18(2)(b) is all about analysing fuel poverty statistics. Now, when I mention fuel poverty statistics, we need to remember that these are not statistics but real people we are talking about—people who cannot afford to heat their homes; people who might not even be able to turn on their cooker and heat their food; parents skipping meals; people with health conditions that are made worse because they are having to live in a damp house; terminally ill people who are having to move out of their homes and are unable to die in dignity in their homes because they cannot afford to heat them; people on prepayment meters who are building up their standing charge debt because they cannot afford to put money in them. That is the reality of fuel poverty. That is why I want the Government to assess and report on the reality of their policy decisions during this cost of energy crisis.

Fuel poverty statistics lag behind real time: it takes time to analyse the statistics and then bring them through. The cost of energy has gone up so quickly that past fuel poverty statistics are effectively meaningless. National Energy Action estimates that, even with a £2,500 average bill put in place, some 6.7 million households will end up in fuel poverty. We need to understand how much worse that will get across the United Kingdom. I suggest that if the Government wish to make an informed decision about what future support packages will look like and how they will actually support the most vulnerable, they should be the ones to undertake the assessment.

That feeds directly into subsections (2)(c) and (2)(d), which are about, first, assessing the merit of extending the universal scheme as it was originally intended and, secondly, looking at a more targeted approach. The key to subsection (c) is ensuring that we have no further increases in fuel poverty. Given that we are still saying that 6.7 million households will be in fuel poverty, that is an extremely tame target. The real target should be the eradication of fuel poverty, which is why I am willing to support many other amendments on the Order Paper, particularly from other parties, on energy-efficient installations and the upgrading of homes to EPC band C, which is a UK Government target. There should be greater investment in energy efficiency measures, and truly upgrading homes will reduce bills, reduce the energy demand and of course create additional green jobs.

Given how damaging fuel poverty is, and that the Government have not made clear what future support will look like, I cannot believe that the Labour party is not willing to support manuscript new clause 18 and try to force the Government’s hand to provide information to Parliament so that we know the real impact of the cost of energy crisis.

Amendment 16 is about support for off-grid homes. Earlier, I highlighted that a one-off payment of £100 for alternatively fuelled properties is insufficient. Liquid fuels have increased in price from 30p a litre to more than £1 a litre, which is three times more expensive. People cannot afford to fill their fuel tanks. They have to lay out a minimum of £500 to £600 for a delivery. If they do not have that cash, they do not get it—they do not get credit. Filling a tank costs about £1,200 once VAT is included. Why do the Government think that a one-off £100 payment is sufficient?

One of my constituents lives in an off-gas grid property. He rightly observed that the energy price guarantee is being paid for by the general taxpayer, because it comes out of borrowing or taxpayers’ money. That means that off-grid customers are effectively subsidising people on the gas grid who are getting a bigger support package. Four million households are effectively subsidising 28 million households, which actually have cheaper fuel bills. It is an incoherent policy, which is why we brought forward amendment 16, but I would also support any other proposals that would make the Government support those who live in off-gas grid properties.

I wrote to a previous energy Minister about regulation of off-grid fuels for properties. The answer I got was that we do not need regulation; the market will take care of itself. That in itself shows a complete lack of understanding of what it is like for people in rural properties who cannot shop around. Generally, there is only one supplier in the area, so it gets to set the terms and conditions and the prices of the fuel that people buy. The Government need to look at regulation of those fuels as well.

Amendments 10, 11, 14 and 15 are about giving Parliament a greater level of scrutiny and approval. It is about ensuring that proposals are implemented under the affirmative rather than the negative procedure, which puts all the powers into the hands of the Secretary of State. I tried to point this out to the Secretary of State who, as a Back Bencher, was all about Parliament sovereignty, but now that he is in the Cabinet he is yet another hypocrite who is quite happy to take Henry VIII powers and other unparalleled powers for himself. [Interruption.] I said hypocrite, yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

The Minister began his speech by saying that the energy crisis is a global crisis. That is true. It grew out of the surge in global demand after the pandemic and it has certainly been compounded by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, it has been entrenched by the complicity of those countries in OPEC that have steadfastly refused to increase production and which the Government still count as close allies, including Saudi Arabia, on which much greater diplomatic pressure should be applied.

