Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill

Gagan Mohindra Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 3rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and congratulate him on his important Bill. I know that the Government have been waiting to do something on this matter for a while, so I rise to support the Bill and hope for a unanimous decision if and when we vote on it.

Becoming a new parent can be an incredibly exciting but incredibly anxious time. The stresses about jobs being on the line can and do create additional pressure. A lot of progress has been made in this area, but as hon. Members have said, more needs to be done. I have spoken in the House about my own beautiful nieces and nephew. I want them all to have the same opportunities and support in the workplace, irrespective of whether they are male or female. My great and hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) alluded to the fact that things are good, but there is much progress to be made. I have met his daughter, who will be a leading light in whatever industry she chooses to pursue.

As someone who was educated in the United Kingdom, one of my personal frustrations is that my female friends, who are head and shoulders above me in particular, face barriers to getting back into work when they choose to have a family. We continue to have low unemployment, and the Government continue rightly to focus on productivity. More than 50% of the workforce potentially have to step back. As and when they decide to come back into employment, it is typically to jobs that need to be flexible and so they are less successful in the eyes of the company.

I represent a lot of young families. In my South West Hertfordshire constituency, 32% of households have dependent children—that is higher than the England and Wales average of 28%—and the proportion of zero to 19-year-olds is higher than the national average. We would expect that in a home counties seat, where families typically start out.  People get married, predominantly in London, but then when they are looking to have a family, they look out towards places such as Rickmansworth in my constituency, which is on the tube line, or where I live up in Tring, which normally has a good train service into London. Constituents should not in my eyes need to consider their job security when going through the emotional rollercoaster of hopefully starting a family or building on their family, but the sad reality is that in all likelihood that is absolutely a consideration they need to have, and that is why this Bill is so important.

As has been alluded to, back in 2015, the EHRC conducted a survey of 3,200 women, of whom a significant minority spoke about the difficulties they had, whether from being forced out of work by redundancy or effectively being forced out by the conditions they were having to work in post pregnancy. More than one in 20 of those mothers were put under pressure to hand in their notice. As someone who used to run a small business, that is shocking, because what any employer should be doing is nurturing their workforce. While there is loyalty with a pay packet, there should be loyalty based on the terms and conditions and atmosphere within work.

Each and every one of us in this place is effectively a small employer with the staff we recruit. I thank Sarah Varley from my office for helping me put together this speech. A lot of what we do is reliant on their expertise and support. It is not money that is the driver, but making sure they can have a lasting legacy through us as their representatives. As and when any of my staff look to hopefully get married and have children, I hope that this type of Bill will already be in place, such that they are not thinking twice about the conditions they are likely to come back to, whether they choose to come back into the political bubble in this place or to go on to bigger and better things.

Climbing the career ladder for women remains an obstacle. I have referred to my wife before, and she is more successful than I am and has been since the day I met her. She is a great woman, besides her judgment in men, but I will leave it at that. More seriously, when I look at people like her and her peer group, having the opportunity to drop in or drop out of a career path in my eyes should be quite normal. My friend the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central was in the military for many years, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) similarly had a solid career and then chose to do something separate by becoming an elected representative. The children of today are likely to have seven or eight distinct careers, and we should actively encourage the horizontal movement of successful people, because that is how we remain a cutting-edge country.

I have spoken a lot in this place about supporting wealth creators. Wealth creation does not necessarily mean supporting the unicorns; in my eyes it means supporting the SMEs to remain active and profitable. Some 80% of our economy is reliant on the SMEs doing well. I know that the Minister is a great fan of that narrative, and I look forward to continuing to support his excellent work in that area.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent speech, and I agree with every single word. I think he touched upon this early when he spoke about economic benefit. Employers out there are thinking, “Oh my word, we need these people back in the workplace.” There are very good reasons for people being in the workplace, but does he agree that this measure will bring nothing but economic benefit to the UK by increasing the workforce and getting more out of the workforce, because we are treating them better?

[Mr Mohindra]

My hon. and gallant Friend makes an excellent point. As a Conservative, my personal philosophy remains that the state should get out of the way and only needs to step in as and when appropriate. In this instance, it is appropriate. On Second Reading, there was talk about the German strategy. The hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central referenced that back in October 2022. My personal view remains that an outright ban on redundancies is not appropriate at this stage. We should always look to encourage better behaviour and good practice and, where appropriate, nudge that behaviour change, and this particular Bill does that.

