Britain’s Industrial Future
Grahame Morris Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (George Freeman)
It is a great pleasure to serve in this debate and to have my first outing at the Dispatch Box as the returned Minister for science research, innovation and technology at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—a name written proudly on the side of the building—in order to refute the litany of woe and failure that those on the Opposition Benches love to reel out, to paint a picture of a British economy that the businesses around this country would recognise and understand, and to set out in some detail the plans we have to support not only the industries of today, but the industries of tomorrow, for which this country is leading in creating the framework globally.
I look forward to a good debate, not least about the depression of the Opposition’s motion, which says very little about their own positive plans to develop an industrial sector for the 21st century, but simply looks to print a cheap leaflet for distribution on the doorstep. We can do better than that, and I hope that we will this afternoon.
As Minister for science, research and innovation in technology, my mission is to make the strategic shift in this country’s economy. The Labour party, in its long period in office, seemed to delight in—I remember the “Deputy Prime Minister” saying he was profoundly relaxed—all the deregulation in the City, the move to a service economy and deindustrialisation. This Government are absolutely committed to taking the crash of 2007-8 under the Labour Government, the difficult fiscal situation afterwards, the pandemic and the emergency in Ukraine as the wake-up call that they are to invest more in our industries of tomorrow and today, to develop our industrial resilience, to support the R&D for tomorrow’s sectors, and to support our leadership in net zero. I would like to think that the Labour party would celebrate that. The truth is that British industry is leading the way in net zero in this country, and that is something we should be proud of. I will come to the detail of that in due course.
George Freeman
I will make some progress in my opening remarks and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
In my specific role and portfolio, my job is to support the industries of tomorrow. In life sciences, I set out with the then Minister the first 10-year life science strategy in this country. We launched the genomics programme, NHS digital and accelerated access, and we laid a lot of the foundations for this country’s success in the pandemic. Last year, we launched a 10-year space strategy for commercial leadership in the space sector, and we are now in the process of implementing it.
We have set out a 10-year plan for fusion, and we are investing, through the UK Atomic Energy Authority, in the ground-breaking technology at the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy. We announced this summer that we are moving that to Nottinghamshire and creating the world’s first industrial deployment of fusion technology at commercial scale over the next 10 to 15 years.
We are setting out a quantum strategy. On Friday, I was with the quantum industry, which is applauding us; we are No. 1 in Europe in the quantum industry and investment. That is a partnership between big companies—Toshiba, BT, BAE Systems and many others—and our very fertile ecosystem of small companies and universities. Similarly, I was proud, as the then Minister, to launch the UK’s first industrial strategy for agri-tech.
Forgive me, then, if I do not take any lectures from the Labour party on the lack of an industrial strategy. Far from it, the former Member for Hartlepool and “Deputy Prime Minister” paid tribute to the Conservative party, to me, the then Chancellor and the then Minister, David Willets—who is now in the other place—for leading the thinking on a modern industrial strategy for a modern economy.
In truth, in the last few years that work has inevitably been interrupted, first by the pandemic—I am proud that the Conservative party put in £400 billion of business support for industry—and secondly by Ukraine, which has been a wake-up call to the world about the resilience of industrial supply chains. We have worked head and shoulders in the last year to beef up those industrial supply chains to protect British industry from that vulnerability, and we continue to do so.
George Freeman
Let me finish this point.
Thirdly, the tightening of the global energy markets has hit many energy-intensive industries hard. We have announced £25 billion of support for the next six months. That is far from the doom and gloom of the motion, which, for anyone who reads it, paints a picture of this Government having no strategy or policy for industry, which is complete rubbish.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on doom and gloom. There was a mention earlier of fleet solid support ships, which we on this side of the House have argued for many years should be built here for strategic reasons, with steel manufactured here.
May I ask about rail and the home of the railways in the north-east? In my constituency, Vivarail—a world-beating, self-charging all-electric train manufacturer—is starved of Government support and investment. It could be a beacon for the future, so why is it not on the Minister’s list of shining examples?
George Freeman
The reason it was not on the list is that I was listing all the industries of tomorrow. I will come to the specific points he makes. The biggest customer for steel in this country is our rail sector, and we are proud that the UK rail industry, into which we are pouring an unprecedented level of investment, is a major user of British steel. I will come to the steel industry in a moment.
The motion paints a picture of doom and gloom and the collapse of manufacturing. It is time to put that stale old Labour trope to bed. The UK is still the ninth biggest manufacturing country in the world. Manufacturing this year contributed £205 billion in gross value added to the UK economy. We are the fourth largest manufacturing economy in Europe, supporting almost 2.5 million jobs.
Under the last Labour Government, manufacturing jobs had been haemorrhaging. We stopped that in 2010 and, through major investment of the sort that I just set out, we have turned around this country’s manufacturing sector, which is now much more advanced. Again, I am surprised that Labour Members are not congratulating us on that. Manufacturing jobs were collapsing in this country, but 84% of manufacturing now takes place throughout the country, outside London, not just in the old industrial belt, but in the space economy in Cornwall and in Glasgow—I thought that Scottish National party Members would cheer that. There is the north Wales energy corridor, the south Wales compound semiconductor cluster and the Warwick robotics cluster. Our manufacturing economy is highly advanced, highly competitive and decentralised.
George Freeman
I will come to steel, shipbuilding and automotive shortly. I had not mentioned the hon. Gentleman’s rail point because I was highlighting the industries of tomorrow.
Employment Agencies and Trade Unions
Grahame Morris Excerpts(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Rayner
On the P&O workers, it seems to me like the company broke the law and the Government implied that they were going to do something about it. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how that legal action is getting on. Will the Prime Minister keep the promise that he made before he loses office? Can we assume not, judged by today, because the very practice they condemned, they now want to legalise and encourage? This is an absolute disgrace.
Grahame Morris
My right hon. Friend is making a terrific speech and I agree with what she is saying. She mentions P&O, and I certainly recall the Secretary of State making a statement to the House and being enraged by the actions of P&O. Why are the Government putting through the House a statutory instrument to change the terms and conditions and bring in agency workers? Why are we not having the employment Bill that was promised by the Secretary of State? Why is this being done in an underhanded fashion if it commands the support of the House and the country?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend makes an absolutely crucial point. The Government have been promising jam tomorrow for far too long, saying “employment Bill”, “employment Bill,” but guess what? No employment Bill. That is what it is like with this Government: it is all jam tomorrow and broken promises all the way.
There is another point to make. Under section 12 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, the Government must consult before they change any regulation. However, with all the chaos of the past couple of weeks and days, they are trying to pass a consultation from 2015 that they never even completed. They also thought that it would be acceptable to sneak out an updated impact assessment on the day of the debate. This is government on the back of a fag packet, with no time and no opportunity for scrutiny. It is typical of what we have come to expect from this Government.
