BBC Local Radio
Debate between Grahame Morris and Paul Scully(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Paul Scully)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) for securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for supporting it. The BBC is a great national institution that has played a vital role in informing, educating and entertaining audiences since it was created 100 years ago. Its charter requires it to act in the public interest and provide distinctive content that reflects and represents people and communities from all corners of the UK. That includes providing, as we have heard, genuinely local content that is directly relevant to audiences.
As we have heard, local services are a key part of the BBC’s public service remit and an example of how it can use its licence fee funding to provide services that may be underserved by the market. BBC local radio is one of its crown jewels and remains highly valued by audiences. We heard that testimony in the debate when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) talked about BBC Three Counties Radio; my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) talked about BBC Radio Humberside; and my hon. Friends the Members for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) and for North West Norfolk (James Wild) talked about BBC Radio Norfolk.
My right hon. Friends the Members for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) talked about BBC Essex; Mr Deputy Speaker and my right hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) even talked about BBC Radio Lancashire—well done to them for getting that in; and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) talked about BBC Radio Foyle, funnily enough. There are so many pairs there—I am wondering which are the Smashie and Nicey of the House in terms of their DJs.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) talked about BBC Radio Berkshire; my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) talked about BBC Hereford & Worcester; the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about BBC Radio York; the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) talked about BBC Radio Tees; and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) talked about BBC Radio Devon. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) was greedy and talked about two—BBC Radio Merseyside and BBC Radio Manchester. Not surprisingly, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) talked about BBC Radio Orkney and BBC Radio Shetland.
The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) talked about BBC Radio Sheffield. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester talked about doing the regional round, and I remember talking to Toby Foster in the morning in Sheffield when I was hospitality Minister about the struggle of that sector during covid. I think I still owe him a visit to his comedy club. These things do stick in the mind and we are regularly tested at a local level.
We also heard from the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about BBC Radio London, which he shares with me and the Media Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who is unfortunately in her sick bed with covid so could not respond to the debate. We have great presenters and journalists, such as Susana Mendonça, the great political journalist, and I enjoy sparring energetically and enthusiastically with Eddie Nestor often during drivetime.
As we have heard, there are some fantastic examples that remain highly valued by audiences up and down the country. Those local services bring communities together and play a vital role in reflecting local experiences and delivering local news. Developed in the late 1960s and 1970s, the BBC’s 39 local radio services in England still reach 5.8 million listeners every week and collectively have a higher share than stations including BBC Radio 5 Live and BBC Radio 6 Music, even though coverage on FM and DAB is not universal across England.
As we all know, BBC local radio is especially valued outside London and the south-east, where there tends to be less competition from commercial services. BBC local stations in places such as Derby, Stoke, Lincolnshire, Gloucestershire, Cumbria and Shropshire have a larger audience share and reach than the average for BBC local radio. The Media Minister has already made it clear to the House, in answer to an urgent question a few weeks ago, that she was disappointed—we are all disappointed—that the BBC is planning to reduce its local radio output. These are precisely the kinds of services that the BBC is uniquely well placed to provide.
I was also disappointed that last week, as we have heard, the BBC announced proposed changes to its radio output in Northern Ireland, including cuts to BBC Radio Foyle’s output. BBC Radio Ulster, including Foyle, reaches nearly a third of radio listeners in Northern Ireland and is a vital part of Northern Ireland’s media landscape. Understandably, the BBC’s announcement has caused a significant reaction in Northern Ireland, as we have heard, and I know that it was raised by the hon. Member for Foyle with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions on 30 November—reaching the highest levels.
We recognise that commercial local news providers have concerns about the potential impact of the BBC’s plans to increase investment in online news services. The charter requires the BBC to consider its market impact, and to seek to avoid unnecessary adverse impacts on competition that are not necessary for the fulfilment of its mission and public purposes. The Government are considering the regulation and governance of the BBC’s market impact as part of the mid-term review—my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South raised this issue—and we will obviously bring that back to this place as soon as we can. Ofcom is also reviewing the BBC’s online news proposals, including an assessment of the concerns raised by the News Media Association and the BBC’s own analysis.
We cannot ignore the considerable concerns that have been raised in response to the BBC’s recent announcement —not just today, but in recent weeks. Since the BBC’s announcement, my hon. Friend the Media Minister has met the BBC’s leadership, and she has expressed our shared concerns in this House. She made it clear that the BBC must continue to provide distinctive and genuinely local radio services, with content that represents communities from all corners of the UK. She also emphasised that we expect it to consider the views of this House when it makes the decision about whether to proceed.
The Prime Minister also committed in this House to raising the changes to BBC services in Northern Ireland with the BBC. The Prime Minister has since himself met the director-general of the BBC, and they discussed the proposed changes to BBC Radio Foyle and the importance of the BBC considering the views of stake- holders when deciding whether to proceed. The Secretary of State wrote to the BBC earlier this week to remind it of its responsibilities under the charter, including the importance of transparency about changes to services.