I have referred to my personal experience as an SME, and the additional barriers that the Bill as is creates are appropriate. However, if they became too onerous, the unintended consequences could be significant and make profitable companies unprofitable, with the workforce not in place. I remain supportive of this legislation because it is the right thing to do and it is structured in a way that, in my eyes, will have the most impact. 

In terms of support for the reform, this Government and previous ones have continuously evolved this policy area in the right way. In January 2019, BEIS launched a consultation into pregnancy and maternity discrimination. More than three quarters of respondents agreed that the redundancy protection currently provided during maternity leave should be extended when someone returns to work. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) referred to the difficulty that a new mother experiences when they go back to work, and that they need additional support. Having a cut-off after pregnancy seems a bit harsh. The provision to extend it into the period of return to work is appropriate, because everyone needs a transition. A mother’s body, family and lifestyle are fundamentally affected when they have the joy of welcoming a child into the world.

It is worth noting from that BEIS consultation in 2019 that the responses were positive from not only employees but employers, because they understood the benefits of doing this. That demonstrates the breadth of support for reform. More importantly, there is cross-party support in this place. I do not think that anyone at any stage in the Bill’s progress has been against it. I am sure that the Bill will pass Third Reading today.

The Women and Equalities Committee conducted an inquiry into this matter, which found that pregnant women and mothers report discrimination and poor treatment in work more now than a decade ago. Although that may indicate a rise in women reporting such issues, it undoubtedly shows that the problem persists. This issue is still here and will not go away without our intervention.

Carer’s Leave Bill

Gagan Mohindra Excerpts

Friday 3rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, especially having heard all the contributions from around the House. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on promoting the Bill and on her stewardship in getting it to this stage. As others have said—this is similar to our debate on the previous Bill—this is a really important piece of legislation, affecting about 4.2 million people across the country. I should probably declare an interest as my parents are getting to a stage in their lives where caring responsibilities will be required. I totally endorse the view on family life given by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and will build on it, because the quality of care is typically better and has healthier outcomes when provided by a family member—a loved one; someone who is known and trusted and who understands the nuances of how the person has led most of their life. When I visit my parents, their eyes light up, not necessarily because I can do any more than professional carers but because they see a reassuring face and someone they know that they can inherently trust to do the best for them.

Since my election to this place, we have had various debates about the health and social care system. This is an integral part of that network, which has a complex landscape. However, I think it is fair—fairness, in my eyes, is a main driver for the Government—that when people are doing the right thing by supporting their loved ones, the state, were appropriate, gives them the opportunity to do so. While they will be sacrificing their salary for those unpaid days, they are doing the right thing by stepping up for their loved ones.

As a culture, we are very different from other parts of the world. Typically, our households are not multi-generational where once they were, so when loved ones get involved more actively in supporting their elder parents, their young children who may need additional support or their siblings, the Government and the nation should do all they can to help provide for that.

Carers UK reports that, on average, 600 people a day leave work to care. Its 2019 report found that about 2 million adults had reduced their working hours to cope with their need to care. The point that I would echo is the stitch-in-time principle: where a person makes the sacrifice early and gets involved in the caring responsibility before it becomes too difficult, that leads to better outcomes for that person as well as for their loved one in terms of the stress related to looking after loved ones.

[James Sunderland]

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent speech. He has an absolute gift for bringing human experience to life, and listening to him is always great. Is there a risk that people applying for jobs may be prevented from getting that job or discriminated against because they say that they are carers? We perhaps need to look a little more at not requiring potential employees to declare that they are carers.

[Mr Mohindra]

My hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right to highlight that potential issue. The way I would read it, however—to go back to what the Minister said in the previous debate—is that reputation matters. For an employer, when an employee says that they have caring responsibilities, it shows loyalty. In my experience, it shows that the employee is more loyal, passionate and eager to do a good job when they are at work. If someone approached me for a job today and flexible working were part of their requirements, I would regard that as an asset. Part of the challenge is educating employers to understand that it is a benefit to have someone with that skillset in their workforce. It is, in my eyes, more important to be effective at work than just to clock in and out.

Let me continue humanising this story. I was contacted by Susan Graham, one of my constituents, a couple of years ago. She told me her personal story:

“I have been caring for my husband who was diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease 10 years ago. I have had to leave work to care for him and try to find other ways to help with our financial needs for our family.”