Chris Stephens
There is no such thing as a union baron. The hon. Gentleman is one of the hon. Members who withdrew their labour to sit on the cobblestones, but given his rhetoric tonight, it seems that he wishes to stop others doing so.
Another problem is the likely breach of international law. The use of agency workers to replace striking workers would violate trade unions members’ right to strike, which is safeguarded by International Labour Organisation convention No. 87, article 3; by the European social charter of 1961, article 6, paragraph 4; and by article 11 of the European convention on human rights. Indeed, the ILO committee on freedom of association has said:
“The hiring of workers to break a strike in a sector which cannot be regarded as an essential sector in the strict sense of the term…constitutes a serious violation of freedom of association.”
On 16 June, the Institute of Employment Rights published an article by the great Professor Keith Ewing, professor of public law at King’s College London. He discusses the convention and refers to the Government’s own agreement—the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, which is given effect in UK law via the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. He suggests that the regulations’ revocation of regulation 7 of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 may be unlawful:
“It is at least arguable that these pre-existing powers are constrained by the 2020 Act, s 29 so that they cannot be used in a way that will violate the TCA and the obligations thereunder. If this argument is correct, the government is constrained by its own hand from legislating to revoke regulation 7 by secondary legislation.”
There will be a negative impact on agency workers. Allowing their deployment would put them in a horrible position. They would have to choose between crossing a picket line and turning down an assignment, with the prospect of being denied future work by the agency. Many agency workers, such as supply teachers and bank nurses, will be trade union members themselves. Under the UK’s weak employment laws, agency workers are not protected from suffering a detriment if they refuse an assignment because they do not wish to replace striking workers.
There will also be a negative impact on the agencies themselves. The removal of the ban on the supply of agency workers would mean that employment businesses were forced to become involved in industrial disputes not of their making. That is why agencies themselves oppose the proposals, as others have said. In a joint statement with the TUC, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation urged the Government to leave the current ban in place as a key element of a sustainable national employment relations framework. Part of the reason for that is the realisation by employers and trade unions that disputes come to an end, and there must then be a discussion about how to move forward from that dispute and how to rebuild industrial relations. Neil Carberry, the chief executive of the REC, said:
“The government’s proposal will not work. Agency staff have a choice of roles and are highly unlikely to choose to cross picket lines.”
There is a safety issue. The health and safety of agency workers and the potential impact on public safety is of serious concern to trade unions. Studies suggest that temporary agency workers are exposed to more hazards than others, and have higher rates of workplace injuries and ill health. A simple search of the Health and Safety Executive’s prosecutions over the last five years shows a litany of employer failures: a lack of training of agency workers, a lack of access to protective equipment, and a lack of supervision and monitoring of agency workers to ensure that they understand and are following risk assessments and safe systems of work. Sadly, those failures have resulted in fatal or life-changing injuries among agency workers. We also know from agency workers that their health and safety is often overlooked. When the work involves delivering a public service, that can present risks to the service user or endanger wider public safety.
The Health and Safety Executive and other safety bodies broadly agree that the components of a positive safety culture and successful health and safety management, leading to fewer incidents, include good communication, competence, training and induction, good team working, ability to raise concerns with no detriment, and good worker involvement. The hiring of agency workers to try to disrupt industrial action would not achieve that.
There are also concerns about public safety. Under section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, employers taking on agency workers are responsible for their safety and the safety of the public. The agency placing the worker also has responsibility, and we suggest that failures in safety occur owing to the lack of communication and consultation between the two duty holders, with the safety of the agency worker falling through the gaps. That is borne out by reports from the Health and Safety Executive, which found that about half the recruitment agencies surveyed did not have measures in place to ensure that they were fulfilling their legal obligations.
This proposal is not practical. As was pointed out by Members earlier, there are currently 1.3 million vacancies in the UK , which is a record high. Data shows that the number of candidates available to fill roles has been falling at a record pace for months. In this tight labour market, agency workers are in high demand and can pick and choose the jobs that they take. Are they seriously going to take a job in which they have to cross a picket line in order to get a shift, rather than picking a different one? [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) would, but I have to say that he is a unique case.
Grahame Morris
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many Conservative Members would prefer to turn the clock back to the days of the bond and indentured labour? My grandfather’s father was paid a modest sum as a bond to be an indentured labourer in the mines. It was illegal to go on strike, and if workers did go on strike for better terms and conditions, they were evicted from their homes. It is a disgrace that Conservative Members are trying to turn the clock back to those days.
Chris Stephens
Of course, it was Conservative Members’ party that introduced the Master and Servant Act 1823. I could say more about that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will not.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I, too, would like to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I want to acknowledge the excellent contribution of the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) and congratulate him on the conclusion he has arrived at. I am a proud trade unionist. I have worked ever since I left school, for 43 years, and I have always been a member of the appropriate trade union. I am involved with numerous parliamentary groups and trade union groups related to the justice unions, the Public and Commercial Services Union, the National Union of Journalists and the RMT. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you. I am also a member of Unite and have the honour of chairing its parliamentary group.
I suspect we are here because the Government have engineered strikes in the rail industry that could have been avoided. Sadly, the country was brought to a standstill, which was completely avoidable. The right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), who wants to be Prime Minister, is the culprit; he is the roadblock to successful negotiations between rail operators and the trade unions. My advice is: lift the restrictions on the rail operators, let them negotiate fairly and freely, and a settlement can be secured.
I suspect the Government wanted strikes, however. First it was to distract from some of the shenanigans in Downing Street, and now they want to pitch worker against worker to cover for some of the economic failures of another prospective Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak). The Government want to break strikes and force working people who are organised in trade unions to accept job losses, worse pay, worse pensions, and worse terms and conditions.
Enough is enough. People who work for a living refuse to be poor. It is not too long ago that Conservative Members were applauding public sector workers for their selfless contribution. Many in the transport sector and the national health service gave their lives to provide services and protect us during the pandemic, but memories seem to be short. So we will be organising, and I am firmly of the belief that we should not accept real-terms cuts in wages, whether in the private sector or the public sector.
Make no mistake: these statutory instruments come off the back of the recent RMT rail strikes, and the Government aim to sow political division. My colleagues on the Front Bench mentioned that employers and industry figures, including the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, oppose these changes. Let me just say for the record that the trade union co-ordinating group, a coalition of 11 national unions, not all of which are affiliated to the Labour party, has published a statement calling these proposals
“a shameless ideological assault on the millions of trade union members…in this country who are already suffering from the cost-of-living crisis.”
The Government’s plan is unworkable, but these SIs have not been designed to be workable. They have been designed to undermine strikes, irrespective of the damage they will do to working people, to their living standards, and to the economy and businesses in the meantime. The Government want untrained agency staff to take over safety-critical infrastructure as a means of breaking strikes. The public must be warned that if the Government cut corners to break strikes, safety standards will be compromised. The Minister said in her opening remarks—although she would not take my intervention—that this would not affect the safety of the public, but not too many months ago we saw P&O Ferries replace over 900 seafarers with agency crew, leading to the most appalling safety failures. Inexperienced seafarers who replaced experienced crews were involved in 31 separate incidents, including safety-critical failures such as not being able to operate lifeboats safely. In fact, one ferry was left adrift in the Irish sea after engine failure—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman was speaking with such authority that I did not notice he had exceeded his four minutes. I am afraid I will have to stop him there. I call Craig Mackinlay.
