Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Scott Benton]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is a brilliant champion for her constituents in the Cities of London and Westminster. Of course, the nature of the economy in central London means that, often, people will be in the retail, hospitality and the tourism industry with insecure work. I thank her for championing the Bill. The point that she makes regarding older people in employment is important. The Government are actively looking at that. I hope that they continue to press the issue to ensure that we can address labour shortages by widening the pool of potential people to take those vacancies.

The new right would give workers who would like more certainty the ability to request a more predictable work pattern that reflects the hours or times that they work. A qualifying worker would be able to make an application to change their existing work pattern if it lacked predictability in terms of the hours or times they worked, or if they have a fixed-term contract for less than 12 months. The Bill would ensure that workers and employers retain the benefits of zero-hours contracts and other forms of atypical work. Of course, workers who are content to work more varied hours will continue to be able to do so.

Many individuals who work unpredictable patterns often experience an imbalance of power with their employers, which leaves them afraid to ask for more fixed conditions out of fear of being dismissed or denied future shifts. The Bill would address that unfair imbalance of power, empowering and encouraging workers to talk to their employer about their contract, safe in the knowledge that starting the conversation would not result in any detriment whatsoever to the worker. Workers will be better able to secure employment that suits their individual circumstances, helping them to be more satisfied at work and less stressed around the lack of predictability of their hours and income.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is good that we have cross-party support on this issue as well. It is one thing for an employee to have a right, but as we have seen, quite often employers who do not want to give their employees those rights and treat them well have ways of getting around that; they will find an excuse to dismiss the employee and take on somebody who might be prepared to be more flexible. How does the hon. Gentleman envisage that the safeguards and rights under this Bill will be genuinely enforced? I would suggest trade union membership as a pretty good start.

[Scott Benton]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and I will get to that section of my speech in a couple of minutes. She does great justice to the people in her constituency who work on zero-hours contracts by raising that important point. The Bill introduces a right to request a more predictable working pattern and the process employers have to follow is clearly outlined to ensure that there is some certainty when employees request that their contract is changed and that their employer deals with them seriously and appropriately.

The Bill helps to support the income security of workers at a time when many are feeling increased cost of living pressures. It will not only benefit workers; businesses will reap the rewards of having a more engaged and happier workforce. The rights introduced through my Bill will apply to all eligible workers, including agency workers, not only those employed on zero-hours contracts; it will apply to the wide range of workers who have unpredictable working conditions, including temporary workers, agency workers and workers with non-guaranteed hours.

Workers must have worked for their employer for a set period of time before an application can be made. This period will be set out in regulations; I am sure the Minister will expand on that in his remarks, but it is expected to be 26 weeks. The worker only needs to have been employed with their employer at some point during the month before that period and to be working again for the employer when the application is made. Given that the Bill targets workers with unpredictable working patterns, they are not required to have worked for their employer continuously.

The same criteria will apply to agency workers applying to temporary work agencies. Agency workers who make applications directly to hirers will be required to have worked for their hirer for at least 12 weeks continuously during the 26-week period. This replicates the provision in the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 which states that after 12 weeks’ continuous service an agency worker will gain entitlement to the same set of employment rights as if they had been recruited directly. It ensures that workers cannot use the right to request a more predictable contract to circumvent the agency workers regulations and gain entitlement to additional employment rights before they have worked those 12 continuous weeks.

Once a worker has made their request, the employer will be required to notify them of their decision within one month. An employer will be able to turn down a request for more predictable conditions on specific statutory grounds, similar to those established for the existing right to request flexible working. That will help to ensure that businesses are not unfairly burdened by the new right, for example if the costs of providing a worker with a more predictable pattern would be too burdensome at the time.

Workers will have the option to complain to an employment tribunal if their employer does not handle the request in a reasonable manner, wrongly treats the request as withdrawn, dismisses or treats the worker poorly because of their request, or rejects the application on the basis of incorrect facts. We assume, however, that most declined requests will be handled informally and will not give rise to an employment tribunal claim.

I thank officials at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for their assistance with drafting the Bill and the arrangements for today. This area has broad cross-party support: indeed, it was included in the manifesto I stood on and the Liberal Democrats and Labour made similar commitments on zero-hours contracts in their manifestos. I hope that Members on both sides of the House share my desire to ensure that the Bill succeeds. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a certain fragility, to say the least, that accompanies the passage of private Members’ Bills through the House, and I would therefore like to navigate this process with the support of Members on a cross-party basis.

This Bill is a golden opportunity to bring about real change on the pressing issues of atypical contracts and one-sided flexibility, at a time when insecurity of pay and hours is particularly pressing. I hope that Members will be able to support it.

British Steel: Negotiations

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) for securing this urgent question on an issue that affects not just the workers in her constituency but the future of a foundation industry across the UK.

In November last year, the iconic Redcar blast furnace—once the second largest in Europe—was demolished. Decades of work, tradition and pride needlessly went up in smoke. Here we are, yet again: another crisis under the Conservatives’ watch, with Liberty Steel announcing a number of weeks ago the potential loss of hundreds of jobs and yet more pain this week from British Steel. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have granted the urgent question because I thought it was important. I certainly will not have the hon. Member for Scunthorpe heckling by putting her hands around her mouth to shout.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Liberty Steel bosses have described the UK steel sector as being “on life support”. No other developed country faces losing its domestic steel sector. If that were to happen here, it would be a badge of shame for this Government. It is entirely avoidable. Will the Minister outline the steps the Government are taking to secure the future of the Liberty and British Steel sites? She talked about the economic impact, but it is about more than that. It is about the fact that those sites have been at the heart of their communities for generations.