The fact that she has had to reach out to her constituency MP—despite the support that great third-party organisations and the voluntary sector can provide—is strong evidence that we need to do more. The Bill from the hon. Member for North East Fife is part of the long-term-solution jigsaw. I know that the Minister will understand that there will probably be an evolution in future legislation as a consequence of the Bill, but we need to balance that with employers and combat any unintended consequences.

A lot of work has been done in this particular policy area. Back in 2017, the Work and Pensions Committee found that carers often choose between taking a sick day or using a day’s annual leave. The Committee concluded that there was

“a strong case for five days’ statutory paid carer’s leave based on the existing statutory leave system.”

That is where I think this place does excellent work. Although we are all eager to make a positive impact on people’s lives, our work needs to be evidence-based and involve all sides of the debate. In my experience, Select Committees are typically a good way of doing that, as are all-party parliamentary groups.

Information gathered for the 2021 census showed that 92,781 people in Hertfordshire provided care to friends and family. That number is just a portion of the national one, which shows the huge scale of the matter. The organisation Carers in Hertfordshire supports people who care for family or friends with physical or learning disabilities, dementia, mental health problems and much more. It has approximately 32,500 registered carers, so caring affects a huge number of people. Open Door, an excellent charity in my constituency, hosts a “memory café” every Friday. I have attended and seen at first hand the excellent work that it does by ensuring that those who are suffering have a support network. It also allows carers to get a bit of respite from the 24/7 challenges that they face. I take this opportunity to thank each and every one of those organisations and all the carers throughout the country.

To return to the topic of employers, we need to legislate properly, but we also need to ensure that this is not a one-sided debate. I referred earlier to my own experiences as a small business owner. We need to be conscious that although the unpaid aspect of the legislation is important, the time off may have a material impact on smaller businesses. I therefore think that the pro rata five days’ annual leave is proportionate. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) suggested that it could be 10 half-days, and I think that is appropriate, because things are sometimes a bit ad hoc when a family carer needs to step up and help someone with, for instance, an appointment.

Employers who support their employees have lower staff turnover. In my experience, it inevitably takes a bit of time for a person joining the workforce to learn the nuances of a new employer, because while all employers will have the requisite skills and, probably, tradecraft, each one will have unique aspects. Treating employees well should be regarded as a bonus because it makes them better employees, so in terms of reputation and legacy that is the right thing to do. The Bill has tangible benefits for the employer as well as the employee.

Informal carers are forgotten about in parts of our legislation. They are currently not entitled to any dedicated statutory leave, and have to rely on other forms of leave. A tenth of all adults in the UK provide unpaid care for a friend or family member. I do not think that any Member, on either side of the House, wants unpaid carers to feel forgotten about, and I hope that the flexibility that the Bill allows will demonstrate, in a very small way, our gratitude for the selfless work that they do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Bill

Gagan Mohindra Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree entirely. That is what modern employers are looking for. One of the biggest pressures that employers are facing is recruiting and retaining people. This is another measure where people can demonstrate that the workplace is fairer and more flexible, which should attract more people back into it.

The Bill will allow individuals and businesses to strike the right balance between flexibility and job security. Workers will be empowered and encouraged to start conversations with their employers about their work patterns, with the confidence that starting such a conversation will not result in detriment. We expect that employers will benefit from the new right, too—the point that the hon. Member for Bath made—through improved worker satisfaction and productivity. By allowing employers to retain skilled staff as workers, those workers will not have to look for a new role in order to secure a working pattern that meets their needs.

Facilitating higher productivity, both through this measure and the other five private Members’ Bills that we are supporting, will help to drive higher employment, wages and economic growth. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South has explained, the right will function in a similar way to the existing right to request flexible working. An employer will be able to refuse a request for more predictable working patterns on specific statutory grounds similar to those established for flexible working. We know how important it is to balance new workers’ rights with the impact on businesses, and those grounds will ensure that employers do not experience disproportionate burdens.