Fairness at Work and Power in Communities
Grahame Morris Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Scully
We have had some really good conversations about this. As I say, where we have said that we will act, we will. My right hon. Friend has talked often in this Chamber and in the Women and Equalities Committee, when she was its Chair, about pregnancy discrimination, which goes back to a point that I responded to earlier about keeping women in the workplace. Women should not have to suffer for taking career breaks. We need to make sure that investment in women in the workplace is not wasted, because frankly it makes no business sense to act badly in that area.
There is no growth without enterprise. The Queen’s Speech sets out exactly how we will continue to boost economic growth across the country to address the cost of living and help to create the conditions for more people to have high-wage, high-skill jobs. The energy security Bill will not only accelerate our transition to more secure, more affordable and cleaner home-grown energy supplies, but encourage the creation of tens of thousands of high-skill jobs across the country. The audit reform Bill will reduce the unfair impact of sudden corporate collapses on workers, pensioners and suppliers, and will help businesses to grow by reinforcing the UK’s reputation as a great place to do business and invest.
The digital markets, competition and consumer Bill will protect consumers’ hard-earned cash from scams and rip-offs and will help them to get better deals, promoting more competition in UK markets so that consumers have confidence in markets and businesses competing on a level playing field. The economic crime and corporate transparency Bill will strengthen the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate businesses can thrive, while ensuring that dirty money has no place to hide. All these reforms will improve our business environment and increase opportunities for the hard-working people of the UK to find jobs that suit them and their personal circumstances and that treat them fairly.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Minister is being generous in giving way. He referred to the Harbours (Seafarers’ Remuneration) Bill, and specifically to provisions to protect seafarers on ships entering UK ports. In the light of his remark about opportunities for well-paid, secure employment, will the same provisions apply to employment in the renewable energy sector on the UK continental shelf? There is the potential for many tens of thousands of new jobs, but the risk is that they will be offshored and will not go to British workers.
Paul Scully
What we are trying to do with the harbours Bill is resolve an anomaly between UK law and international maritime law. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point, which will no doubt be explored during the progress of that Bill.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I will concentrate my remarks on fairness at work. I am more than happy to declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a proud member, and indeed the chair, of the Unite parliamentary group and a proud associate member of many trade union groups.
I believe that working conditions and fairness at work are a reflection of the power balance in society.
I recall that, just before Prorogation, the Chancellor reacted angrily to questions about his own family’s finances, but at kitchen tables in my constituency in the north-east of England they are not talking about offshore trusts and bank accounts in the Cayman islands. The talk among families at kitchen tables in east Durham is about increasing fuel prices, the cost of living, higher prices for food and other staple items, and having to pay more tax. There does not seem to be much discussion about hiding assets in offshore tax accounts.
Of course, the Government could help, but they choose not to. Politics, and party politics in particular, is about choices. I was quite impressed by the Government’s pledge, in response to the Gracious Speech, to make the United Kingdom the best possible place in which to live and work, but the facts belie that. We have had over 12 years of Conservative government. Many Conservative Members refer back to the last Labour Government, but I think it reasonable to assume that if the Conservatives had any intention of actually improving the quality of life, particularly for working people, there were ample opportunities to achieve that over a period of 12 years.
I was incredibly disappointed that, despite numerous assurances given to me and to my good friend the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), my hon. Friend—and good friend—the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) that an employment Bill would be included in the Queen’s Speech, that has not happened. There are 38 Bills, but sadly there is nothing for workers.
I think that fairness at work means being paid enough to be able to participate in the economy, and to buy your own food rather than being dependent on food banks. When my parents were small—my mother is celebrating her 86th birthday today, and I wish her a happy birthday—there were soup kitchens. Those have now been replaced by food banks. I do not think that food banks are a sign of economic success; I think that they are a sign of economic failure. Sadly, they also confirm that work does not always pay. There are many people in insecure, low-paid work who, sadly, are having to rely on food banks in order to put food on the table and feed their families.
I think that job security means being able to turn on the heating without being worried about whether you can afford the bill, or being able to give your child access to decent clothing, housing or even the internet. These are not luxuries; they are the basic essentials of a functioning modern economy in the 21st century. As a trade unionist, I believe that good businesses—and there are many examples of good businesses—should be standing side by side with their employees, as budget pressures and higher inflation are likely to lead to more industrial disputes and higher pay demands. People who are in work will obviously try to secure better pay rises.
There have been opportunities for the Government to act. On many occasions the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who opened the debate, has condemned the bully-boy tactics of fire and rehire and unscrupulous employers. But then, incredibly, he himself talked out the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North, who is no longer in the Chamber. I am delighted to learn that Lord Woodley has been successful in the private Members’ Bill ballot in the other place, so there will be another opportunity to raise this issue.
We have had strong words from the Government, but sadly no action. We have witnessed the disgrace of P&O Ferries sacking British workers, breaking our laws and hiring private security firms to manhandle seafarers off the ships. The Queen’s Speech delivers the harbours (seafarers remuneration) Bill, but one thing it has been able to do is to unite the unions, the ports and the employers in criticising this plan as ineffective and unworkable. When the Transport Secretary said that he would “stop at nothing” in order to take P&O Ferries to task for its blatant disregard of UK employment legislation, I do not think any of us actually expected him to do nothing. We thought he would do something. This shows that the rich and powerful can break the law with impunity, whether it is the senior management of P&O or the Prime Minister, because it seems to many people that the system is built to protect the powerful and ignore their wrongdoing. Meanwhile, many working families in communities such as mine in Easington are struggling.
Police officers’ retirement plans are in tatters because of Government pension changes, and prison officers are leaving their jobs every day because of the terrible pay and the awful and reducing terms and conditions. The hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) expressed regret about the Government’s failure to support his Tips Bill. I also want to express regret that the Government did not support my Bill on prison violence, which aimed to place a duty on the Prison Service and the probation service, including private operators, to minimise violence in the workplace.
Dean Russell
I would just like to clarify that the Government and the Minister have actually has been incredibly supportive of my Tips Bill, and I know that work is continuing to ensure that it comes through, but I appreciate the nod and the mention from the hon. Gentleman, and I appreciate his support.
Grahame Morris
The hon. Member is very kind, and I appreciate the tip. I was under the impression that Ministers supported my Bill, because they were nodding as well, but unfortunately that was not the case. Anyway, I wish him every success.