The hon. Members for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman) alluded to the way in which the Bill looks predominantly at the supply side. It should also look at the demand side. The chief executive of E.ON, Michael Lewis, has pointed out that a sustained programme of energy efficiency could have reduced the amount of energy used in UK homes by 25%—the equivalent of six Hinkley C nuclear power stations. The cheapest energy is the energy that we do not use, and the fact that 59% of homes in England are rated D or below for energy performance is a major factor in the desperate need of many families for support with their bills. A simple uprating of a home from energy performance certification D to C would save a home £500 a year—and that is on the basis of energy prices in April this year, before the latest spike. There would be even higher savings now.

That is why this summer E.ON and EDF called for the Government to double the energy company obligation scheme and for an expansion of the eligibility criteria to include 150,000 more homes. I hope that, under clause 22—under the powers to intervene that the Secretary of State is giving himself—the Government will use those powers to expand the ECO scheme precisely as those two major suppliers have requested.

While failure to address the demand side shows that the Government should have been investing in a comprehensive retrofit scheme over the past 12 years, it also highlights their failure, until Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, to understand just how essential energy security is to our national security. Energy efficiency and renewable energy were regarded, in the words of our Prime Minister—that is, three Prime Ministers ago—as “green crap”. The truth is that, if we had rolled out a comprehensive programme of renewables and energy efficiency measures over the past 12 years, that stuff would now be regarded as green gold and there would be scant need for the provisions of this Bill.

Our failure should teach us another lesson. The way to become more energy secure and less reliant on fossil fuels is not to double down on them and devise new subsidies for fracking and new fields in the North sea, but to ramp up investments that will transition our economy from the fossil-fuelled past to the clean energy future. The Government claim that we have to expand our oil and gas production and that that will make our bills cheaper. The truth is it will not, not just because the wholesale market is an international market, rather than a domestic one, but because the North Sea Transition Authority is clear that the average time to production of any new facility is five years. Anything we do now to expand exploration licences cannot begin to have even the marginal impact that the minute percentage increase in global supply would predicate until 2027.

Moreover, in its analysis of production projections the North Sea Transition Authority has set out that the North sea basin will see annual declines of 9% and 6% respectively for gas and oil production out to 2050. That means that the Government are seeking to ramp up our dependence on fossil fuels at precisely the time they are diminishing and becoming more expensive, and are set to leave us with stranded assets and liabilities. Investment should be going into reducing demand, providing onshore wind and solar and creating the new jobs that will accompany such investment.

I set out in my speech on Second Reading the basis on which the oil and gas producers are and should be contributing to the measures in clause 1. Last year, energy prices meant that an average family were paying £1,100. After the windfall tax and the unfunded borrowing, that will be limited to an average of £2,500. The cost of that over the two years would be £31 billion, but now that the Chancellor has introduced the welcome Treasury-led review after six months, that would be simply £7.5 billion for the period in question. That is just about half a year’s worth of taxing the oil and gas producers at the global average level.

I welcome the Chancellor’s statement announcing the Treasury-led review, and urge him to ditch the investment allowance subsidy and adopt a tax rate that the rest of the globe considers fair and equitable.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I rise to speak to new clause 1, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends from the city of Glasgow. In doing so, I also express my support for all the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), in particular manuscript new clause 18. I know that he will wish to press amendment 16 on the off-gas grid, which impacts constituents in the Gartloch area of my constituency.

For those of us who have the privilege of being Glaswegian, or at the very least adopted Glaswegians, arguably nothing symbolises home much more than the sandstone tenements which line our high streets and housing estates. Of course, they are not unique to Glasgow; tenements can be found in Liverpool as well as in Scotland’s lesser city of Edinburgh. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) even took me to see some tenements on Barrow Island last year. Let it never be said that she does not know how to organise a good date night, Mr Evans.

There is a serious point to all that and one that is particularly pertinent to Scotland in the context of both housing and energy policy. Nearly a fifth of all our housing stock is pre-1919—that is, 467,000 homes—and 68% of those have disrepair to critical elements. Furthermore, 36% have critical and urgent repair needs. The nature of these buildings is that they are incredibly expensive to heat. Without question they are genuinely beautiful, with their high ceilings and large bay windows, but they are constructed from sandstone with little to no cavity wall insulation.