The Government consulted in 2018 on the right to request a more predictable contract, and the vast majority of respondents agreed with the creation of a right to request a more predictable working pattern.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on his usual excellent summation of the legislation. On that final point, does he agree that giving employers certainty and giving employees the ability to have flexible working is a win-win and a good thing for both sides?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I entirely agree. That is why we have carefully struck a balance so that there will not be too much of a burden on employers. That would be detrimental to employees, too, because employers would be less likely to take people on. The right to consider it is clear, and the process is clear, but if it cannot work for the business, the process of saying, “I’m sorry, we can’t do that” is simple and set out in regulations.

The Government consulted in 2018 on the right to request a more predictable contract, and in response to that consultation we committed to introducing a right to request a more stable working pattern for all workers, including those on zero-hours contracts. Those workers will be able to make a request if their existing work pattern lacks predictability in terms of the length of their contract or the days or hours that they are required to work. The 2019 Conservative manifesto contained a commitment to introduce for workers

“a right to request a more predictable contract”.

I am therefore delighted that the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South reflects our previous commitments on this important issue.

The Bill will also build on the progress that the Government have already made in bringing forward measures allowing additional flexibility for workers on zero-hours contracts and those in low pay. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) pointed out, in 2015 this Government banned exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts, helping workers on zero-hours contracts to secure additional employment and boost their incomes. As of December 2022, that ban has been extended to workers who have a guaranteed weekly income equivalent to or below the lower earnings limit of £123 per week. On top of that, on 1 April 2023 the Government will increase the national living wage for workers aged 23 and over by 9.7%, to £10.42. That keeps the Government on track to achieve our manifesto commitment for the national living wage to equal two thirds of median earnings by 2022 if economic conditions allow.

This is the sixth private Member’s Bill on employment rights that the Government are backing. As a package, those Bills will increase workforce participation, protect vulnerable workers and level the playing field, ensuring that unscrupulous businesses do not have a competitive advantage. The Bills build on the strengths of our flexible and dynamic labour market and give businesses the confidence to create jobs and invest in their workforce, allowing them to generate long-term prosperity and economic growth.

I will address some of the specific points made by colleagues. This is the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South, and I am pleased to be able to explain the Government’s policy position on any points that he has raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who is no longer in her place, made a point about the over-50s. It is important that we try to attract more over-50s who have left the workforce back into the workplace. We know that about 575,000 people of working age have left the workforce since the start of the pandemic. I joined a cross-ministerial group, put together with business groups, to look at how we can attract those people back into the workforce. That body of work is ongoing, and we are very keen to find solutions, which will be partly about making the workplace fairer and more flexible, as this legislation will do.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South pointed out, the legislation will lead to a happier and more engaged workforce. He also mentioned the 26-week qualification period, which aligns with other, similar measures in employment law. As he points out, this results from a manifesto commitment, which is why we are delighted to be able to support his Bill today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes made similar points and also talked about the balance to be struck between employer and employee and the other work we are doing and have done to improve workers’ rights, including that ban on exclusivity clauses. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), said that the Opposition were considering banning zero-hours contracts and other measures if they ever got into government—I very much hope that day will not come. By implementing things like that, there could be some serious damage to the economy, were that situation to come to pass. Nevertheless, we will let the electorate decide on that.

To conclude, this Bill will introduce an important new right that will help to address the issue of one-sided flexibility and support those with unpredictable working arrangements to gain security of hours and income. It has been encouraging to see support across the House for this Bill, as is evident from today’s good-natured debate. The Government look forward to continuing to work closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South to support the passage of these measures, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Gagan Mohindra Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

May I first welcome you to your place, Mr Deputy Speaker? I place on record my thanks to all public sector workers for the excellent work they have done—not just during the pandemic, but for many years prior to it.

As we all know, the country is facing a difficult period of economic hardship. Yes, it is partly because of the war in Ukraine, and yes, it is partly because of our active response in the fight against the pandemic, but we need to be conscious that we are here to support workers, and not all workers are members of unions. It is fair and reasonable, and I always come back to the theme of being fair and reasonable, to suggest that some of this legislation—and I will be supporting the Bill—is about making sure there is a correct balance between those in the unions who wish to strike and those, who are a majority of my electorate, who continue either to run their own small companies or to work in smaller industries that rely on public services, such as the railway network.

As many Members will know—I have said this in this place before—while I represent quite a lovely constituency, public transport very much runs north and south, and when there are rail strikes, my constituents can get around only with extreme difficulty. While that may not necessarily hurt those who have the ability to access a car or, in extremis, pay for a little cab, those who we should be supporting the most are actually the ones most affected by this—the ones who are not able to use the bus to send their kids off to school or to get to their GP surgery for a doctor’s appointment.