I was talking about the way the Government have treated prison officers. They ignored the pay review board, they expect prison officers to work until they are 68 and they ignore the issue of workplace safety. In fact, they seem to be normalising workplace violence. So many prison officers are leaving the service that the Ministry of Justice itself has estimated that almost 87,000 cumulative years of prison officer experience have been lost since 2010. That loss of knowledge and experience is a problem that is replicated across many aspects of the public service. It is making workplaces less efficient and more insecure, and if we need proof, we need only to ask any constituent who has reported a crime, applied for a passport, sought to review a driving licence, reported antisocial behaviour to the council or is in urgent need of an ambulance. There are many examples of the Government’s mismanagement, lack of investment and simple lack of care for many of our communities. Under the Conservatives, the poorest are expected to work harder and longer and to receive less. This is a Government who seem to reward bad businesses such as P&O Ferries, and those who cheat, deceive and refuse to pay their taxes are rewarded.
Storm Arwen: Power Outages
Grahame Morris Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for his invaluable assistance on Friday in Aberdeenshire. I do not think he and I will ever forget meeting the engineers who had been working up to 17-hour shifts just outside of Kemnay. They had been at that all week, including with help from right across the UK. My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the communications network. We have become more dependent on electricity and networks. I am sure that that will be part of the review to see what lessons might be learned and whether there can be other ways to approach the communications problem in future.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I might be able to enlighten the Minister, given his earlier comments about Met Office warnings, because we need to give it some credit: it was right on the ball originally about Storm Arwen regarding the wind strength, the timings and the wind direction. It has issued two warnings today, Minister, that tomorrow—7 December—Storm Barra will bring strong winds and snow to my constituency and further north.
Storm Arwen and the response have exposed the deep north-south divide in this country. Individuals and communities in my constituency—I have not had any ministerial visits—have been left without support for over a week. It took five days for the Secretary of State to make a statement, and he did not do that willingly. It was only after multiple requests through the Speaker from Members on both sides of the House from Monday onwards that the Secretary of State came to make a statement, and it took five days for a major incident to be declared. It is too easy to put all the blame on Northern Powergrid and poor comms. At every level, be it the Minister’s Department, local government, the resilience forum or Northern Powergrid, questions must be asked, and I believe that a public inquiry is the only independent and fair way to assess the whole scandal and hold all those involved accountable. Will he support a public inquiry?
Greg Hands
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments as a local MP, but I reject absolutely his allegation of some kind of north-south divide. The response was very swift from the engineers, and that was the most important part of the response. As I mentioned, 630 engineers came from across the UK. I put on record my thanks to Western Power Distribution—117 came from western England and Wales—to Northern Ireland Electricity Networks, which sent 26 engineers, to the Isle of Man, and to the Electricity Supply Board in the Republic of Ireland, which sent 27.
The NEWSAC process started on the Friday before the storm came in. Obviously, time is needed to see the impact of the storm and where the engineers should be deployed from and to. Simply a forecast that a big storm is coming does not, in any sense, give a prediction of where the damage that will need to be repaired will be. The NEWSAC process is the right one. I have confidence in that and I want to minute again my thanks to the engineers from right across the United Kingdom who helped out by doing the incredibly difficult job of restoring and sometimes rebuilding—in Weardale, I saw a whole process of rebuilding the power line. We cannot underestimate the difficulty and very intensive nature of that job, particularly at a time of poor weather.
Storm Arwen
Grahame Morris Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I have said to a number of hon. Members today, we are absolutely committed to getting power back. I need to reiterate that 95% of people who were affected now have their power back, but if someone is part of the 5% still without power, that is clearly no solace and will not help them in that situation. It is absolutely incumbent on me and my Department to make sure that we do whatever we can to resolve it.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I also acknowledge the heroic efforts of the engineers and emergency workers in seeking to restore power, and of the communities, businesses and residents across my constituency who have stepped up to support the elderly, local care homes and vulnerable people who have been left without power for five days. However, the Secretary of State has some important questions to answer. When the Met Office issued a red weather warning that there was a danger to life, what steps did he take to move basic resources, bottled water, emergency generators, fuel and blankets to the affected areas? What arrangements were made to consider the deployment of the Army—the Royal Engineers—to identify alternative accommodation and establish community reception hubs for those, particularly elderly people, left without power and in need of support? From where I am and my constituents are, the performance has been lamentable. There has been a complete lack of planning and foresight. I am sure that the whole House would welcome answers to those questions.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of where we are. He will appreciate that, over many years, we have had local resilience fora, which have acted incredibly speedily and with incredible dedication. They are precisely the organisations that know what the situation is on the ground, and I and my Department have been engaging with the people involved. They are responding extremely effectively to this difficult situation.
Income Tax (Charge)
Grahame Morris Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on a powerful and excellent speech. As a representative of a coalfield area myself, in County Durham, I express my solidarity with colleagues from Wales who have raised the issue of unsafe coal tips and the need for funding. It is poignant that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd mentioned the terrible disaster at Aberfan. I know that it touched many hearts throughout the nation, including that of our sovereign. It was the most appalling tragedy. We must never, ever forget the debt of honour that the nation owes the coalminers and their families and communities. Although it is not the focus of my speech, I am also disappointed by the failure of the Chancellor to address the historic injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. It is not a case of demanding more public money, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), who is no longer in his place, claimed. This is the miners’ own money. That this historical injustice has not been addressed cuts to the quick those of us with mining connections.
The broad theme of this debate is people in businesses. I will confine my remarks essentially to cancer, which is the most dreadful business. I know that the Treasury Bench is populated by Ministers with a background in science, innovation and workforce skills, and I hope they will relay my comments to their colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on cancer and on radiotherapy. Access to cancer services is an issue that has touched me personally and about which I care passionately. About 50% of us will suffer and battle against cancer at some point in our lives.
A week ago, I joined my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), and, from the other place, Baron Fox of Leominster, and representatives from national cancer charities, cancer survivors and the cancer workforce, to deliver a petition and a letter to No. 10 Downing Street. The petition was signed by over 53,000 people. The letter, sent on behalf of a coalition of national cancer charities, patient advocacy groups, 64 MPs of all parties, peers and APPG chairs, called on the Government to invest urgently in our vital cancer workforce ahead of the Budget. A few months earlier, just before the recess, I presented to Downing Street a petition set up by Catchup With Cancer which was signed by over 370,000 people. That campaign was launched in conjunction with Craig and Mandy Russell, to whom I pay tribute. Tragically, they lost their daughter to bowel cancer at the age of just 31. Her life expectancy was drastically cut short after her cancer treatment was stopped as a direct result of the covid-19 response.
Even before the pandemic, at 62 days, we had the worst cancer waiting times on record and worrying variations in cancer services across the United Kingdom. The pandemic has not just laid bare the terrible strain on the cancer workforce, which has been happening for a number of years, but has driven cancer services to crisis point. It is reported that significant numbers of nurses are leaving or planning to leave our NHS following the pandemic. One in four NHS staff in England say they are now more likely to leave their job than was the case one year ago. In addition, long-standing unfilled vacancies and high staff absence and sickness levels continue to constrain cancer services. I am a great admirer of Professor Patricia Price, who appeared before the Health Committee earlier this week and spoke of
“the biggest cancer crisis in living memory”.