It is welcome that the Government have introduced the Energy Prices Bill. Indeed, I always had faith that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy would come round to our view that strong and regular state intervention was the way forward, but I am concerned that the Bill is only part of the solution to the energy crisis for tenement dwellers, as well as housing associations.

Back in 2019, a report was commissioned by the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations, which campaigns on behalf of community controlled housing groups. It warned of the “ticking time-bomb” of such properties. It has been estimated that the cost of restoring more than 46,000 tenement flats in Glasgow that were built pre-1919 and are deemed to be dangerous could hit £2.9 billion. I know that my local housing association, and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), certainly do not have that in their reserves.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

I thank my hon. Friend for tabling the new clause. He is absolutely right about the concerns of housing associations. The cost of energy going up may mean that many of their tenants in the tenements do not want to put on the heating this winter. That is bad not only for the residents, who are our primary concern, but for the housing stock, particularly older tenemental properties. It will simply increase the future costs if those buildings become more mouldy and damp and suffer all the other effects that inclement weather can have on such structures. It is all the more important that such amendments are taken forward so that housing associations in particular can invest in energy efficiency measures to support their struggling tenants.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to put that on the record, and ng homes in his constituency, for example, will be glad that he has.

For my constituents living in Tollcross Road, Westmuir Street or Shettleston Road, living in those historic and iconic buildings comes at a cost, especially in the winter when energy consumption is higher. We all surely agree that installing solar panels and electric car charging points in homes is a good way to combat the climate and nature emergency and to make energy consumption cheaper and more sustainable. For those in tenement properties, however, that is near-impossible, which is why my new clause 1 seeks some form of additional support for these unique properties. We all agree that retrofitting properties can be helpful for energy efficiency, but in reality we will have to incentivise owners and housing associations to do that for tenements.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a good case. He may be aware of the project in Niddrie Road, Govanhill, where a tenement block is being retrofitted to the Passivhaus standard with Southside Housing Association. Does he agree, however, that rolling that out across the tenement stock in the city of Glasgow alone would be hugely expensive and quite disruptive for tenants, so the cost needs to be borne in mind?

[David Linden]

Yes. For those of us with a strong interest in housing policy, Govanhill is a fascinating place to look because of the innovative stuff that has happened there as a result of the SNP Scottish Government. The Passivhaus standard is incredibly expensive; I know that Shettleston Housing Association in my constituency is still paying for the development at the top of Wellshot Road. It is important, but it comes at a cost, which is all the more reason for the Government to come forward with support.

One way to do that is to zero-rate VAT on refurbishment and retrofitting, which would cut 20% from the cost straightaway and act as a fiscal stimulus for a construction sector that will clearly be affected by any impending recession. The current energy crisis gives us the ability to provide short-term support by way of a price intervention, but longer-term support with the zero-rating of VAT for retrofitting tenements.

I know that the Minister and his party are big fans of cutting taxes—perhaps not today, but certainly normally more than I am—but I hope that we can agree that approving our new clause 1 would merely require the Government to conduct an impact assessment, which is surely not objectionable to those on the Treasury Bench. Those of us familiar with Glasgow politics know that the late Sir Teddy Taylor was the epitome of what was known as a “tenement Tory”. I can guarantee that top tenement Tory status will be conferred on the Minister if he works with us tonight and accepts the new clause without a Division. In the meantime, I am grateful to the Chairman of Ways and Means for selecting the new clause for consideration, and I look forward to the response of the Minister—indeed, the top tenement Tory—when he winds up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

I will not say too much more on the energy efficiency front. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) talked about the importance of energy efficiency, and I think he is quite right. Communicating that in the right way is the issue. Finding the right interlocuters, the right people, to talk to the public is terribly important. My hon. Friends raised the Henry VIII powers and I think I have already dealt with that.

[David Linden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I am going to press on, if I may.

Turning to amendments 2, 3, 10 and 11, and new clauses 7, 9 and 17, for amendments 10 and 11, designating a scheme is simply a matter of identifying the scheme documents that the Secretary of State already has the powers to provide. Therefore, the affirmative procedure would be disproportionate. New clause 7 requires the undertaking of an impact assessment on setting the price reduction at pre-April Ofgem cap levels. The unprecedented level of support introduced via the scheme and others in the Bill means that I do not think this is necessary and I ask Members not to press it to a Division.