Reference has been made to the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, which I know has had a really tough time over many years. I would like to place on record my thanks that it was not one of the bodies that had a strike over recent weeks. Unfortunately, I have had to use its services over the last few weeks and months, and I know that it is literally saving lives in doing the excellent work it does in very difficult circumstances.

One of the things I want to make the public aware of is that, post pandemic, we have adapted the way we work. Yes, we are very supportive of people such as rail workers, but the general population will adapt. I am a firm believer that we should be encouraging people to get back to work, which may mean commuting to London, as it does for a lot of my constituents. However, if that proves too difficult, they will just turn around and say, “Actually, we’ve already adapted, post pandemic, to working from home”. That means we will hollow out the urban areas of our country such as central London, where instead of a vibrant high street, as we have had with Victoria Street, we will very quickly have high street retailers, such as the Pret A Mangers of the world, closing up shop because they do not have the footfall to support them.

Reference has been made to international comparisons. I for one think we have got the balance right with our support for workers, but also, counter to that, for wealth creators. As someone who comes from a small and medium-sized enterprise background, I know that I was fully reliant on one, two or three workers in, in my case, a furniture retail shop, to make sure the business could run, and I could not have done it without them. They were not part of a union, but 80% of our economy is reliant on SMEs, so while unions are excellent in the work they do for large public sector bodies, other workers out there are not members of a union.

Finally, my great friend my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) mentioned that our armed forces and the police have not been able to strike for over 100 years. That system has worked, so I am not necessarily worried about this particular piece of legislation.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will deal with work notices later in my speech, but it is clear that it is up to employers to decide what workers are needed on certain days, and there is no discrimination between people who are union members and people who are not. That is very clear in the legislation. Hon. Members have questioned the sectors within the Bill. The sectors in scope of the Bill are justified as these sectors are where strike action causes disproportionate disruption to the general public.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra]

The Minister is making an excellent summing up, as always. Could he reaffirm that public opinion is with this side of the House rather than with the Opposition?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think that the polling is very clear. We have heard precious little about what the public think of this. We heard a lot about the impact on public sector workers, but the public themselves are with us on this legislation.

The Government have already announced their intention to consult on the application of minimum service levels for rail, ambulance and fire services. I welcome Members’ questions and suggestions on how minimum service levels will operate in specific services, and I note in particular the helpful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and for West Dorset (Chris Loder). I look forward to the contribution of key stakeholders and experts during the consultation process. The Government will also engage with the devolved Administrations during the consultation process. The Government have been clear, however, that we may choose not to use the regulation-making powers in the Bill if adequate voluntary arrangements, where necessary, are already in place between employers in a relevant sector.

This legislation also equips employers to manage instances where a worker takes strike action despite being named to work on a strike day. It is at the discretion of employers as to what action, if any, is taken, and we hope that employers are fair and reasonable. The claim that it is a policy of this Government to sack workers is an unfair exaggeration.

I want to touch on the international examples, mentioned in the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris). The concept of minimum service levels is not new. They are used all over the world, including in the USA, Canada and a number of European countries including Spain and Italy. We all want to see an end to these strikes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gagan Mohindra Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question, especially the part about Small Business Saturday. As hon. Members can imagine, I will be spending much of the day visiting small businesses across my constituency. I will also shortly be attending a House of Lords reception to celebrate the 100 small businesses recognised in the programme.

As the hon. Lady knows, in the autumn statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced £13.6 billion of support for businesses over the next five years, reducing the burden of business rates for SMEs. Of course we all want to see reform, but simply announcing the scrapping of business rates without announcing any replacement cannot be the right thing, because it does not give business the certainty that it needs. That is the sensible reform that I think the hon. Lady should be grateful for.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

May I put it on the record that as well as being the week of Small Business Saturday, this is Family Business Week? I had the opportunity to visit Tony at Croxley Hardware a few weeks ago. Does the Minister agree that small businesses are the lifeblood not only of the economy, but of our communities?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his recognition of the small businesses in his constituency. He is absolutely right: there is no greater force behind the supply side of the economy than small businesses, which are essential to prosperity and productivity. He is absolutely right to champion their cause, and we should all join him in that endeavour.