Earlier this month, there were reports that the Secretary of State wrote to the Chancellor requesting a bail-out for British Steel. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case and whether she and the Secretary of State are continuing to push for that? The last thing that the steel sector and the British taxpayer need is another blank cheque bail-out for a buyer, rather than a proper investor. We do not need more sticking plasters; we need a long-term plan.

The market wants green steel, so will the Government back Labour’s plan for green steel, invest in new technology over the coming decade, crowd in private investment and address the root of the problems, rather than play an ever more expensive game of whack-a-mole? Labour will always back our steel industry. It has a bright green future—something it will never get under the crisis management Conservatives.

[Ms Ghani]

I had hoped that the Opposition Front Bench spokesperson would support our ongoing desire for negotiations, and that she would ask why the redundancy conversations are taking place while negotiations are ongoing.

On Liberty Steel, on 20 July 2021 the then Business Secretary set out in his evidence to the BEIS Committee that we did not have adequate assurances to be confident that money offered to Liberty Steel would remain solely available to UK operations. It is important to note that that approach was commended in the Committee’s November 2021 report. Of course, I was on the Committee then, but it is important to note that the Committee is made up of Members from both sides of the House, so that was obviously an agreed position of colleagues across the House.

The hon. Member talked about the level of support that we are providing to the sector to ensure that it can reduce its emissions and take on board new technology to go as green as it can. We have more than £1.5 billion of long-term, strategic and focused support in place to help it to go green, cut emissions and become more energy-efficient. There is more than £1 billion for the carbon capture and storage infrastructure fund, more than £240 million for the net zero hydrogen fund, more than £55 million for the industrial fuel switching fund, more than £20 million for industrial decarbonisation research, £289 million for the industrial energy transformation fund and up to £66 million as part of the industrial strategy challenge fund. That is substantial funding to help the sector to be strategic and have structures in place to help it to reduce emissions, invest in new technology and decarbonise.

The hon. Member spoke about Labour’s plan, or the budget it has in place to help steel become green. I am not sure how that has been costed or tested. As I said in my statement, what is important is that we are putting forward a generous package of support. I hope that she agrees that, because it is taxpayers’ money, we should also have certain assurances, whether on job security, or that new technology to decarbonise is adopted. That is a sensible, strategic way to go forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

According to Citizens Advice, someone is being cut off from their energy supply every 10 seconds. With millions unable to afford to top up their prepayment meters, self-disconnections have rocketed. Is it not the Government’s and the energy regulator’s responsibility to ensure that people are not sitting at home in the cold and in the dark? As temperatures once again reach freezing point across the UK this week, will the Government introduce an immediate moratorium on the forced installation of prepayment meters while their use is reviewed?

[Grant Shapps]

It is a matter of considerable concern that anybody should be removed from their power or heating. We have specifically asked the energy authorities not to go down that line and asked Ofgem to do the same. As I mentioned just moments ago, officials are actively working on this issue, with a letter ready to go to Ofgem as well. She is right to highlight this issue. We do not want to see people cut off during this cold weather. We will return to the House with more detail.

Fracking: Local Consent

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley, and to see the Minister. I do not think we have gone head to head across the Chamber before. It is a little disappointing that the Minister for Climate, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), is not here, although I appreciate why he is not. The last time we faced each other in a fracking debate, which was in the main Chamber, the outcome was suboptimal from his point of view because it led to chaos and the resignation of the Prime Minister the next morning. I suspect that today will be a rather more sedate affair. We cannot expect that sort of excitement every day, although, given how eventful politics has been lately, it would not surprise me if something imploded later.

It is also a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It would not be a Westminster Hall debate without him. I think he came down against fracking, but he made a wide-ranging speech on the issue. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) was right to say that there is no support, or very little support, for fracking in Bath and North East Somerset. I say that as an MP whose constituency neighbours that of the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who said he would be happy to have fracking in his back garden—his back garden is probably big enough for that. Beyond that, as the hon. Lady said, there is very little support.

As I have said, the last time we discussed fracking it was pretty chaotic. The former Prime Minister made lifting the ban on fracking a cornerstone of her short-lived Administration. I still do not see why she did that. It was a 2019 Conservative manifesto commitment to keep the moratorium unless the science proved otherwise. The science did not change because the geology did not change—a recent expert report by the British Geological Survey said that that was the case—so fracking was still seen as unsafe, it was clearly incompatible with our climate obligations, and it was deeply unpopular.

During that debate in the main Chamber, Back-Bench Conservative MPs came out to declare their opposition to fracking. They did not vote against it on that occasion, but it was clear that they were unhappy. If this debate had happened a few weeks ago—I suspect the application was made back then—this place would have been teeming with MPs from across the House, including Conservatives, wanting to make sure that their opposition to fracking was on the record. I think that now they probably want the issue to just go away—they want to pretend that the last few weeks did not happen and that there was never any question of the ban being lifted—and that is why they are not here today.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Lady agree that we must continue to put pressure on the Government to end fracking once and for all or it might come back under the next Government—and who knows when that will come along?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Exactly. Because it is not clear why the last Prime Minister felt obliged to lift the ban on fracking, despite all the arguments against it, we will always have that scintilla of doubt that it has not completely gone away. There was no logic to her decision, so—who knows?—perhaps equally illogical decisions will be made in the future. The current Prime Minister has not embraced the moratorium on fracking out of any green credentials of his own. It is clearly an issue of party management. It is very sensible to reverse the U-turn and go back to the 2019 manifesto, but during the summer leadership election, he actively supported the return of fracking in areas where there was local support.