[David Linden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I have so much to do and a duty to cover as much as I can, having agreed not to go on too long.

New clause 9 aims to remove regional variations from standing charges. Ofgem, which is responsible for the network charging regime, is considering that matter and we should not pre-empt the review’s outcome in the Bill.

Amendments 2 and 3 aim to enable the backdating of the gas price reduction scheme in Great Britain to begin from 8 September. The Government have designed the scheme to work in combination with the 22 May cost of living package to which I referred. That ensures that the most vulnerable households will see little change in their energy between last winter and this. I therefore do not see any need to alter the operative date of the energy price guarantee schemes.

I move on to amendments 19, 17, 18 and 7, new clause 5 and amendment 5 on the energy bill relief scheme. On amendments 17 and 19, the Government fully intend to introduce regulations under clause 9 and we expect them to be laid in Parliament by the beginning of November. I have committed to publishing a review of the scheme in three months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

[David Linden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Member is so persistent that I will give way to him.

[David Linden]

Hope springs eternal. In his summing up, the Minister has not yet touched on new clause 1. I suspect that that is nothing to do with the fact that he does not know what a tenement is, but can he touch on new clause 1, please?

Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill

David Linden Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Virginia Crosbie]

My hon. Friend is a hard-working champion and advocate for his constituents in Dewsbury, and I have been hearing about his son, Liam, and how he has been working. I highlight the fact that the Bill has so much cross-party support. It is great to see how we are all working together to make a significant change for workers in the hospitality sector, who are having a particularly tough time at the moment.

As I said, the Bill will potentially benefit more than 2 million people—7% of workers in the UK—who receive tips as part of their work. It will ensure fairness across the board, so that whether people work in Pete’s Burger Bar in Holyhead or serve fine dining at the Gaerwen Arms, they will be treated fairly and equitably. Places in dire need of levelling up, such as my constituency of Ynys Môn and other coastal and rural communities, are often home to thousands of people employed in tourism and hospitality. Local employers on Anglesey include the Sandy Mount hotel, Sergio’s, the Sea Shanty, Catch 22, the Oyster Catcher, Dylan’s, and the White Eagle. There are so many to mention—I am sure all Members here have the same story to tell.

I was the first one in my family to stay on at school beyond the age of 16, and it was the hospitality sector—work in restaurants, pubs and cafés, like the Mercury Café and Fifi’s Restaurant—that helped me to pay my way through sixth form and university. The tips I earned were spent on a new winter coat or a pair of warm boots.

There is a drive for better hospitality career opportunities and pay—driven by the likes of Aled Jones-Griffith and his team at Coleg Menai—but jobs in such sectors are often seasonal and poorly paid. For many workers, tips form an important part of their potential earnings, particularly in these challenging times. Although most employers distribute tips fairly and honestly, that is not the case for everyone. That is what the Bill seeks to address.

I will deal with clauses 1 to 14 together. The provisions create a legal obligation on employers to pass on tips to workers in full. The only deductions permitted are those required or permitted under other statutory provisions, such as tax law. That will promote fairness for workers and ensure that they receive the tips they earn. The vast majority of customers give tips on the assumption that they will go to the workers, and do not expect businesses to take a slice. Likewise, workers rightly expect to receive their tips in full, in recognition of their hard work.

The Bill will also provide greater transparency for employers and workers on how tips should be treated, and will create a level playing field for businesses that already pass on tips to workers in a fair and transparent way. Finally, consumers will have the confidence that the full value of their tips will go to workers.

Let me set out the detail of the clauses. Clause 1 inserts into the Employment Rights Act 1996 a new part on how employers must deal with qualifying tips, gratuities and service charges, which I will refer to as tips. The Bill will apply to all tips paid by a customer to an employer, including tips paid by card, which are usually paid into the employer’s bank account. Some 80% of tipping is now paid by card.

The Bill will also apply to tips paid directly to a worker if the employer controls or influences the allocation of tips—for example, if the employer tells workers how to share the tips between themselves. The Bill will not apply to tips received by workers when an employer or associated person does not control or significantly influence the allocation of the tip.