To give credit where it is due, the emphasis on cancer diagnostic services in the Budget is welcome. It matches the ambitions set out in the NHS long-term plan of diagnosing 75% of cancers at stage 1 or 2 by 2028. The projections are that 55,000 people each year will survive for five years or more following their earlier cancer diagnosis. However—I must regretfully, with due respect, take issue again with points raised by Conservative Members—we need greater clarity on exactly how the money is to be spent. Unless the boost in cancer diagnosis is matched by an equal boost in treatment services and investment in the workforce to deliver those services, they will continue to fall far short of the Government’s stated ambition. The future of the workforce is now the most significant threat facing the NHS today. We need investment in equipment needed for treatments such as advanced precision radiotherapy, which I have benefited from and which plays a vital role in cancer care and has continued to be the stand-out cancer treatment during the pandemic.
Make no mistake, the cancer backlog is a huge issue. Without a fully funded plan to increase the number of skilled staff and train the future cancer workforce, more patients will see their treatments unnecessarily delayed. Investment in cancer treatment services and the cancer workforce needs to be expanded to match investment in cancer diagnosis. The two are hand in —two wings of the same bird.
Grahame Morris
Precisely. We must ensure that people living with cancer get the support they need and deserve now and in the future.
The specifics are that according to the cancer charity Macmillan, we are 2,500 specialist cancer nurses short in England. Macmillan is urging the Government to take action and create a nurse cancer training fund, which could be set up with a modest investment of £124 million. That would train 3,300 specialist cancer nurses. When we think about the many billions spent on the test, track and trace system, the investment of a fraction of that sum in cancer treatment—modest as far as the budgets are concerned— would command majority support, not just on the Opposition Benches, but in the whole House and the country.
Animal Testing
Grahame Morris Excerpts(3 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliot. I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on opening the debate and on the forceful and cogent argument he put forward to make the case for the petitioners. I also thank good and hon. Members across the House who have spoken so forcefully on this issue. I support petitions 581641 and 590216, signed by more than 320,000 petitioners, quite a number of whom were from my constituency.
I wish to declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human-relevant science. It would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to pay tribute briefly to the late vice-chair of the group, Sir David Amess. He was an unwavering voice for animals in laboratories and a champion for human-relevant science. He will be remembered as a tireless and principled campaigner for animal welfare. I hope that Members from the Government side, who are absent from tonight’s debate, will step up and take on Sir David’s mantle.
The APPG on human-relevant science is a discussion forum in which politicians, the human-relevant life sciences sector, the third sector, scientists and stakeholders can promote new-approach methodologies that provide unique insights into human biology, transform our ability to understand human disease, and develop new and effective medicines more quickly, without the use of animals.
I certainly take on board the point made earlier that the stats seem to show a slight reduction in the number of animals used in testing in 2020. However, that might be a consequence of the pandemic. In the 10 years up to 2019 the average annual decrease in animal testing was only about 1% a year. On that trajectory, animal testing looks like it is set to continue for another 90 years.
The case for transition to human-relevant science is absolutely compelling. A growing range of cutting-edge techniques provide results that are directly relevant to people and that can replace, or at the very least significantly reduce, the use of animals. Such new-approach method-ologies include the use of human cells, tissues, tissue cultures, artificial intelligence and organ-on-a-chip technology.
Significant differences in the human race’s genetic make-up mean that data from animal experiments cannot be reliably translated into humans. In fact, the current reliance on animal experiments may well be holding back the progress that many patients so urgently need. More than 92% of drugs that show promise in animal tests fail to reach the clinic and do not benefit patients, mostly for reasons of poor efficacy and safety that were not predicted by animal testing. In disease research, the picture is similar. Decades of efforts towards understanding neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, and towards finding effective therapies for them, have been huge failures due to the majority of animal experiments lacking human relevance.
The APPG on human-relevant science has held several meetings by Zoom over the past year, examining two main areas: funding barriers and regulatory barriers. As it stands, the funding made available for research via the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research—the NC3Rs that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk referred to—is not sufficient to support the transition to human-relevant research. Indeed, the NC3Rs’s annual budget amounts to only around £10 million. By comparison, the Association of Medical Research Charities estimates that the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research provided a combined total of £1.8 billion in funding for UK medical research in 2019, while medical research charities provided £1.9 billion.
The economic potential of animal-free methods is huge. By providing results that are directly relevant to people, new-approach methodologies can accelerate the development of effective treatments that will transform patients’ lives and reduce the economic cost of ill health. I hope the Minister will respond to the important point raised earlier that over 450 skin sensation tests were carried out on mice in 2020, even though validated non-animal tests were and are available. In 2020, not a single application for licences to conduct experiments on animals were refused permission.
There is major public support for replacing animal testing with human-relevant techniques, and the petitions that formed the basis for today’s debate attest to that. A YouGov poll also shows enormous public support. The Government must take decisive and ambitious action to phase out animal experiments and phase in the use of cutting-edge, human-relevant techniques. Modernising medical research in this way will deliver major benefits for people, animals and the UK economy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (George Freeman)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in my fifth week in office, Ms Elliott. I am hugely grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) and other colleagues for raising these important issues today, not least in the week in which the comprehensive spending review will be settled. I will then have a chance to look at the overall allocation of funding within the ecosystem for which I am responsible as Minister for Science, Research and Innovation.
I reassure colleagues, and those in the Public Gallery and elsewhere, that I take this issue very seriously, and I will explain my background in the sector.
I echo the comments made by a number of Opposition colleagues: if we are to provide a legacy for Sir David Amess, we ought to come together on this issue. I welcome the tone of everybody’s contributions, in particular that of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), which highlights the lack of partisan politics in this matter and the need to seek cross-party consensus. I welcome her reference to this Government’s 2015 ban on cosmetics tested on animals and the 1997 Labour Government’s ban. This country has taken and will continue to take the matter seriously, and we should be proud of that.
I was asked about 36 questions, which I will try to cover, but I want to flag in particular the important opening points made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, who spoke about the moral and legal considerations at the heart of the issue—he is right: this is not just a utilitarian argument, but a moral and legal issue about the values that we hold as a country—and about the importance of recognising that sentience confers an additional responsibility, which is enshrined in legislation but merits saying. Our obligations to mammals, for example, are much greater than our obligations to insects. That might be controversial in some places in this country, but I think that in this Chamber, people will understand the difference. I think that was an important and well-made point.
The number of signatories to the petitions indicates the strength of the public view on the matter. I sincerely thank all hon. Members for the quality of their contributions. I suspect the reason that there are not more colleagues on the Government Benches is that the main Chamber is currently debating the Second Reading of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, and while hon. Members have been speaking in this debate, I have been watching Conservative Members speaking in that one. It is fair to say that there is strong cross-party support for getting the framework for animal research right.