The Prime Minister also came out against solar power. I do not suppose the Minister is in a position to reply, but I am trying to find out through parliamentary questions whether there has been a change to the mooted policy of the previous Administration—we almost need names for each of the Administrations, because it gets confusing talking about the former this and former that—to bring other, less fertile agricultural land into the “best and most versatile land” category, meaning a ban on solar on that reclassified land. Having talked to the National Farmers Union and other farmers, I hope that that policy has now been reversed. Obviously, we do not want the entire countryside to be covered with solar panels, but we do want to see them in the right places. Solar can also be mixed with farming, as farmers can grow things under solar panels in some cases. I would like to think that there is now, under this Administration, more support for solar on our farmland.

I would say that the policy on onshore wind is still unclear, but actually, when the Prime Minister was pressed on it at Prime Minister’s questions, it seemed clear that the ban remains. Considering that there were plans to allow fracking, I cannot see why onshore wind would be seen as less attractive than that. As I said, the moratorium on fracking was a 2019 manifesto commitment. The problem is that there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State taking unilateral action to lift the moratorium without any oversight or scrutiny from the House or input from local communities.

Our energy policy should be decided by what is best to bring down energy bills, what is best for our energy security and environment and, of course, whether there is public consent. In all those cases, it is clear that fracking should not be on the table. Labour has been clear that we want a full, permanent ban on fracking, and we want it now. It is unlikely, but, if the Minister was able to commit to a ban, I am sure that he would make not just those present but a lot of his Back Benchers happy.

In the debate on bringing back fracking, it was difficult to work out what the then Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset—or, indeed, a number of other Ministers—meant when he said that the Government would allow fracking only if there was “local consent”. Lots of Government Back Benchers pressed him during that debate on what exactly that meant and it has come up on other occasions in the Chamber. Particularly worryingly, it almost seemed as though it was not really about asking people whether they consented; it was not a local referendum or actually going into a community and asking people if they support fracking. There was quite a lot of talk about compensation being offered, and it almost sounded as though the plan was to buy off local people, and perhaps the council that would issue planning permission, rather than speaking to individuals who would be affected. That would clearly be unacceptable. If we were going back to lifting the ban and allowing fracking—there are so many double negatives in this debate; we are going round in circles with all the U-turns—what does the Minister envisage asking for local consent to look like?

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution, I made the point that it cannot be the energy companies themselves holding the discussions with local people because, by their very nature, they will have a bias; it has to be an independent body or person going door to door collecting opinions from individuals one to one. In that way, I think a very clear opinion would be drawn. We almost know the end result, but that must be the way to do it.

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is the case, is it not? It seems like a futile exercise—I do not think there is any community in the country that actually wants fracking to happen—but the hon. Gentleman is quite right that the energy companies, which have a vested interest in fracking, cannot be in charge of such an exercise, because it would be skewed.

If fracking was treated in the same way as this Government have treated onshore wind, which is a genuinely popular and clean source of energy, a single local objection could be enough to sink proposals. It is very easy to stop onshore wind, although, as we know, the Government currently have a policy not to proceed with it anyway.

No matter how the Government try to bend the definition of local consent, the reality is that fracking is deeply unpopular. The Government’s own polling showed that only 17% of people support fracking, and I suspect that most of them do not want it in their backyard. I think there was a Conservative Minister in the Lords who talked about how fracking was not suitable for the south but suggested that it would be welcomed up in the “desolate” north. I suspect some of those 17% want fracking somewhere, but not where they live.

From the polling on other energy sources, 74% support new onshore wind, yet the Government are sticking with the ban on it. Some 75% oppose the Government’s banning solar panels on farmland, but, as I have said, the current Prime Minister still seems very negative on both of those proposals. My point is that this Government’s energy policy appears to be inherently biased towards fossil fuels. The Minister looked slightly shocked at that, but the Government have just issued 100 new oil and gas licences: if that is not bias towards fossil fuels, I do not know what is. Between a ban on onshore wind, lots of scepticism about solar, issuing licences for oil and gas exploration, and at one point trying to bring back fracking, I think it is very clear where the bias lies.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is this not also a sign that the Government are entirely behind the curve? When fracking was mooted a decade ago as a transition fuel, it might have been something that could be considered, because the legislation at the time was aiming only for 80% renewable energy by 2050. Since 2018, we have known that we need to get to 100%, so transition fuels are a complete nonsense. Does the hon. Lady agree?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I absolutely do agree. Fracking is certainly not greener and, as well as all the other reasons why we oppose it, it is not a cheaper source of energy, either.

The Minister for Climate, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, tried to gaslight the British public with his recent claim that fracking is green. He has also tried to say that oil and gas exploration in the North sea is green because the alternative is importing it, so we would have the extra costs of importing from elsewhere. Clearly, the green alternative is renewables. I would ask the Minister for Climate why, if he was right to say that fracking is a green option, it is opposed by so many of his colleagues, including the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), who was the President of COP26, and the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who is conducting the net zero review. Extracting fossil fuels will never be green, and I hope that the Minister who is here today will make that clear when he replies to the debate.

Right now, there is immense pressure at COP27 to secure genuinely ambitious agreements to leave fossil fuels in the ground for good. Sending a clear message about our commitment to net zero and the move away from fossil fuels is vital, but the Government have been sending out such mixed signals—as has been said, the Prime Minister was not even going to go to COP, and had to be dragged there. That sends a terrible message about our global leadership. If our climate commitments are called into question, how can we expect other people to step up to the plate? It is time to end any doubts about the UK’s commitment to climate action. Listening to communities and implementing a permanent ban on fracking, and bringing back onshore wind and solar, would be a good start.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

I hear the hon. Member; she has made her point and put it on the record. I am slightly adverse to the idea that we put into legislation every single thing that we are not going to do. We would be here an awfully long time to reassure everyone. I am not sure that that is a sustainable way for Parliament to proceed. The Prime Minister made it clear through the written ministerial statement to the House, and the sector and community generally have understood that the idea mooted in September is now dead and buried, and we will not go back there.