Last week, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee held an evidence session with the BBC on its planned changes to local radio, and I welcome the important role that the Committee plays in ensuring that the BBC is accountable for its decision making.
Grahame Morris
Would the Minister clarify what the current position is with Ofcom? My understanding is that the Media Minister was going to seek Ofcom putting pressure on the BBC in respecting its obligations under the terms of the charter.
Fairness at Work and Power in Communities
Debate between Grahame Morris and Paul Scully(2 years, 7 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.
Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill
Debate between Grahame Morris and Paul Scully(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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
Debate between Grahame Morris and Paul Scully(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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)
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Grahame Morris and Paul Scully(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Bereavement
Debate between Grahame Morris and Paul Scully(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing tonight’s debate and on the interesting way in which he framed the three asks. I echo his condolences to the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) following the loss of his daughter. That must be so painful.
The debate is on a pertinent issue, so I was so grateful to the hon. Member for Easington for bringing it to Parliament and continuing his work in this area. We have heard of the painful impact of bereavement on individuals and families, and we have seen it over the past year in particular. I sympathise with anyone who has lost a loved one. It is deeply painful to lose a person who has played a special role in our lives. It is a sad truth that we will all experience loss or bereavement in our lives, so the hon. Gentleman speaks of many of our personal experiences. That inevitability does not make those feelings easier to manage, and many of us will feel overwhelmed with the sense of loss, but it highlights the importance of ensuring that consumers dealing with bereavement face the minimal amount of difficulty as they carry out their necessary business. It is intuitive that we want to improve the bereavement process, to make dealing with the accounts of the deceased more efficient and streamlined. After all, that time can be better spent on handling our emotions and continuing with our day-to-day lives. I am grateful for the many companies that already excel in supporting consumers in vulnerable positions, particularly those experienced with bereavement. But the hon. Gentleman spoke from the heart, and I am grateful to him for continuing to raise awareness of the issues facing consumers.
We are all aware of the far-reaching impact that covid-19 has had on our lives and the suffering that it can bring—whether the personal loss of loved ones or simply hearing about the virus’s mortality rates in the media. The Chamber may recall that, like many in the House, I am all too familiar, unfortunately, with the heavy toll that coronavirus has taken: sadly, my mother died just before the first lockdown and two uncles have died. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) talking about industrial diseases; my father died of mesothelioma after having inhaled asbestos when he was doing his apprenticeship on the docks. That was in Yangon and Glasgow, so it was even more complicated and difficult to work through that process. It is important that in such complicated situations, we see what more we can do to help.
People around the country are supporting one another during this trying period—friends, families, charities and businesses. We must reach out and take the opportunity to thank them. It is also a trying time for many in business, yet many continue to excel in meeting the complex needs of consumers. Many firms across the sectors offer emotional training to staff, dedicated channels for the bereaved and clear access to information. I am grateful to those businesses for supporting their consumers during an already stressful time.
But bereavement is not one moment in our lives; it is a deeply personal experience. We can live with bereavement all our lives and feel various degrees of emotion at any given moment. It is important that we acknowledge that when we respond to the issues facing those who experience bereavement. Closing accounts and settling estates is a small snapshot of that experience. The Government continue to support those dealing with loss across the piece.
Due to the excess numbers of deaths, especially now that we have reached the tragic point of 100,000 covid-19 deaths, and the increasingly complex grief for many people due to the disruptions to normal grieving processes, we expect a significant increase in demand for bereavement support during the medium to long term. We are taking a cross-Government approach to supporting bereavement services as the pandemic highlights the essential work that these organisations provide and the significant strain that they are under.
When a bereavement is particularly debilitating or likely to have a longer-term impact on an individual’s mental or physical health, they have access to our excellent national health service. In May 2020, the Government announced £4.2 million of additional funding to mental health charities and charities providing bereavement support. That was part of a £750 million package of support for the voluntary sector, announced by the Chancellor in April 2020. As part of our support for those experiencing bereavement, the Government continue their commitment to improve outcomes for consumers in vulnerable positions.
Bereavement is the prime example of how we can all be vulnerable at some point in our lives. The Government frequently work with regulators to ensure co-ordinating support for those in vulnerable positions—whether the consumer is struggling to pay their bills, suffering from a medical condition or struggling to engage with the market in some way. Those regulated sectors rightly recognise bereavement as a vulnerability and regulated firms are expected to treat consumers fairly, with dignity and respect. Many of them do meet very high standards in this regard. Research shows that consumers often receive excellent, compassionate service from their providers when dealing with end-of-life administration. Numerous provisions are made by the regulators to embed that good practice across the essential service sectors.