Clause 1 aims to capture all scenarios in which an employer has control over tip allocation and distribution, to prevent them from taking advantage of that control to exploit workers. The clause provides that

“tip, gratuity or service charge”

means the actual amount paid by the customer. As employers cannot make deductions for things such as processing fees, the Bill ensures that workers receive the full amount of tips.

Clause 2 introduces a fairness requirement that requires employers to ensure that the total amount of tips is allocated fairly among workers of the employer at the place of business where the tips were paid. That means, for example, that tips paid by customers at a particular restaurant will not be shared with workers at a different restaurant of the same employer. In determining how to allocate tips fairly, the employer must have regard to the relevant provisions of the code of practice, which is described in later clauses. The amount of tips allocated to a worker is payable to the worker by the employer.

Clause 3 sets out how the employer’s obligations apply when tips are allocated by an independent tronc. The Bill allows for tips to be allocated by an independent tronc as long as the arrangements are fair overall and have regard to the code of practice. The word “tronc” comes from the French word for an alms box; it is about pooling and redistributing tips. The tronc can be employer controlled or independently operated by a member of staff or a payroll or accounting company. Tipping practices vary among employers, and the Bill seeks to support diverse practices as long as they are fair. Clause 3 also provides that tips can be payable to workers by independent tronc operators, either directly or through the employer’s payroll.

Clause 4 details when tips must be dealt with. It sets out that an employer must ensure that tips are allocated to workers and paid no later than the end of the month following the month in which they were paid by the customer. For example, if a tip was paid on 8 April, the employer would need to deal with the tip by 31 May.

Clause 5 sets out how an employer’s obligations regarding tips apply to agency workers, who are workers supplied by an agency to work for a business, such as a restaurant. They benefit from the Bill and will be treated as if they were workers directly employed by the restaurant. That ensures that agency workers do not miss out on tips they have earned. The clause defines which agency workers are eligible to be covered by the protections and requires tips to be fairly allocated to eligible agency workers. It allows a business to pay the agency worker’s share of the tips to the agency, which must then pay that sum to the agency worker. This is because agency workers are often not on the business’s payroll.

Clause 6 concerns the written policy and records that employers must keep of tips. All employers that deal with tips on more than an occasional or exceptional basis are required to have a written policy on dealing with tips. That policy must include whether or not the employer requires or encourages customers to pay tips and how the employer ensures that all tips are dealt with in accordance with this legislation, including in respect of how the employer allocates tips. The employer is required to make the written policy available to all workers of the employer at the place of business.

Employers are also required to keep records relating to tips. Records must be kept for three years and include the total amount of tips paid, the amount allocated to workers and, if relevant, the amount allocated to an independent tronc operator. The requirement to keep records is essential to ensure that workers have access to the information they may need to enforce their rights. The clause provides workers with a right to make a written request to access limited relevant parts of their employer’s tipping records. That allows workers to gather evidence to seek redress if they are not being treated fairly.

Clause 7 explains the enforcement mechanism for employers’ obligations regarding tips. Workers can present complaints to an employment tribunal that an employer has failed to comply with their obligation to allocate tips fairly, or failed to do so in time. The clause also allows agency workers to present complaints. The limitation period for those complaints is 12 months.

Workers’ rights to bring forward such claims are at the core of the Bill, as employment rights need to be underpinned by effective enforcement. The clause sets out how a tribunal should determine complaints about tips. When a complaint by a worker is well founded, the tribunal must make a declaration to that effect. The tribunal may also make a range of orders, including an order requiring the employer to revise any allocation of tips they have made, or an order requiring the employer to make a payment to a worker of up to £5,000 to compensate them for consequential financial loss.

Clause 8 explains how workers can complain if their employer breaches the information provisions. That includes an employer failing to comply with the requirements relating to written policies dealing with tips, records of how tips have been dealt with or workers’ written requests for information. Workers can bring forward a claim to an employment tribunal in those circumstances. The limitation period is three months. Workers’ rights to bring forward those claims are essential to the Bill, as access to that information allows employers to be held accountable and workers to check that what they are paid is correct and fair.

The clause sets out how a tribunal should determine complaints about the employer’s policy or record keeping obligations. When a complaint by a worker is well founded, the clause states that the tribunal must make a declaration to that effect. A tribunal can also order a payment from the employer to a worker of up to £5,000 to compensate them for consequential financial loss.