I turn to the important point regarding local consent, which a number of colleagues have made. There is little I can say about pockets of local consent in particular areas. With regard to the situation in North Shropshire, in response to which the hon. Member for North Shropshire partly brought forward this debate, the licence for fracking that would potentially impact the Market Drayton and Whitchurch area is an indicative licence. No work has been done and no application for work has been received. In the light of the announcement of the return to the 2019 position, it is difficult to envisage any situation in which that licence could be of any use. I reassure her that we are not expecting any activity in that area.

We all—and the Government certainly—recognise that community support is important. We generally want planning to be something that is done through and with local communities, not to them. Some sort of balance is always required. Obviously, there is a huge difference between a loft extension and the siting of a huge piece of critical national infrastructure. However, a good developer will and should always engage with the local community and listen to real concerns.

I have seen consultations in my area where concerns have been expressed but have not been listened to or reflected in the proposals, and no change has been made to anything that was promoted. That often drives the view of sham consultations, in which people are not being heard. We need to be wary of assuming a one-size-fits-all approach would work for local support. Difficult though it is to see how this would take off, we have left open the possibility that if an area—north, south, south-west, Scotland or Northern Ireland—found itself sitting on an easy and geologically stable opportunity to exploit shale gas and came to the Government with strong local consent, strong environmental data and a strong business and environmental case, the Government would consider it. That is very different from us setting an ambition and encouraging this industry around the country.

My constituency is home to the first two major substations, connecting the first two offshore wind farms in the southern North sea. As the local constituency MP, I watched as the scheme promoter came forward with a proposal for a substation, which I naively thought 10 years ago was a thing the size of a shipping container that hums behind a yew bush, but this thing is the size of Wembley stadium and its proposed location was on top of a hill, so the whole of Norfolk could see this huge piece of industrial development. I was not against hosting the substation in Mid Norfolk, but through decent consultation with the company, we ended up siting it in low-lying ground, out of sight, with minimal light and visual impact.

For our thanks, we have had another one; we now have two next to each other in Mid Norfolk. It is critical infrastructure, although if we were better connecting all the offshore wind farms, we could reduce the need for individual substations and cabling all across the Norfolk and Suffolk coast. The Minister for Climate is looking into that, because it would support the infrastructure for trading out of the southern North sea. I have seen at first hand that communities are often not properly consulted. As other hon. Members have said, without in any way opening up the risk of community benefit creating an opportunity for some sort of inappropriate payments to buy consent, I believe it is important that when a village is hosting two vast pieces of national infrastructure, it might get a park bench or some swings or something from the developer, which is making a huge amount of money.

There is a difficult balance to strike, but we all know good consent and good consultation when we see it. We know when a company is listening and when a community has been properly heard. I do not think that has been the case often enough and I am delighted to have the chance to put that on record.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Minister for giving way and engaging so much in the debate. There are question marks around where the Government are going with planning. I believe investment zones have been dropped, but I am not sure where we are on fast-tracking things, and bypassing planning permission and local consent. I will leave that for another day. What I want to ask him is this: I understand what he said about a hypothetical situation where fracking was proven to be safe, the local community wanted it and so on, but why is that not the case for onshore wind? If a local community would clearly benefit from onshore wind, why are they not allowed to have it?

[George Freeman]

I do not want to steal the thunder of my ministerial colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, who is looking at that issue right now. The pandemic and the war in Ukraine have revealed that we are exposed on a number of our food and agricultural supply chains. We need to get the balance right between covering far too much of our agricultural land and equally making sure that where communities can carry industrial sites, we have the right incentives in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

I am not sure it is a myth; it is a mixed bag. There are areas where solar has been deployed very effectively, with happy sheep grazing around it and very little reduction in the productive capacity of land. I do not want to stray beyond my brief—I am not the Minister with responsibility for energy—but equally there are in my part of the world, in the east of England, proposals for huge, industrial-scale solar on good productive farmland. In the spirit of the question from the hon. Member for Strangford, I think a lot of people are worried about those proposals.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I was asking about onshore wind, not the solar issue. With solar, there is the question of how the Government classify the best and most versatile—BMV—land. I totally agree with the hon. Member for Strangford that genuine BMV land should not be used for anything other than growing food, but I asked about onshore wind. Onshore wind does not always need to be put on farmland; there are lots of other potential sites.

[George Freeman]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point. In some ways, the two are linked, because there are plenty of examples of deployment of solar and wind onshore that do not undermine the productive capacity of land or the attractiveness of the area. Opinion polls show that if they are properly deployed in the right areas with the right consultation and consent, onshore measures can be popular. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Climate is considering whether there is more we can do to tackle this short-term energy crisis in a way that does not create a problem for us downstream.

I should wrap up; I have strayed beyond my core brief as the Minister for science, research and innovation. Let me close by giving all those watching this debate around the country clear reassurance that the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the Government, the Secretary of State and the Minister for Climate have taken us back to the position set out in our 2019 manifesto, of which I was proud: an effective moratorium on fracking. We have made it clear that Ministers are not looking to open up fracking to support the crisis in our energy sector. I hope that message goes forth, loud and clear around the country, to those who were understandably worried back in September. They no longer need worry about that at least.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

In 2021 alone, £24 billion of new investment was committed across low-carbon sectors in the UK. I share the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm for what that can do for the whole country, particularly the Humber area. We estimate that just over 69,000 green jobs have been supported in the UK since the launch of the 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution in November 2020, many of which are in former industrial heartlands. It is important that Members on both sides of the House send out the message that the whole House is united in believing that net zero is the right place to go and the UK is the right place to invest. I am sure that hon. Members will send that message across the world.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I sincerely thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for Climate for helping to depose the Prime Minister last week with their insistence on bringing back fracking. They may have technically won the vote but, given the response of their MPs, it is obvious that they lost the argument. Can the Minister now confirm that the Government’s anti-green agenda has exited Downing Street along with the outgoing Prime Minister? Will he commit to bringing back the ban on fracking?