Electricity and Gas Transmission (Compensation) Bill

Gagan Mohindra Excerpts

Friday 25th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his impassioned speech. Does he agree that we in this place should always encourage people to do the right thing, as the Bill hopefully will? I am concerned that it sounds, from his introduction, as though that company is not doing the right thing.

[Dr Fox]

I am not questioning whether the company wishes to do the right thing, but in practice it has not behaved in a way that is acceptable to me as a representative of the people of North Somerset. I therefore suggest that we need new mechanisms to ensure that what I regard as genuinely fair practice is enforceable. That is one of the problems with the current system. I shall now illustrate the generic case with some specific examples from the experiences of my constituents.

For those who are unfamiliar with the background, in preparation for the Hinkley C nuclear power station coming online, the Hinkley connection project is a new high-voltage electricity connection between Bridgwater and Seabank, near Avonmouth. The new connection will be 57 km long, consisting of 48.5 km of overhead lines and 8.5 km of underground cables, mainly through the Mendip hills area of outstanding natural beauty. The existing 132 kV power lines will be replaced, as they will be across the country, by new 400 kV overhead lines using very much larger T-pylons, with the removal of most of the existing pylon system, which we are used to seeing in our towns and countryside.

It is not my intention in the Bill to argue the pros and cons of the new pylon system, controversial though that it is, or to argue for the relative merits of pylons or undergrounding of new cables. My intention is to ensure that where the interests of our constituents are materially affected they are given due protection. A number of my constituents in North Somerset have been battling with National Grid for over 10 years now to try to protect their homes and livelihoods.

My first constituent’s circumstance has resulted in the value of their property being materially impacted by the project, which is perhaps an unavoidable consequence of this type of infrastructure upgrade. My second constituent is a farmer whose livelihood is being destroyed by the same scheme. In both cases, National Grid seems to believe that it has no responsibility to take due regard of the emotional, social or economic consequences facing my constituents, whose only redress is therefore through the courts at the Upper Tribunal. In the case of my first constituent, who was forced to pursue that route, that ended up costing them a staggering £200,000 in legal fees.

In that first case, the family bought their home in January 2008, with the intention of knocking down the old house and building a new one. They carried out all possible searches from a conveyancing perspective, as the project was their magnum opus that was going to use their life savings and ultimately provide their pension in years to come. The Hinkley scheme never showed up on any searches undertaken and, by its own admission, National Grid accepted that the Hinkley connection project would not have been visible in any searches undertaken at that point in time.

Once the project was formerly announced in 2010, my constituent made representations at every possible hearing, to both National Grid and the inspectorate, asking factual questions around pylon location and impact. For years, no one was able or willing to provide any specific answers or assurances on whether and to what degree the project would have a material impact on the value of their house. As hon. Members can appreciate, that caused, and is still causing, an unimaginable amount of stress for the family. The feeling of being effectively powerless in a stand-off with one of the world’s most powerful multinationals has left them with a level of fear and anxiety that I leave the House to imagine.

The detail of the scheme was to put two 132 kV lines under their drive, which includes their garage come office, and a 400 kV T-pylon close enough to the property that, were it to fall, would fall right to the edge of the house itself. That is in addition to building an access road that now abuts their property. Where once there were only fields and sheep, there will now be a massive new pylon outside their home.

Additionally, they have been served with restrictions around permitted development rights of their property and National Grid and supplying parties have been granted access rights to their property, which would allow them to break down their gate or knock down their garage and office in order to carry out any necessary reparations to the undergrounded line. Perhaps those are necessary rights, but they have a detrimental effect on the sale price of the property.

Although my constituents were constantly engaged with National Grid, all conversations were completely ineffectual as National Grid did not have to listen or provide any answers to their questions because it was able to point to the development consent order—the DCO—that seemingly gave it carte blanche to do what it wanted. Unlike other large infrastructure schemes such as High Speed 2 or Crossrail, no discretionary compensation scheme was established for the project, so National Grid has simply focused on what it has been legally allowed to do, with little regard for the impact on individuals’ existing properties, and irrespective of the personal or financial impact. Hon. Members may want to think about that in respect of future potential cases. Consequently, the only route left open for my constituent to protect their home and life savings was to pursue a blight claim through the Upper Tribunal—which for reasons that are readily apparent they did not want to do.