Clause 9 gives the Secretary of State powers to issue, revise or revoke a code of practice for the purpose of promoting fairness and transparency in the distribution of tips. The code of practice is necessary to help to describe different circumstances that are fair or unfair in more detail than the Bill could. The code can also be adapted to changing circumstances more easily than primary legislation. To issue a code of practice, the Secretary of State must consult ACAS and publish a draft to allow stakeholders to make representations, before laying the draft before both Houses of Parliament for approval.

The clause establishes the procedure to revise or revoke the code, and details the legal effect of the code. It sets out that the code is admissible as evidence in proceedings before an employment tribunal and, where relevant, must be taken into account.

Clause 10 sets out some additional provisions relating to tips. It prevents employers from bringing restitution claims against workers in respect of tips. If an employer is ordered to revise their allocation of tips and they have over-allocated tips to a worker, those tips are not repayable from the worker to the employer.

The clause preserves existing contractual arrangements relating to tips. That means that if a worker was already entitled by their contract to receive a certain percentage of qualifying tips, they would remain entitled to those tips despite the passage of the Bill. However, payments under the statutory and any contractual obligations can be set off against each other to avoid double counting.

The clause prevents workers from opting out of their rights under the Bill and provides further definitions, including of “customer” and “place of business”. It clarifies certain situations in which it is unclear to which place of business a tip is attributable. The clause also provides that the Bill applies to tips paid by customers on or after the date on which the obligation to allocate tips fairly comes into force. The Bill is not retrospective.

Clause 11 amends certain provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 with regard to tips and clarifies that a worker cannot contract out of, or consent to amend, their right to receive tips that have been allocated to them by their employer. It also amends the definition of “wages” to include tips.

Clause 12 amends other pieces of employment legislation as required. That is because some Acts require amendment to ensure the provisions will apply correctly and cohesively once the Bill comes into force.

Clause 13 sets out where the provisions of the Bill apply in the United Kingdom and provides that the Bill regulates qualifying tips paid at, or otherwise attributable to, a place of business located in England, Wales or Scotland. The legislation does not regulate tips in Northern Ireland because employment law is devolved to Northern Ireland.

Clause 14 is the final clause apart from the title. It defines how and when the Bill comes into force, and confers the power on the Secretary of State to determine when clauses 1 to 12 come into force by the making of regulations. Clauses 13 to 15 come into force on the day the Bill is passed.

Let me close by thanking the Chair, the officials who worked so hard to make the Bill a success and everyone present for supporting the Bill. Once again, I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Minister for putting his faith in me and for everything he has done to bring the Bill this far. We all want workers to be treated fairly, and we all want to see the rewards for hard work distributed to those they are meant for. This is a great opportunity for stakeholders to engage in setting up the code of practice. Let us work together to ensure the Bill achieves what it has set out to do.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn on taking the Bill forward on behalf of the Minister, the hon. Member for Watford. I congratulate him in particular on rising to ministerial office; I have always found him incredibly thoughtful since he entered the House in 2019. I never quite thought it would be a Conservative Member bringing forward legislation to strengthen employment rights, so I am grateful to Comrade Russell for doing that. I only hope that the current Leader of the Opposition can bring himself to start supporting employment rights, because he seems to be on a bit of a slippery wicket on that one.

I want to offer my support and that of my party for the whole Bill, from clauses 1 to 15. My constituent, Joan Tomson from Carmyle, was in touch with me in the summer about this specific issue of how to protect tips for staff. I am fortunate to have in my own constituency excellent restaurants such as Kastriot’s in Baillieston and Gia’s of Shettleston. They would not dream for a minute of trying to steal their staff tips, but this Bill addresses the bad employers out there who behave in a completely unacceptable way. It is right that we bring forward legislation to bring them to heal.

It will come as no surprise to the Minister when I say that the Government need to bring forward a full employment Bill. It is noticeable that we are having to bring forward piecemeal bits of legislation, such as the excellent Bill before the Committee or, indeed, the legislation introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on neonatal leave and pay. These are hard-won battles that we are having to fight on employment rights, but if anything has been taught as a result of the shameful actions of British Airways and P&O Ferries—

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[David Linden]

I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend.