[Graham Stuart]

Perhaps it is the nature of being in Opposition that means that people misrepresent things, but it is of course this party and this Government who have driven the net zero strategy and are greening our economy. [Interruption.] The Opposition may grumble and they may not like it, but we can see it in all the numbers. Just 14% of homes had an energy performance certificate rating of C or above when Labour left office; that figure is 46% today. Whether on energy efficiency, renewables or low-emission gas, we are the party that has solutions.

Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Today we have heard from colleagues across the House making clear their opposition to fracking. It was particularly powerful to hear from MPs from the Lancashire area, already affected by the seismic shocks of previous drilling, whose constituents live in fear of that happening again.

Fracking is dangerous and polluting, it will not provide energy security for this country and it is deeply unpopular. The Government finally seemed to get that in 2019 with their manifesto commitment to a fracking ban; as has been said, everyone on the Conservative side of the House stood on that manifesto and made that promise to their constituents. Yet it has taken only a matter of days for this new Administration to bring fracking back, not through a vote, a consultation or a debate in this House, but through a decision taken by the Secretary of State alone, who has not even turned up to hear the winding-up speeches, with no scrutiny and no accountability —[Interruption.] Oh, sorry; I did not see him there.

The Tories’ manifesto promised that the ban on fracking would remain in place unless evidence proved categorically that it was safe. However, the recent report from the British Geological Survey commissioned by the Government has offered no new evidence whatsoever to suggest the situation has changed. As the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) said, the geology has not changed—how could it?—and the science has not changed either. So what did the Secretary of State do when he could not find the evidence he wanted? He decided to change the rules on how big an earthquake can be and still be considered safe. I would laugh, but there is nothing funny about this.

Labour has been absolutely clear that we will always oppose fracking, whether in Opposition or in Government. I am proud that the Labour Government in Wales are keeping the ban.

Let us not forget that this reckless decision comes in the middle of a climate emergency. At COP26 this Government made a commitment on the world stage to prioritise the clean energy transition and end public support for the fossil fuel sector by the end of 2022. How is that going? One year on, they are not only bringing back fracking for gas, but issuing hundreds of new licences for fossil fuel extraction. No wonder the Prime Minister is trying to wriggle out of attending COP in Egypt next month.

Let us call this what it is—it is climate vandalism. The decisions of this Government are undermining our climate targets and trashing our reputation on the global stage. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) said, it is taking a wrecking ball to years of patient climate diplomacy. I am sure the COP26 President would have something to say about that.

The Minister for Climate, who is replying to this debate, may be willing to swallow his pride and claim that fracking is green in exchange for a seat down the far end of the Cabinet table, but on the Opposition side of the House we will be honest about fossil fuels. They are expensive, they are polluting our air and they are destroying our planet. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) made clear earlier, the only solution to the energy crisis is a green one.

Removing the ban on fracking shows that we cannot trust a Tory promise even if it was embedded in their manifesto, so how can we trust what is being said today about ensuring local consent? Let us be clear: the amendment does not say there will be a veto or explain how consent would be obtained. It is very weak on the detail and it does not promise a binding vote by this House on what that consent would look like.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, why do we even need to do this? We know that the Government’s own polling shows that only 17% of people support fracking, although I would imagine that a large proportion of those who would say, “Not in my backyard,” were quite happy for fracking to happen in—as I think a Lords Minister once called it—the “desolate” north.

I am sure the Government’s committing to a ban on fracking today, and committing to bringing forward their own Bill if they do not want Labour to seize control of the Order Paper, would come as a great relief to many of the Government’s own MPs.

Our message to colleagues on the opposite Benches is this. Fracking is not necessary, it is not wanted and it is not inevitable. I say to each of you on the Opposition Benches—on the opposite Benches, I should say—[Laughter.] That was forward thinking on my part. I say to you that you have a chance today to ensure the voices of your constituents are heard, and that our planet is protected. If you support our motion today, we will secure a binding vote on 29 November on a Bill to ban fracking, in the absence of any willingness from the Government to bring such a Bill forward. You will all have the opportunity to ban fracking before a single drill starts up in your constituencies. You know that that is what your constituents want you to do, and that there is no excuse for not doing it. Do the right thing, and support the Labour motion today.

Net Zero Strategy: High Court Ruling

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to provide a response to the High Court ruling that the net zero strategy is unlawful.

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

Over the past three decades, the UK has driven down emissions by more than 45%— the fastest reduction of any G7 country. We have one of the most ambitious carbon-reduction plans in the world, pledging to reduce emissions by at least 68% by 2030 and by 77% by 2035, compared with 1990 levels, before of course reaching net zero by 2050. Our track record speaks for itself: the UK overachieved against the first carbon budget and exceeded the second by nearly 14%. The latest projections show that we are on track to meet the third carbon budget as well.

In its judgment on the judicial review of the net zero strategy, the High Court found that Government had not complied with Climate Change Act 2008 in relation to some specific procedural issues and the level of analysis published as part of the 164-page net zero strategy. I stress that the judge has made no criticism about the substance of our plans to meet net zero, which are well on track. Indeed, even the claimants in the case described the net zero strategy as “laudable”. The independent Climate Change Committee described the net zero strategy as

“an ambitious and comprehensive strategy that marks a significant step forward for UK climate policy”

and as

“the world’s most comprehensive plan to reach Net Zero”.