Given the rarity of statutory blight claims, my constituents recognised the enormous risk in undertaking such an action, and they did not take it lightly. However, since they had no other avenues to pursue, they were compelled to do something to avoid financial ruin. To be clear, all they were trying to protect was their right to sell their house at a fair market value at a time of their choosing. I would like to think that hon. Members on both sides of the House would regard that as a basic right.

The odds are stacked against individuals in such cases. Even the small win that my constituent made in the judgment—the recognition that there would be a 5% diminution in the value of their property—was pointless, because National Grid will no longer accept and pay compensation as it says that the rights that it now requires over the property have changed. A constant moving of the goalposts as well as a refusal to accept responsibility for its actions—or decisions that go against it—have been constant features in National Grid’s behaviour. Its response is all too typically to challenge individuals to take it to the Upper Tribunal, with a potentially huge new tranche of expense.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gagan Mohindra Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

2. What plans he has to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the hospitality sector during the covid-19 outbreak.

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

In addition to our £400 billion package, including grants, loans, business rates relief, VAT discounts and the rent moratorium, we are providing a further £1 billion for hospitality businesses and an extra £100 million in discretionary grants—a lifeline for many small businesses.

[Mr Mohindra]

Great British pubs are the heart of our community, especially in rural constituencies such as mine. I recently hosted a roundtable with several pubs in South West Hertfordshire, at which they expressed their concerns about the next few months after a tough December. Will the Minister confirm that he will do all he can to encourage people to return to their local pub? Will he commend publicans for their hard work making their businesses covid-safe, indoors and out?

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support for our pubs. It is important that we save our pubs one pint at a time; they play a crucial role in our high streets, our communities and our wellbeing. I am working, through the hospitality recovery strategy, to champion pubs at the heart of our communities, many of which have been supporting the vulnerable during the pandemic. We will showcase the value of the excellent work of pub landlords to make venues covid-secure, including with good ventilation.

Domestic Building Works (Consumer Protection) Bill

Gagan Mohindra Excerpts

Friday 19th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier]

I have privately asked all sorts of senior people and, weirdly, they just roll their eyes and say, “It is what it is.” Perhaps we could, but I am certainly not qualified. I was an investment banker rather than a lawyer, so I approach this from a slightly different direction.

One of our colleagues pointed out that the process of negotiated settlement is like being mugged and then being charged for the mugger’s knife, and it has the backing of the law. The consumer of repair, maintenance and improvement building services has no consumer protection at all. There is absolutely no practical protection for consumers that avoids the highly risky, unbelievably expensive and emotionally draining prospect of prosecuting contract law. Indeed, the subcontractors working on our home were victims of the same rogue builder. They were eventually paid, but they were not paid initially.

While we were going through this nightmare, an unrelated subcontractor came to me with a complaint that he had not been paid by the firm with which we were in litigation. The builder’s manager even boasted to our subcontractor that he usually had five legal cases on the go at any given time, playing the system to get more money. This is not just an accident; it is a deliberate action by these builders.

It is extraordinary that consumers are completely unprotected. When we think about the whole building process, it is even more astonishing. The proud homeowner who is seeking to improve their home will go to an architect, who will be regulated by the Architects Registration Board. They might contract a quantity surveyor, who will be regulated by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. They will probably need to borrow money, so they might approach a mortgage broker who is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. The mortgage broker will help with the mortgage, which will be provided by a lender, again regulated by the FCA and possibly by the Prudential Regulation Authority, with advice from a solicitor regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The money will then be deposited in a bank, regulated again by the FCA and the PRA. The whole process is laden with consumer protection and regulation, right up to the point at which the money is handed over to someone with no regulation—and possibly no qualifications—and with no protection mechanisms for the consumer in any way, shape or form.

Unbelievably, the problem gets worse. The victim may well prosecute the court and win—possibly both damages and costs—but at that point the rogue builder goes bust with no assets and starts a new business the following day to continue the process of ripping off consumers. Meanwhile, the costs to the victim, running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, are unpaid. The reality is that there is absolutely no disincentive for the cowboy builder to present fictitious bills or to do shoddy and appalling work. While the consumer must engage in a risky legal process to seek redress or protection, the rogue builder can game the system with no jeopardy whatsoever.