I thank and pay particular tribute to those who have spoken, including the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who raised the issue of values and the important role of companies such as the Body Shop and campaigns such as PETA—I echo those considerations. Transparency for consumers when purchasing goods is quite an important factor in driving the culture change that we need to see, and I support her on that point. She, like other Members, mentioned the importance of technology and the human-on-a-chip and organ-on-a-chip technologies that may hold the opportunity for us to completely liberate ourselves from reliance on animals.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) raised the important issue of force-feeding and factory farming. I think the whole House would like to move away from any reliance on factory farming, but while there is such a reliance, it is important that that activity is carried out to the highest standards and that public trust is supported by sufficient accountability.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) raised an interesting point about why no applications are turned down, which I will come to. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) mentioned the importance of complex cell models and highlighted the need for us to review the workings of the legislation. The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) highlighted quite powerfully the big difference between the amount of money—around £3 billion—spent on broader life science and medical-related research compared with the £100 million, or £10 million a year, spent on this issue. He made an important point about ensuring that the matter gets enough attention.
Grahame Morris
The Minister is being very thorough on some of those points. We are not, as he alluded to in his opening remarks and again just now, arguing for the outcome of the comprehensive spending review to be huge additional resource. It is about skewing the huge sums of money that are available towards this particular area. That would be more efficacious and beneficial for everyone concerned.
George Freeman
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I was about to say that the National Institute for Health Research—for which I was responsible in my previous ministerial role but one, as Minister for life sciences—puts about £1 billion a year into research on the practice of health. I will happily raise the issue with the relevant Minister at the Department for Health and Social Care, because quite important part of the NIHR’s remit is to build confidence in health research.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) raised the important issue of accountability on the rate of progress, and the opportunities arising from the UK’s departure from the EU. I will try to come to all those issues in due course, and if for any reason I miss any, I will happily write to Members with the answer that I would have given had I had time.
I am personally passionate about this agenda for a whole raft of reasons, not just because I have a much beloved cat and dog as pets. Like everyone in the Chamber, and I think most people in this House, I feel very strongly that we have a duty of care as human beings to the animals around us. Also, having had a career in medical research before coming to Parliament in 2010, I have seen for myself the importance both of using every piece of technology to try to remove dependence on animals in the development of medicines and of carrying public trust in the research process with us.
As hon. Members have set out, in the life science sector a quiet revolution is going on, in which the traditional model of drug discovery—which typically takes 15 years and $2 billion, and has an 80% failure rate—is being quietly transformed by revolutions in genomics and informatics, allowing us to move from a paradigm in which the industry would typically try to develop one drug that suits all through a long and complex cycle of theoretical drug discovery targeting, in silico chemistry, then through into in vitro models, animal trials, human trials, and marketing and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence approval.
The revolution in genomics and informatics allows us to begin to target patient groups, develop drugs around particular blood types, genotypes and phenotypes, and cut out a lot of the long, traditional drug discovery process. It is a revolution that I am passionate about, not just because it will in due course reduce, and possibly even eradicate, the need for us to rely on often unreliable animal models. Members will have heard me talk in other places about the need to move away from necessary but imperfect models of human disease.
George Freeman
I understand the hon. Member’s point and I will come to it. I could not quite agree that our reliance at the moment on animal testing is of no use at all; it is of important use in defining certain elements of toxicity and safety. It is not perfect, but to say that it has no use is not fair. I will come to his point about how quickly we need to make progress.
Part of my passion for this is that I tried to found a company developing toxicology artificial intelligence—predictive software that would predict the toxicology of compounds so that we do not have to rely on animal models. I care sufficiently about it that I took the trouble to do that. Let me share with colleagues one thing that I discovered in that process, which speaks to the delicacy sometimes around transparency. Passions in this sector understandably run very high. I know that colleagues will be shocked to discover that, in the course of putting together a company to develop toxicology software, one needs to be able to understand the experiments that are currently being done in order to model them better using software. That meant that on the board of the company we had somebody from Huntingdon Life Sciences so that we could understand the processes that we were having to replace.
The presence of that person on the board was alone sufficient to attract huge and violent attacks from Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. Of course, who on the board did they pick on? Was it any of the eight men, of whom I was one? No. They picked on the company secretary—the member of the board least responsible for the company. She lived alone in a cottage in the fens, and woke in the middle of the night to find 20 people in balaclavas daubing her house with red paint, calling her a bunny killer. I flag that story because it speaks to the passions and the need for a balanced approach, in the way that colleagues have raised the issue today.
If we are to be transparent and accountable, we need to ensure that that transparency and accountability can be shared, and that we are not putting particular people at risk. However, I share the point that we need to do everything we can to ensure that the quiet revolution accelerates, and that we reduce the reliance on animals for research as fast as we possibly can and to as great an extent as we can.
Allow me to describe briefly the framework that we have in place. Why is the use of animals in scientific research justified at all? It is justified because, at the moment, it is vital for identifying benefits to humans, animals and the environment. We have to try to balance that dependence with our commitment to the highest animal welfare standards. That is the basis on which the current law is drafted. The balance between those two elements is reflected in the fact that we have a dedicated Act to make sure that animal welfare and animal research are properly integrated. The responsibility for managing that Act lies with the Home Office and the Home Secretary, not with me, but I will raise the issues mentioned today with the Home Office.
The Act specifies that animals can be used in science only for specific limited purposes where there are no alternatives—a crucial point—and provides protection for those animals through the requirement for application of the three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement. Today’s debate raised three related but separate issues that contribute to the Government's overall strategic direction and policy: first, the benefits derived from the use of animals in science where there are, as yet, no alternatives; secondly, the regulatory regime that facilitates such use; and thirdly, our support and commitment to the funding of the three Rs in order to accelerate progress away from reliance.
Let me take each in turn. At the moment, animal testing research plays a vital role in understanding how biological systems work in health and disease. It is crucial to our understanding of new medicines and cutting-edge medical technologies for both humans and animal health, and it supports the safety and sustainability of our environment by helping to reduce dependency on chemicals. Animal research has helped us to make life-changing discoveries for new vaccines and medicines, transplant procedures, anaesthetics and blood transfusions —not least the development of the covid-19 vaccine, which was made possible because of animal research.
While I accept that we need to try to move away as quickly as possible, one must remember that we are using animals only because it is the way we have evolved towards minimising exposure of human beings to dangerous drugs. I assure hon. Members that if we were to completely remove all animal use from medicines research, we would expose our own kith and kin to much higher risks. That would quickly be seen as irresponsible.
We need to find a way of substituting those pre-human tests as quickly as possible. Although much research can be done into non-animal models, there are still purposes for which, sadly, it is essential to use live animals, as the complexity of whole biological mammalian systems cannot always be replicated using validated non-animal methodologies. That is especially the case where human medicines are developed.