We are now considering the implications of the Court judgment and deciding whether to appeal. As we do this, our focus will remain resolutely on supporting people in the face of globally high energy prices and on boosting our energy security. Our recent British energy security strategy—launched by the Prime Minister—which puts Great Britain at the leading edge of the global energy revolution, will deliver a more independent, more secure energy system and support consumers to manage their energy bills.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Let us be clear: we are here because the High Court has ruled that the Government’s net zero strategy is unlawful and is in breach of the Climate Change Act. The Climate Change Committee, which the Minister cites, said only a few weeks ago that the Government

“will not deliver Net Zero”

on current projections. Not only have the Government failed to set out the detail of how they will reach net zero, but Ministers cannot even do basic maths, because, as the High Court made clear, adding up the emissions cuts in the strategy will leave a 5% shortfall. How embarrassing that his Department must be dragged to court to hear what we have known for months—that the numbers simply do not stack up.

This week has made it clear why we have to act now. The country has suffered through a sweltering heatwave causing fires across the country and infrastructure failure. But at a crucial time, this Government are directionless and collapsing in on themselves. The High Court has ordered that a revised strategy must be presented by next March. That will be under a new Prime Minister. Yet the current candidates have made their views on net zero clear. One has spent two years in the Treasury blocking climate action that might have saved the Government this embarrassment; the other wants to scrap green levies.

So forgive me if I have little faith that the situation is set to improve—but it has to. We need to insulate millions of homes to slash emissions and bring down bills. We need a green sprint for renewable energy to wean ourselves off expensive fossil fuels. Labour will deliver that, and more, with our £28 billion climate investment pledge. That is what the public want and what the planet needs, so will the Government get their act together, meet their legal obligations, and finally deliver the green future that we need?

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Lady for that set of questions. Let me first stress that the net zero strategy—I have it here—is a very comprehensive document with pages and pages of annexes as well. It would be well worth all Members re-reading it today. It is a comprehensive plan for meeting our climate targets, outlining measures to move to a green and sustainable future. The Court found that we had not complied with the Climate Change Act only in relation to specific procedural issues and the level of analysis published as part of the strategy. The judge agreed that it did not need to contain measures with quantifiable effects to enable the full 100% emissions reductions required. [Interruption.] We are talking here about a strategy for the next 28 years. Inevitably, there will be some evolution in the strategy, and inevitably there will need to be some flexibility in a strategy with a 28-year timeframe.

The hon. Lady asked about the Conservative leadership candidates. In all the hustings that I have been to—and I think I have been to almost all of them—all the candidates made strong commitments to meet net zero, including at the hustings chaired by her near neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore).

When it comes to net zero and climate change, I am not going to take any lessons from Labour, which is the party that said in 1997:

“We see no economic case for…new nuclear power stations.”

That has set us back decades. There is a reason why 11 of our 12 power stations are coming off-stream before the end of this decade: the decisions, or non-decisions, by the last Labour Government, who increased our dependence on gas from 32% to 46% of our electricity generation—which could only have cheered Vladimir Putin. On energy efficiency, we inherited a position where 14% of properties in this country were rated A to C. We have increased that to 46%. When we took office, renewables made up only 7% of our electricity generation mix. That is now at 43%. So I am going to take no lessons from Labour. It is this Government who are taking the tough decisions, including on Sizewell yesterday, and moving forward on renewable energy and nuclear—not any of the Opposition parties.

New Pylons: East Anglia

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair as always, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on bringing the debate and extend my commiserations to him on the death of his mother.

When I found out that I was speaking for the Labour Front Bench in this debate and saw that the subject was posited as local opposition to renewable energy projects, the first word that came to mind was nimbyism. Such debates can be about people not wanting something that spoils their view, but it has been made very clear that the debate today is not about that.

In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex was quite right to point out that it does matter if there is an impact on people’s house prices or on the aesthetic appeal of living in the countryside. We should not dismiss those things lightly. He also spoke about food production and the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) spoke eloquently about the importance of regenerative farming. Ukraine affects this debate, as it affects so many things, both in our energy security and in our resilience, including the sort of crops that could be grown in East Anglia. We ought to be doing far more to support farming there.

The frustration that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex expressed with the current processes and the discussions that have taken place was clear, and he talked about the lack of national control. Does the Minister think that the process is accountable and transparent? Could it be improved? Do we need a longer-term, broader-ranging strategy from the National Grid?

There were calls for National Grid to publish costed offshore alternatives to East Anglia GREEN. I welcome the fact that a meeting took place yesterday. That sounds as if it was a productive step on the way to trying at least to put more options in front of East Anglian communities, and I welcome that.

We heard from the hon. Members for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) and for Bury St Edmunds that this was a case of putting the cart before the horse. It came across very genuinely that this is not about people trying to delay something by throwing in lots of obstacles, almost like “Wacky Races”, where lots of rocks are thrown in front of the vehicles so they will not reach the finish line. These are genuine concerns that are being raised.

The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds talked about the broader issue of energy resilience and critical national infrastructure. This is one local example of how we need to get it right but, as she says, we need more clarity on the issue nationally as well.

I was interested to hear the comments made by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), not least because, having served on the Environmental Audit Committee with him, I know that he is genuine in his commitment to environmental concerns. He said that there should be no hold-ups to rolling out offshore wind, and I entirely agree with him. There was a debate with the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) about whether the existing framework would permit alternative options to be considered. I will leave it to the Minister to go into who is right and what has been said about that, but that goes to the need for greater transparency in the process.

The hon. Member for South Suffolk also said that all East Anglian MPs support net zero. Having listened to some of the contributions to the Conservative leadership contest, I am not entirely sure whether the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch) would say the same, but that is a debate for another day. The hon. Member for South Suffolk said that the consultation was inadequate and did not cover the offshore options, which were buried in the small print. Again, I will leave it to the Minister to say whether he feels that the consultation was adequate. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) also said that the consultation was not adequate and warned about getting lawyers involved, which we would probably all want to avoid. I speak as a lawyer myself.

