Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Digital technologies are a 21st-century miracle. They bring us closer together and connect us to the world. Today it is difficult to remember a time without answers at our fingertips, or the ability to buy goods and services from across the globe in just a few clicks. Technology has hugely increased our choices of goods and services and how they are delivered to us. It allows us to work in entirely new ways when we are on the move or in far-flung places abroad.

Just as digital technologies have profoundly altered our lives, they have also transformed the UK economy. We now have more tech unicorns than any other country in Europe: indeed, we have more than France and Germany combined. Eight cities in the UK are home to at least one unicorn, and this success continues. Last year, our tech start-ups and scale-ups also attracted more investment than those of France and Germany combined, creating jobs and opportunities throughout the United Kingdom. It is clear that tech will be key to achieving the Prime Minister’s priority of driving economic growth across the UK. Our figures forecast that the digital sector could expand by an additional £41 billion by 2025. However, the UK’s continued tech success depends on markets that are fiercely competitive, where the best companies can thrive and create innovations that spur growth.

Over the last decade, the UK’s digital markets have developed at an exponential rate, but our competition framework has failed to keep up. Its last legislative overhaul took place nearly a quarter of a century ago, when the internet was in its infancy and smartphones had not yet been invented. Since then competition across the broader economy has declined, and in the tech sector a small number of firms exert immense control across strategically critical services with practices such as self-preferencing, restricting operability, and exclusivity requirements.

Competitive markets are, of course, the best way to provide the best outcomes for consumers, and Governments and regulators should step in only when we see market failure or excessive market power. The International Monetary Fund has found that market power in the tech industry increased significantly between 1995 and 2016, which included increases of more than 30% in mark-ups and more than 10% in concentration globally. The Competition and Markets Authority estimates that in 2021 alone, Google and Apple made excess profits of more than £4 billion in the UK. Apple and Google determine which apps are in the App Store, how they are ranked and how they are discovered. They often charge significant levels of commission, up to 30% of revenue, and require all transactions to be made through in-app systems—which, as we all know, means that at the end of the day, all charges, commissions and taxes are paid for by consumers.

Dominance of display ads for Facebook and Google cost UK consumers about £2.4 billion a year. Between 2009 and 2019, GAFAM—Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft—made more than 400 acquisitions without any regulatory intervention or referral through the voluntary mechanisms. This is why in recent years there has been an increasing acceptance of the need for new legislation that is fit for these dynamic and rapidly evolving markets. The Digital Competition Expert Panel, led by Harvard’s Professor Jason Furman, and the Digital Markets Taskforce have conducted independent assessments of how digital markets operate, noting that they have specific features which can allow them to tip in favour of one particular firm.

Colleagues on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), have called for more to be done to allow consumers to benefit from greater competition in these markets. However, there is also a growing consensus that in a market which functions well, competition must work hand in hand with consumer protections. People must know that they can spend their money with confidence, safe in the knowledge that they have the right information and support if something goes wrong. That is critical, because when consumers feel that they risk losing their hard-earned cash, they also risk losing trust in markets as a whole. The Bill seeks to achieve all these goals and unleash the full opportunities of digital markets for the UK, so that every part of the country can reap the rewards. All told, under these measures we expect consumers to benefit to the tune of almost £10 billion over the next 10 years.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognises this legislation’s significance to the UK economy and its importance to consumers, particularly during a cost of living crisis, which is why he announced the earlier introduction of the Bill in his autumn statement. I should remind the House, however, that the majority of the Bill’s measures have been thoroughly scrutinised and analysed by experts and businesses over a number of years. This included a consultation in 2021 and a careful consideration of the responses.

I will now speak to the Bill’s measures in greater depth. Part 1 sets up a new pro-competition regime for digital markets, which will be overseen and enforced by the Competition and Markets Authority’s Digital Markets Unit. This legislation gives the DMU the ability to tackle the causes and consequences of market power, ensuring that people and businesses large and small are treated fairly by the most powerful tech firms. By encouraging greater competition, this work will lead to lower prices for everyday online goods and services and give consumers more choice and control.