Grahame Morris
The Minister is being generous, and he will want to make progress. An example of a drug that went through extensive animal testing through the established processes is thalidomide. Animal testing is not infallible. We have discovered subsequently that some drugs that have been through established animal testing can be repurposed. We have now discovered that it is an extremely effective drug against leprosy and other conditions. There is rightfully scepticism about statements that animal testing will ensure that drugs are completely safe, because that is not the case.
Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill
Grahame Morris Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Imran Hussain
The hon. Member’s point does not even have a passing acquaintance with fiction, never mind fact, and does not deserve a response.
Trade unions and working people have been deliberately hindered in their efforts to fight fire and rehire as the Government put barriers in their way and bog them down in red tape.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Despite the hoots of derision from the Government Benches, does my hon. Friend accept the survey evidence that shows that three quarters of the British public back the Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner)? Countries such as France, Spain and Ireland have already acted to make this appalling practice illegal.
Imran Hussain
My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a very valuable point. The most pertinent point that he makes is that many countries in Europe are already ahead of us and have already acted in this area. Let me say this to him: the reason that Government Members are loud and make points that go towards accepting in part that there is this need is that they understand that, when they go back to their constituencies, there is a different argument that they have to face there. I urge them today to seriously consider this very sensible Bill.
The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North, with the support of trade unions, working people and the Labour party, would rebalance employment protection so that it is no longer overwhelmingly weighted in favour of the employer, and put workers and trade unions back on an equal footing. It would place power back into the hands of the workers who create the wealth, rather than the chief executives and shareholders who hoard it.
The Bill would also reward those countless employers who are doing the right thing by their staff in ensuring that they are well paid, well protected and well looked after, but who are being undercut by unscrupulous competitors. Yet even as Ministers claim to oppose fire and rehire, they are clearly telling their MPs to vote against the Bill, as is evident today. The reality is that the Government have nothing to offer working people.
Paul Scully
I have 15 minutes; I will give way in a second.
The third area was whether fire and rehire is being used deliberately to break continuity of service, to restrict access to employment rights and protections among employees and workers. We share those concerns, and I will set out in a second—as long as I have time—the existing protections, as well as further steps that the Government have taken to prevent the misuse of fire and rehire.
Grahame Morris
A number of Conservative Members have referred to the ACAS code, and in particular section 1, and the fact that there is an alternative means of redress for workers who have been unfairly dismissed. During the debate, someone sent me a very long list of companies, including British Airways, where tens of thousands of workers were affected. I wonder how many people in the cases the Minister referred to have been able to achieve redress through the existing arrangements and how many would benefit from a Bill to end fire and rehire.
Paul Scully
I would be interested to see that list. As I said, we want to make sure that we can tackle that early basis, which I outlined earlier.
As I said, we are considering fire and rehire from all angles, and we have continued to gather and review evidence beyond the ACAS report. It is difficult to find robust evidence on the practice, because what is seen by workers as a threat or tactic can be seen by employers as necessary behaviour to move negotiations forward and out of deadlock. What is a reduction of terms and conditions for workers can sometimes be necessary organisational change for employers.
We heard a bit about the various surveys that have been going on. The hon. Member for Brent North referenced an earlier CIPD survey. We now have further survey data based on a sample of more than 2,000 senior HR professionals and decision makers in the UK. Fieldwork for that CIPD employment outlook survey was undertaken during the summer, and it found that 3% of employers with two or more employees used fire and rehire to reduce employment terms of some or all of their staff, and a further 19% of employers said they had changed terms and conditions through consultation, negotiation and voluntary agreement. Around half of those who said they had made changes to pay, location or enhanced entitlements said that they had improved those terms.
The Office for National Statistics business impact of covid-19 survey found that around 3.1% of businesses had reduced terms and conditions since 2020. While the evidence does suggest some use of fire and rehire, it does not allow us to fully understand the circumstances of the employer and the rationale or proportionality of the use of fire and rehire. It is important to consider those business circumstances as we look to draw up solutions.
I would like to draw the House’s attention to the voice of employers, about which we heard much from my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for North East Bedfordshire and for Rugby (Mark Pawsey). The CIPD has shed light on how the
“impact of COVID-19 has had a huge effect on employers, causing operational disruption, increased supply costs, loss of revenue, reduced productivity. They have had to react, adapt and effect change to their processes.”
The context of heightened disruption and business challenges has also meant that some employers have been forced to consider firing and rehiring their employees where an agreement cannot be reached to vary the employment contract. We have said that that should be considered as an absolute last resort if changes to employment contracts cannot be found through negotiation.
The evidence I have just set out shows there is some use of firing and rehiring, or the threat of doing so, by at least 3% and potentially up to 9% of employers to reduce the terms and conditions of some or all staff. Although the evidence does not provide a full understanding of the employers’ circumstances, this House should be left in no doubt that the Government will always continue to stand behind workers and to stamp out unscrupulous practices where they occur.
Existing legislation already provides employers with the right baseline for setting terms and conditions for their workforce, including on the minimum wage, annual leave, statutory sick pay, parental leave, pay entitlements and pension contributions. Above that statutory baseline, employers are rightly free to offer the terms and conditions of employment that best suit their business needs. In doing so, they must always act fairly and not discriminate unlawfully on the basis of a protected characteristic such as race, sex or disability. The valid variation of contractually binding terms and conditions usually depends on mutual agreement between the employer and workers as two parties to the contract.
The employment contract itself may contain a clause expressly allowing variation. Such clauses are usually limited to specific circumstances, and they tend to be interpreted narrowly by courts and tribunals. Should an employer seek to enforce contractual variation without agreement, there are a number of legal obligations and protections with which they may need to comply, depending on the circumstances.
A dismissal may be wrongful if the employer fails to provide the relevant statutory or contractual notice period to terminate the contract. There may be a breach of contract or constructive dismissal if changes are imposed unilaterally by the employer. As we have heard, there are also collective redundancy consultation requirements that apply where there are proposals to dismiss 20 or more employees at one establishment within a 90-day period for reasons not related to the individuals concerned.
These all require an employer to provide certain statutory information and to engage in discussions with a view to reaching agreement either with trade union representatives, where there is a recognised trade union, or with other elected representatives. In workplaces where there is a recognised trade union, employers are prohibited from making offers to workers with the sole or main purpose that any terms of employment will not or will no longer be determined by collective agreement with the union.
It is not all about what the law requires. It is in businesses’ own interest to have committed, motivated staff who are properly engaged in decisions about the future. We have seen in the press and the media the considerable reputational and practical risks, many of which have been cited today, to companies that look to pursue this route. The CIPD wrote:
“Employers must recognise that this approach creates a high risk of legal claims, reputational damage and an adverse effect on employee relations. It should only be undertaken after extensive consultation and consideration of all other alternatives.”