Let me conclude because it is important that the Minister has plenty of time to reply. The need to make the shift to low-carbon energy is real and urgent, and the push for 50 GW of offshore wind by 2030 is very much part of that. In recent weeks, the Government have been criticised by the Climate Change Committee for the inadequacy of their plans to reach net zero, although they are doing better on energy than on some other aspects, and only yesterday, Friends of the Earth successfully brought a court case against the Government, which will require them to rethink their net zero strategy.

I hope that there will be a revised strategy as a result of the court case and the criticisms of the Climate Change Committee, and that must include a big push to get the right low-carbon infrastructure in place. Opposition to onshore wind has been a disaster for efforts to ramp up renewable energy capacity in the UK, and it is now easier to build a road than to put up an onshore wind turbine in this country.

On this project, while I bow to the local MPs over the points that they want to put on the table, it appears to me that we need the strengthening cable to facilitate the landing and transportation of power from new wind farms. Undergrounding has been discussed, although I note that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex said that undergrounding would not work as well in practice as in theory. In Scotland, quite a bit of undergrounding has been done, but the hon. Gentleman was concerned that it would still have an impact on the Dedham Vale area of outstanding natural beauty. There was also discussion of whether alternative offshore routes are viable. I wait to hear from the Minister whether he thinks they really are an option.

I have a final question for the Minister: if there were additional costs associated with pursuing the offshore route, would they fall on customers through the transmission element of bills? I hope that that would not be the case. We all know the impact of rising energy prices, so will the Minister clarify whether, if a more costly option were deemed appropriate, for all the reasons the MPs here today have mentioned such as there being a problem with the cheaper option that is being posited, the Government would provide direct support to avoid that cost falling on customers through their bills?

[James Cartlidge]

To clarify, we are not saying that options with, for example, a higher theoretical up-front capital cost are necessarily more expensive over the long term. The key issue is the horizon over which we look. We feel that, based on National Grid’s own figures, if we had a co-ordinated grid, that would be much cheaper in the long term for constituents.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I pose this question to the Minister: if a different option were adopted that turned out to be more expensive, would that cost be passed to the customer? I am by no means in a position to judge which option is more expensive.

Let me conclude. There is no perfect solution, and I am pleased that discussions are taking place and that National Grid has met MPs. I hope that those discussions continue, but the ball is now in the Minister’s court for him to respond to the Members present for today’s debate.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

May I ask the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) to make his winding-up speech?

Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) on bringing the Bill forward and on securing a place in the ballot so that it stands a chance of becoming law. I also thank the hon. Members for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer), for Charnwood (Edward Argar) and for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) for their contributions. They all have very simple, one-word constituency names, which is quite a relief after the previous debate.

There was a common theme in all those speeches: customers want to do the right thing by the serving staff and other people who deserve tips—hairdressers, people in nail bars or whatever—but it is sometimes difficult to be sure that the money we give because we want to reward the person who served us will go to that person. This is very much a question of fairness and wanting to treat people right.

In the previous debate, we talked about how all employers would probably want to do the right thing by a member of staff whose child was born prematurely or was sick, but that they might not be in a position financially to do so. I think this is a slightly different situation, because there is not really an excuse for not passing tips on to staff, even if a hospitality business is struggling. We know there are pressures on them from business rates, the impact of covid closures and staff shortages. Speaking to people in the restaurant trade, another pressure is the cost of some of the basic ingredients and such things as fuel bills. We know that they are under pressure, but no matter what, that is not an excuse for holding on to tips that deserve to go to the people who are being tipped.

The issue affects so many people. About 2.5 million people work in the hospitality sector, representing more than 7% of the workforce. As we have heard, often they are younger people, and it tends to be an ethnically diverse workforce. Because of the turnover in the sector—in some ways it is a casual job, often on zero-hours contracts, and there is often illegal working as well, and there is a job to be done in trying to stamp that out—the workforce are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and not being able to assert their rights.

I pay tribute to Unite the union in particular. It is a difficult sector to organise in, because it is not like one big factory with a workforce who tend to be there long term, who all identify with each other and who are in the same place. It can be difficult to fight for people’s rights in this sector, but Unite has done a good job. There was a case recently where Pizza Express was found to be deducting 50% of card tips from its staff who were on minimum wage. That was reducing their incomes by about £2,000 a year. Thanks to Unite taking action, the policy was scrapped and the company has now returned to a more equitable system where front of house staff keep 70% of the tips they make. Anyone going to Pizza Express would not have been expecting that sort of practice to be going on, and it is good that that changed. It was reported that some workers cried in relief when the change was made, because having those tips makes the difference between them being able to get by and not.

I think it was the hon. Member for Kensington who talked about the national minimum wage, which was introduced by the Labour Government, and in 2009 we had to make it illegal for tips to contribute to the national minimum wage. That was the right thing to do, and I am proud that we did that when we were in government, just as I am proud that we introduced the national minimum wage to begin with. As we are all being consensual and working cross-party today, I will not dwell on how difficult it was to get the national minimum wage through. You were probably here at the time, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it was before I was elected. I gather that the debates went all through the night, people had to sleep in their offices and it was difficult, but I am glad that we have converted those on the Government Benches and they now accept it. I genuinely mean that. The fact that Conservatives are now boasting about support for the living wage shows that we won the argument, and I welcome their support for Labour policies. I hope that after the next election, they will be on this side of the House supporting everything that we do.