[Chris Stephens]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill and the other legislation that he talks about have the support of the trade union movement, which is playing a vital role? The rhetoric that we sometimes hear from Ministers is not the rhetoric that we want to hear. We want to see a partnership with trade unions so that we can shape employment legislation that deals with insecure work and unfair conditions.

[David Linden]

This is probably an appropriate juncture to declare my membership of the Unite trade union. I agree with my hon. Friend; he is right to put that on the record and it is topical because at the weekend the wonderful Rozanne Foyer from the Scottish Trades Union Congress talked at the SNP conference about how refreshing it was that the Scottish Government very much view trade unions as partners. I am sure that, given the doughty leadership of Comrade Russell as the Business Minister, the trade unions will find an open door from this Government, but my hon. Friend is right to put that on the record.

As much as I seek to poke a bit of fun at the Minister, today is a day for us to work across party lines. This is an excellent piece of cross-party legislation and I will be glad to see it hopefully pass through Committee, through the remaining stages in this House and then over to the noble Lords, and receive Royal Assent.

[The Chair]

I see no other Back Benchers wishing to contribute to the debate. Would Chris Stephens like to sum up on behalf of the SNP?

Energy Prices: Support for Business

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question. I cannot pre-empt the review, but I think I can offer a glimmer of hope. In the review, we will have to see which companies and other non-domestic users need the greatest support—I have indicated some of them. Without going too far, it seems that the hospitality sector is at particular risk in this area. If he would like to make representations to the review, I will listen to them very carefully.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

As well as businesses, a number of housing associations have concerns about energy prices. In my small Glasgow constituency I have more than 15 housing associations, many of which have the unique tenement-style properties, which are very difficult when it comes to energy efficiency. Would the Secretary of State be willing to come to Glasgow East and take part in a roundtable with local housing associations to understand the challenges that tenement properties, in particular, face as a result of the energy crisis?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman, as so often, raises a serious point. We are very conscious of the issues facing social housing landlords, particularly those with rather older housing stock that is the least energy efficient. There are important things to be done to help them make their housing more efficient, and there have been schemes available to do that. I am not sure I can promise a visit, but I would be delighted to discuss the matter with him further.

Shale Gas Extraction

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

If the Prime Minister believes that fracking is safe and should go ahead with the permission of local residents, may I ask by which date we can expect to see fracking take place in the sprawling country retreat of Chequers?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am not sure that, geologically speaking, Chequers is a suitable place for shale gas. The question from the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) was more apposite, because it may be more likely in my part of the world than in that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill

David Linden Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th September 2022 Public Bill Committees

Part 3 of the schedule contains further amendments to legislation impacted by neonatal care leave and pay. It sets out the numerous consequential amendments that will be required to ensure that the measure is effective and does not adversely impact on existing legislation. Sixteen Acts will be amended as a consequence of the Bill. I will not go through each and every one of them in turn—

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

What a shame.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I will simply commend part 3 to the Committee. I thank Members for their indulgence.

[Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)]

I am pleased that we are back here so soon after Second Reading. It is just a couple of days after recess, which shows how important it is to get a good position on the private Members’ Bill ballot. Again, I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for supporting the Bill and bringing it forward in the way he has. Today he has given a very comprehensive overview of the clauses and the amendments proposed.

I want to make a couple of very quick points. First, amendment 4 is very positive and makes complete sense. I thank the Minister for bringing it forward and supporting it. It will change the details around the qualifying criteria for neonatal care pay. I know there was concern raised by a couple of groups over the summer that certain parents, including women who were on statutory sick pay in particular, would be disadvantaged by the implementation of the Bill as it was drafted. The amendment makes a sensible change and brings the qualifying rules in line with maternity, paternity and adoption pay. It will hopefully receive unqualified support.

I also want to thank the Minister for the work she did over the summer looking into the point I raised on Second Reading about the seven-day trigger. I know it is a small point, but I was grateful that she took it away, looked at it and made sure the drafting was right. I am pleased to hear that it is, and I understand the reasons why it would not have been productive to have changed that in Committee today.