In energy, Ofgem is committed to protecting consumers in vulnerable circumstances and has a comprehensive consumer protection framework in place. It works with a flexible definition of vulnerability, enabling a spectrum of consumers to seek the necessary support from their provider. Ofgem has explicitly mentioned bereavement as a personal circumstance that can make someone vulnerable. Firms are therefore expected to treat consumers experiencing bereavement fairly and compassionately, as many do. That is a trend across the sectors. Water companies are expected to better identify and support customers in circumstances that make those customers vulnerable, including bereavement. Telecoms companies are expected to be dynamic in their approach to vulnerability and to treat consumers fairly and appropriately, responding sensitively to changes in circumstances such as bereavement.
Grahame Morris
The standard is enormously variable. I am losing what little hair I have left in a row with a telecoms company. It is so difficult even to speak to a human being, at times. Would it not be advantageous for the companies concerned to have a simpler system that works for consumers? Some 80% have indicated in a survey that they do not think the current arrangements are satisfactory. Will the Minister consider giving free passage to a private Member’s Bill—not necessarily from me, but perhaps from a Government Member—for this proposal?
Paul Scully
There will always be stories, and it is important that we work through those stories and the evidence with regulators. I will come back to that in a second. I appreciate the case that the hon. Gentleman cites, but we must welcome the good pieces of work from the independent regulators. The Government also welcome industry innovation, particularly when it addresses such pertinent issues.
It is important that we recognise the work of regulators and businesses to improve outcomes for the bereaved, but there is still more work to be done, as the hon. Gentleman has just pointed out. I am grateful to him for seizing the initiative. It is essential that we give these issues the time and attention they deserve. The deeper our insight, the better equipped we are to explore the most valuable options for the consumer. A hastily developed approach may mean a worse outcome for consumers. For example, pursuing standardisation whereby all sectors must meet the most stringent security requirements for account closures may be unnecessary and add hassle for consumers at an enormously difficult time. It is costly to business and harmful to consumers who are in a vulnerable position.
In November last year, I convened the regulators and sponsor Departments to discuss what work can be done around the important issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. We are working with regulators, industry and charity experts—
Covid-19: Employment Rights
Debate between Grahame Morris and Paul Scully(4 years, 1 month 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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Like everyone else, I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) on securing today’s important debate. This is a really important matter—a collective matter—and we have heard a number of excellent contributions from across the Chamber detailing individual issues within the overall, encompassing issue of workers’ rights.
Clearly, covid-19 has had a massive effect; it reaches deep into our economy and society. It has required us, as a country, to wrap our arms around the economy and around businesses and employees as well. The Government have acted decisively to provide an unprecedented package of support to protect people’s livelihoods.
Grahame Morris
I appreciate that the Minister is under siege, so I will just ask a simple question. If we are truly wrapping our arms around workers and employees, will he take steps to ensure that the awful practice of fire and rehire is outlawed, because it is unnecessary and is having an appalling effect?
Paul Scully
The reason why I am limiting interventions is that I want to leave the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North time at the end of the debate to sum up. I will clearly cover fire and rehire in a second.
Before doing so, I want to look at just some of the ways in which we have wrapped our arms around the economy and around businesses and employees. We have done that through the furlough scheme, which has allowed 1.2 million employers across the UK to furlough 9.6 million jobs. As we have heard, that scheme has been extended to the spring. With regard to the self-employment income support scheme, there is an increase under the third instalment of the grant, covering November to January.
It is also important that we help to get people, and particularly young people, back into work; we have heard about that from other hon. Members today. That is why, as we have announced, more than 19,000 jobs have been created so far through the kickstarter scheme, helping young people from across the country into the workplace and into a variety of sectors. In addition, 1.3 million businesses have had a Government-guaranteed loan to support their cash flow through the British Business Bank. That is delivering £8 billion to more than 98,000 SMEs—something close to my heart.
The hon. Gentleman talked about fire and rehire tactics. A key aspect of building back better is to continue championing a flexible and dynamic labour market, which gives employers the confidence to retain and hire staff, while maintaining a framework that protects individuals. For those who, sadly, lose their jobs, clear laws about unfair dismissal will ensure that their rights are protected. We have tightened the protections throughout the covid-19 pandemic. For example, we have made sure that statutory redundancy pay, statutory notice pay and unfair dismissal compensation are based on a furloughed employee’s normal pay rather than furlough pay. People who, sadly, are made redundant will receive the same level of financial compensation as they would if they had not been furloughed.
To understand better the issues in relation to fire and rehire, the Government are working with ACAS, and we are bringing together a number of roundtables with businesses, employee representatives and other bodies to discuss these issues in more detail. The House should be left in no doubt that this Government will always continue to stand behind workers and to stamp out unscrupulous practices where they occur.
We have responded swiftly and effectively to the pandemic.