As I have said, so many people work in the hospitality and tourism sectors, and many of them are vulnerable to being exploited. The Resolution Foundation reported that in 2019, 52% of workers in the hospitality sector were low paid compared with 15% of all workers. The sectors are hard-hit by the pandemic, and tips can make a huge difference. It is disappointing, as with the previous Bill we considered today, that this issue has not been addressed as part of the employment Bill we were expecting from the Government, but that was shelved ahead of the Queen’s Speech. The hon. Member for Watford shelved his previous attempt to get a Bill on this issue through because he was expecting it to be covered in the employment Bill. There is so much that we could legislate for. The Government promised action in 2016, and again in 2018, and it was in the 2019 manifesto.

I remember that after my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who cannot be here today, was first elected in 2017, he had a Westminster Hall debate on this subject. It was he who first introduced me to the word “tronc”. Every time we were in the Tea Room, he seemed to want to talk to me about troncs. This debate has brought back memories. He did very well in coming near the top of the private Member’s Bills ballot a few years ago and wanted to introduce a Bill on tips, but he also wanted to introduce a Bill that would become law, because that does not happen often: I have been here 17 years and I have never managed to get a place in the ballot. When he spoke to the Department, it would not support his Bill, so he introduced something else that was very worthy but would not get much attention, because he wanted to do something the Government would support.

I think it was 2020 when my hon. Friend introduced his other Bill, so it is excellent that something has moved since then, and I am glad the Government have now managed to find a working arrangement with the hon. Member for Watford. He detailed some of the concerns that will have to be addressed in Committee, as did other hon. Members. There are some things still to be thrashed out, but I hope that Labour members of that Committee will be able to be part of a constructive working relationship and that we will get this Bill into law as soon as possible, so that the people on the receiving end of the tips can start to see the benefit.

Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be responding to this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for bringing the Bill forward—[Interruption.] I think the trick is to say it quite fast. I also thank all my hon. Friends who are here to support it. I was glad to see the Bill top the ballot and the hon. Member take up the work, building on that of the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who, as he outlined, has been pressing for this for a long time and who talked about his own experience with Isaac and Jessica. He spoke powerfully, as a number of Members have today, based on his own experience.

Parents should not have to be at work or worrying about work when their child is in this situation. We heard from the hon. Members for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), for Glasgow East, and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), as well as from my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) who spoke about Esme, who sounds delightful, about just what parents have to go through.

When I visited the neonatal intensive care unit at Southmead Hospital in Bristol, it was just heartbreaking to see those tiny little babies in the incubators. Sadly in quite a few cases those children will not ever be going home with their parents, and I cannot think of anything worse than having to sit there watching a child with a very short life, almost waiting for it to die. In many cases, the kids do get to go home and it is brilliant to hear how they are thriving. Madam Deputy Speaker, I was very glad to hear you talk about your own experience. I think you are excused for speaking from the Chair on this occasion.

In a civilised society, we have a duty of care to people who are at an incredibly traumatic time in their lives. As I said, it must be heart-wrenching to be in that situation. We have heard from Bliss, and we all pay tribute to the charities involved in campaigning for this Bill. They are there to support the parents of babies who are born prematurely or ill. As we have heard, one in seven babies born in the UK receives some level of neonatal care shortly after birth. Thankfully, many do return home with their families after just a few days of care, but around 50,000 spend more than a week in neonatal care every year.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said that some employers are very understanding, but others are not. In some cases, it is not that they do not want to be, it is just that as a small employer it can be difficult to financially support parents in that situation, but this Bill will put everybody on an even footing. The hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate talked about the ridiculous and impossible position that parents are put in when forced to choose between work and being with a child in hospital. He talked about his tiny son. When he said, “You just want to be there”, that is all it comes down to, and it is where parents should be. They should be able to put work completely out of their minds when in such a situation.

We have heard that some parents are put in an agonising position where they are forced back to work to cover their bills. That is particularly true for fathers and non-birthing partners who are entitled to just two weeks of paternity leave. It also affects mothers who run out of maternity leave if their babies end up having to have longer stays in hospital. Another issue is the after-care needed when families are at long last able to take their baby home—all these follow-up appointments and the checks on the babies’ health. It is worth mentioning that sometimes they will not be the first child or only child in the family. When my niece was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis at a few weeks old, my sister had to balance trying to make sure that she was absolutely their priority, with the two older children who were only toddlers and needed help and support, too. Trying to juggle all that is just so difficult. In some cases it can be a lifelong commitment if the child has disabilities or continuing conditions. Even without those logistics of having to be in hospital or attend appointments, it is about emotionally wanting to just focus on that one thing.



We have heard a spirit of cross-party consensus today. When we were in government, I was the Friday Whip, and I have been here on many Fridays when there has been endless tedious filibustering. That is such an utter waste of time, and it is very difficult to explain to constituents who really want us to support Bills. When I found myself on Bench duty today, I was quite surprised that the Whip told me that we were hoping to get through quite a few Bills, and that we would be supporting them and hoping to get them into Committee. That is exactly how we ought to be working together.

I do not want to get too party political, but I will say that it is disappointing, given that neonatal leave and pay was a manifesto commitment, that we are having to rely on a private Member’s Bill to get to this stage. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), says, “It’s faster; that’s why we’re doing it,” but the Government consulted on this issue in the previous Parliament, and they said in their official response that Ministers remained committed to a new entitlement. They committed to it again in the “Good Work Plan”, they committed to legislation in the 2019 manifesto, and they were due to address it in the employment Bill, which has twice been trailed and then dropped from the legislative programme. The shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), said when it was dropped that that was an extraordinary move.

We are where we are. I hope that we can get the Bill through very quickly. Labour very much supports it. As we set out in our new deal for working people, we will give families the right to flexible working and to paid family and carers leave, and provide workers with greater ability to enforce those rights. As I said, I am pleased to see the spirit of co-operation today. I urge the House to give the Bill its Second Reading, and I hope that we can get it through Committee and see it become law as quickly as possible.