What is the solution? How do we protect honest builders and subcontractors, builders’ merchants and, importantly, consumers? I repeat that most people in the trade are very honest people who also need to be protected from the activities of rogue builders. How do we redress the balance of risk away from favouring the rogue builder to giving equal weight to both consumer and builder? We must remember that the builder is not always in the wrong, so we need to ensure that the solution is balanced. The answer must lie in a regulation and licensing scheme.

My Bill asks the Government to come up with a scheme of compulsory licensing for SME building firms working in the RM&I space. While it does not set down the specific framework for a licensing scheme with associated regulations—it would be wrong for a Back Bencher to try to undertake that work, because it is complicated—I will suggest my vision of how it would work. My experience, which informs how I look at it, is with financial services and banking regulation—back in the 2010 Parliament, we were heavily involved in changing financial services regulation—and while I do not propose anything remotely as complex as the FCA or PRA, there are some important carry-acrosses from financial regulation.

First, any regulatory scheme must not be a financial burden on the wider taxpayer. A licensing scheme for builders must be self-financed through licence fees. Rules for having a licence must be straightforward; they cannot be complicated. Importantly, no firm can be allowed to offer services direct to customers without a licence. That in itself would result in the wider industry policing the market. For example, mortgage lenders would require evidence that money would be spent on a licensed firm, while architects and surveyors acting as project managers would need to see a licence to engage a building firm, ensuring that builders were licensed. The consumer could check the builder on the regulator’s website, just as can be done with the FCA. The regulator should probably be TrustMark, which currently operates a voluntary scheme. There should be rules regarding code of conduct, honesty, safety and quality of work. Those failing to comply should face a series of sanctions resulting in the ultimate sanction of the loss of licence and, therefore, the loss of the ability to work in that industry.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making some valid points. Does he think that the voluntary scheme is not effective as things stand?

[Mark Garnier]

Self-evidently not. My hon. Friend is right to ask that. A voluntary scheme is good, because builders who sign up to it can demonstrate that they are maintaining a certain level of trust and obligations to their consumer. The problem is that the consumer needs to know an awful lot about the building trade to know about that scheme in the first place. We as Members of Parliament have many people coming to our surgeries who have got themselves into trouble with, for example, financial advisers, only to discover that they were not regulated. The problem is that those people did not understand the system well enough to work that out. While some will recognise that there is a voluntary scheme that they can check out, it was not until I got deep into the weeds of the Bill that I discovered it, having spoken to all sorts of quantity surveyors and all the rest of it as I tried to progress my own building problems.

Within all this, there should be rules regarding a code of conduct, honesty, safety and quality of work. Failure to comply should carry a list of sanctions, including losing the licence. An option that could be included is a compensation scheme rather like the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. That is an example of how consumers who have lost out as a result of poor and bad practice are compensated for their loss from a scheme financed, again, not by the taxpayer, but by levies placed on licence holders of the relevant sector. The double effect is that the consumer gets their losses covered, if that is deemed appropriate, while the industry as a whole is incentivised to self-police. At the end of the day, the industry does not want to pay more money to bail out these compensation schemes for rogue builders; it would be incentivised to report rogue builders. Importantly, an ombudsman would be able to assess loss to consumers without the need for expensive and lengthy engagement of legal and professional experts to defend bogus bills or to challenge poor work.

These proposals are aimed at ending the decades-long history of consumers who being ripped off in one way or another by shoddy, rogue, cowboy builders. Voluntary schemes do not seem to have done away with this problem, and the building industry seems to be the one industry remaining where consumers spend quite significant amounts of money in a totally unregulated and uncovered area. Indeed, many people agree that this is beyond redemption. The report of the Federation of Master Builders on this subject in 2018 cited the fact that even the construction firms themselves agree that a compulsory licensing scheme is necessary: 77% of SME builders agreed to the FMB proposals, while 78% of consumers did likewise. I think we would all agree that enough is enough. To steal a phrase from those on the Front Bench, you cannot build back better if you cannot trust your builder.

This is a very complicated area, and I do appreciate that it is not straightforward to go rushing in and create a compulsory licensing scheme, but I am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say. By the way, I am very grateful to him for coming along. Although building is his area, his role does not cover the Bill, but the Minister responsible for consumer protection—the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully)—was not available. However, I am very interested to hear what he has to say, and incredibly keen to continue to collaborate with the Government to try to find a solution to this quite huge problem.