As we have heard, in the vast majority of cases, businesses want to do the right thing by their employees. I am determined to help them do this and to make sure that we find the best approach for both employers and employees. Although I do not believe we should legislate to stop the practice of fire and rehire, and certainly not in the heavy-handed way proposed by the Bill, the Government are taking action.
Earlier this year, we asked ACAS to produce more comprehensive, clearer guidance to help all employers to explore other options before considering fire and rehire. ACAS is well placed to provide that guidance, being an independent Crown non-departmental public body that plays a vital role in promoting and maintaining good industrial relations between employees and employers. We are all well aware of the potential pressures on business as we continue to undergo the impacts of covid-19, but that ACAS guidance will help to set out best practice to employers who are considering how to solve problems that might require contractual changes.
The Government are also taking action in one of the areas where ACAS found that fire and rehire was being used, which is to interrupt the continuity of service. Certain employment rights in the UK require a period of continuous employment, so it is right that we find the right balance between worker protection and flexibility in the labour market. Continuous service is where an employee has worked for one employer without a break, and we will be introducing a measure to extend the permissible break in service from one week to one month as soon as parliamentary time allows. That measure will make it easier for those with intermittent or flexible working patterns to access employment rights, and it will deter businesses from engineering breaks in employment to deny individuals their important employment rights.
To address the Bill specifically, it seeks to amend the law relating to workplace information and consultation, employment protection and trade union rights. [Interruption.] I am glad that the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) wants to hear my thoughts, as she has turned up for the last 20 minutes of the debate. She did not feel the need to hear the debate itself.
I have met Members of the House and trade unions to discuss the issue, and the discussions have made plain to me the anxiety and distress that has been caused. As the Bill covers a lot of ground, I make it clear, for those Opposition Members who are wearing the badges, that it will have the effect of banning fire and rehire, if enacted. It will leave us in a space where employers may be forced to make redundancies. It will also significantly increase the pressure on the employment tribunal system, as we have heard, when the right priority is to reduce the backlog.
Proposed new section 187A would introduce new consultation requirements for establishments and undertakings where there is a real threat to continued employment. The Government are perfectly clear that, should employers seek to change terms and conditions, they must seek agreement. The threat of fire and rehire should never be used as a negotiation tactic.
In addition, collective redundancy law already provides that, should an employer propose to make 20 or more people redundant in a single establishment within a 90-day period, it must consult with employee representatives. However, this legislation would introduce onerous new requirements on employers in situations where they need to make business-critical decisions. Those requirements would be additional to the collective consultation requirements already in place.
The legislation includes situations where decisions may have to be taken to terminate the contracts of 15 or more employees for reasons other than conduct or capability, or where anticipatory measures are envisaged that are likely to lead to substantial changes in work organisation or contractual relations affecting 15 or more employees.
Proposed new section 187B would place a higher duty on employers to disclose information to allow employee representatives to engage in consultation. The Government already have clear guidance that, if an employer needs to change a contract, the first step is to talk with employees or employee representatives, such as a trade union. The guidance that ACAS is producing will help to set out the best practice for employers considering how to solve problems. In addition, the ACAS code of practice on the disclosure of information to trade unions for collective bargaining purposes sets out the respective responsibilities of employers and employee representatives in matters related to collective bargaining.
Proposed new section 187C would introduce a right for employee representatives to complain to the Central Arbitration Committee about an employer’s failure to consult or disclose information. The CAC is an independent body with statutory powers, but under the Bill, should the CAC find that an employer had been remiss, it could refer it to ACAS for conciliation. If ACAS was of the opinion that further attempts at conciliation were unlikely to result in a settlement, it could then refer it back to the CAC. For complaints referred and returned through ACAS, and where settlement had not happened, the CAC could hold a hearing and determine the complaint. It could then make a declaration stating whether it found the complaint well-founded, wholly or in part, and the reasons for its findings. While the CAC could choose not to recommend a course of action, such as referring to ACAS for early conciliation, it could set out steps to rectify the error and the timeframe in which that should be done.
The House can see that the Bill would add extra layers, which would affect the flexibility of the situation for employers seeking to make business-critical decisions. It is an incredibly complex situation, and we would be adding bureaucracy and extra process when they need to make a decision quickly to protect the jobs and livelihoods of those people who have been mentioned throughout the entirety of this debate. I have real concerns about the approach in the Bill, as it would significantly increase administrative burdens and costs for employers in a situation where they are already facing challenging circumstances.
Proposed new section 104H would disallow an employee not agreeing to reduced terms and conditions as a substantial reason for dismissal and remove the qualifying period of two years to bring forward an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. That would remove the legal ground on which employers may be able to dismiss and re-engage an employee who has not agreed to changing their terms and conditions.
While these measures could result in a decline in the use of firing and rehiring, they would present a significant change to the current framework and could have unintended consequences for businesses and employment tribunals. The hon. Member for Brent North has couched this Bill as proportionate to the issue, but it would have the effect of banning fire and rehire and the unintended consequences of such actions could be severe. For instance, setting that higher threshold for dismissal and for consultations with trade unions on changes to terms and conditions may mean that the cost for employers is so high that they choose an easier route, such as redundancy; in effect, if you get rid of fire and rehire, you end up with fire, which is no good to employees up and down this country.
In the last six seconds available to me, may I just say that we are looking at this Bill, we will act and we do not need primary legislation to do so?
Oral Answers to Questions
Grahame Morris Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Scully
There is a shortage of building materials due to global demand outstripping supply. We are working with the Construction Leadership Council’s product availability group to identify and resolve these challenges.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
That fund—one might describe it as a backstop—is there for support if there is a need to increase pensions. I am pleased to continue discussions with the trustees to look at potential solutions for the years ahead as the number of miners reduces and the investment pot needs to be looked at differently.
Oral Answers to Questions
Grahame Morris Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Paul Scully
I congratulate the Bradford Bulls on their return.
We have always been clear that using the threats of fire and rehire as a tactic to put undue pressure on workers during negotiations is completely unacceptable, but we need to tread carefully when considering Government intervention in commercial contractual matters between employers and employees. That is why we are now carefully considering, with the evidence, our next steps.
Grahame Morris
May I first congratulate members of my union, Unite, at Go North West buses in Manchester who, after an incredible 85 days of continuous strike action, have now won a landmark victory against appalling fire and rehire abuses? My question to the Minister is straightforward: does he condemn rogue bosses such as Go North West or coffee producers Jacobs Douwe Egberts, which, despite record profits during lockdown, has provoked strike action by firing and rehiring more than 300 loyal staff on worse pay and conditions? Will the Minister wake up, smell the coffee and agree that this disgraceful behaviour leaves a bitter taste in the mouth?
Paul Scully
I see what the hon. Gentleman has done there. His coffee-based puns belie the fact that this is an incredibly serious situation. As I was saying, if those companies or any others are using such a practice for bully-boy tactics, that is completely unacceptable. We need to look at the evidence before we intervene on the flexibility of the workforce, but clearly we do not want bully-boy tactics to be used for negotiations.