Lastly, I am slightly concerned about some of the noises that are coming out of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about the implementation of the Bill. I think that 18 months after Royal Assent is too long and would essentially mean we were looking at implementation in 2025. Really, when all we are talking about is the upgrading of HM Revenue and Customs systems, which we have been talking about for a year or so now, it does not seem like there is any real reason why this has to go on. I know the Minister was very sympathetic when a number of us raised this point on Second Reading, so I am sure she has been pressing the Department over the summer.

There are clear advantages to delivering the money that was set aside from 2023 as quickly as we can. It makes sense to deliver it before a general election for all sorts of reasons, but mainly we want to deliver it quickly to make sure parents are not left in an impossible situation like that which so many have found and continue to find themselves in. I know we all want to see that come to an end as quickly as possible. Will the Minister update us today or in writing on her views about when implementation is likely? I am delighted the Bill is progressing so quickly and has had such unqualified support so far. I thank all members of the Committee for their attendance and for supporting the Bill.

[David Linden]

As ever, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. Your position as Chair makes you unable to comment on the Bill, although I am sure that you would be keen to put your support for it on the record if you could—so I will do that for you. I pay particular tribute to your work with your constituent Coady Dorman and her son Matthew, who was born prematurely. Coady will be incredibly appreciative of the fact that you are chairing the proceedings on the Bill as we expedite it through the House.

Like the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate, I thank everybody for the cross-party way in which we are piloting the Bill through the House. As I walked into work this morning, I reflected that I had perhaps been a little unfair to the Minister yesterday during a debate on the devolution of employment rights. Actually, this place probably works at its best when folk work on a cross-party basis; a good example would be the work done by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland on her One Punch assaults campaign. Part of the reason why I was so keen for the Committee to progress quickly was that I suspect some Government Members will not be in their positions by the end of the week as they move, perhaps, into junior ministerial office. It is important that we work on a cross-party basis when we agree on issues. All that is a veiled way of saying sorry to the Minister for giving her such a hard time yesterday.

Like the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate, I want to put on the record my support for amendments 1 to 4, the last of which is quite substantial. I share some of his concerns about implementation. One thing that reassured me during my past conversations with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), the former Minister, was learning that BEIS officials had done quite a lot of work on this. Given that we had been led to believe—completely fairly, perhaps—that Government officials had done the groundwork, it strikes me that the 18-month delay for implementation is a little out of kilter. If something needs to be ironed out between BEIS and HMRC, I am sure the Minister will see to that.

Those are the main points that I wanted to put on the record. I do not see a need for the Committee to spend huge amounts of time on the Bill, which is not controversial and already has a budget line of £15 million from a previous Budget. On that basis, I look forward to its passing through this Committee, having its remaining stages on the Floor of the House and then going over to the other place.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. Introducing neonatal care and leave through the Bill will mean that parents will not have to worry about work when they face the stress and anxiety of caring for a sick baby. It will at least relieve them of one concern at such a very difficult time.

On Second Reading, we heard from Members on both sides, some of whom are serving on the Committee today, about their personal experiences of having children in neonatal care. Again, I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East and my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate, among others, for sharing their personal experiences; that was very much appreciated and I am sure it made a difference on Second Reading. Both Members talked movingly about their personal experiences and explained how incredibly worried they felt when their children were in neonatal care. The Government are keen to offer families in such difficult circumstances our full support, and I am pleased to be here today to reiterate that the Government fully support the Bill.

I would like to touch on the two amendments proposed by the Bill’s promoter. The first would amend clause 2 to remove a power to amend primary legislation by secondary legislation, a so-called Henry VIII power, and replace it with a power to amend secondary legislation only. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East—I have now managed to say his constituency name correctly—points out, the need for that Henry VIII power has passed. Issues with how the entitlement might interact with other legislation that might be forthcoming have been resolved. That being the case, I am in favour of the clause being amended to limit the effect of the power and agree that the amended clause should stand part of the Bill.

The second amendment proposed by the sponsor is to make changes to the relevant week used to calculate pay. Again, I support that change. I agree with the sponsor’s detailed explanation on the need for the amendment, which will ensure that parents who are already low earners do not miss out on the entitlement to statutory neonatal care pay. I therefore support the amended schedule, which should stand part of the Bill. I also agree that clauses 1 to 3 and schedule parts 1 to 3 should stand part of the Bill.