The measures in part 2 will refine the CMA’s competition enforcement work so that it is better targeted, faster and more effective, allowing the free market to operate more efficiently.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

My hon. Friend got through part 1 a bit quicker than I thought he would—I have a question relating to part 1. Clause 38 creates a final offer mechanism for dispute resolution. The news media industry has been waiting for this legislation for a long time but it is not expressly referenced in the Bill. Can he confirm that the news industry and other industries could benefit from this final offer mechanism?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I wish him the best of luck in the election this afternoon. It is for a very important Committee that will scrutinise this legislation. The final offer mechanism is innovative and represents a positive way forward, in that it will bring parties to the table and they will both have to make sensible offers relating to how they see a fair resolution. This will avoid them putting unrealistic claims on the table, and it could well help the news industry and many other sectors.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), I was concerned that the Minister might be moving on from part 1 a fraction early. This is a welcome Bill that will do an enormous amount of good, and it has allowed me to tick off a large number of the recommendations that I made in my report, which he referenced earlier. The concern about the Digital Markets Unit’s powers is not that they are not good enough; it is that they might over time add more and more of a regulatory burden as ex ante powers build up over the years. Does he have thoughts on how he can ensure that, after those ex ante powers have been in place for a couple of years as regulations, the CMA can analyse whether they could perhaps be replaced by pro-market reforms?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his engagement on this. We have discussed this at length many times, both in my role as a Minister and in my previous role as a Back Bencher, when we looked at the best form of regulation. I think we both agree that ex post regulation is preferable to ex ante regulation, as is a pro-competitive environment, as I said earlier. We should step in only when there is market failure. Of course we should look at the powers and ensure that they are being used wisely, and I have confidence that the CMA will do that. There are a number of checks and balances on the CMA and the DMU, not least through the competition appeal tribunal and the courts, which ensure that decisions are valid and worthwhile, but we should also have a good debate on how we scrutinise the DMU and CMA generally. Obviously they report to Parliament every year, and the Select Committee work is also important. I think that my hon. Friend and I would agree that the best way to regulate markets is through competitive environments, and that is what we should always favour in this discussion.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

I echo the comments of my colleagues who have welcomed the Bill. The Minister will know that the DMU will be regulating a highly specialised area and that detailed knowledge of the sector will be critically important. Can he assure me that the DMU will have sufficient powers to recruit people who really understand the sector? Will it be able to pay accordingly in order to recruit those people, and not be bound by civil service contracts and pay bands that might limit its ability to recruit very experienced people?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The tech industry is clearly very powerful in terms of its resources and its ability to recruit the best people. My experience of the CMA is that there are good people within it, and I expect that to be reflected in the DMU as well. People who have been connected to the CMA, including former chairs, have spoken highly of its abilities, but my hon. Friend makes the important point that we need to have the best people so that we can hold those powerful entities to account.

The legislation will be delivered through making market inquiries more efficient, focused and proportionate, updating the merger regime and amending existing legislation concerning anti-competitive conduct and abuse of a dominant position. The measures in parts 3 and 4 make important updates and improvements to consumer law. The UK is currently the only G7 country without civil penalties for common breaches of consumer protection such as unfair trading. Part 3 creates a new model that will allow the CMA to act faster, tackle more cases and protect consumers’ interests while creating a level playing field for businesses.

Part 4 tackles the subscription traps that cost consumers £1.6 billion a year. We expect there to be a £400 million saving for consumers as a result of the measures we have proposed. I am sure that many Members know constituents—

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

rose—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think I am going to hear about one in a moment. Many Members will know constituents who have received shock charges for a subscription or faced difficulties when trying to cancel one. The Bill contains new rights to subscription reminders and easier cancellations, so that those who want out can get out.

[Craig Whittaker]

The Minister is not going to hear about a constituent, but I would like to point out that charities’ lotteries, which are great fundraisers for great causes that put so much back into all our communities, are already heavily regulated by the Gambling Commission. Will my hon. Friend look at schedule 19 to see whether subscription-based charity lotteries can be excluded?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is an interesting point and I would be happy to look at the matter in detail. It is not something that I have considered thus far but perhaps we can have a discussion about it at a later stage. We will certainly pick it up if we can and make sure that it does not cut us across anything that my hon. Friend is concerned about.

This legislation includes other measures to help consumers to keep more of their hard-earned cash, including a power to add to the list of banned practices. We intend to use this power first to tackle the wild west of fake reviews, which can dupe customers into buying shoddy goods and services. There are also new protections for consumer prepayments to consumer saving schemes, so that devastating cases such as the collapse of the Farepak Christmas savings club, which left vulnerable consumers out of pocket, can never be repeated. Together, these measures deliver on our manifesto commitment to tackle consumer rip-offs and bad business practices, demonstrating that this is a Government who back consumers.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I recognise that the Bill would introduce enhanced competition and protect significant areas of consumer policy, but it would also extend the powers of the CMA significantly. May I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the regulatory reform group that my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) and other hon. and right hon. Members have sat on, which is seeking a cultural change among regulators to ensure that they have an interest in the wider industry as well as in consumers? For business and industry to be sustainable, the CMA must be able to respond in a proactive, business-friendly way.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend makes a strong point, and it is one reason why we are reviewing the economic regulators. The work has been ongoing for 18 months, and we are due to produce our thoughts this spring. It is important that regulators focus on consumer outcomes and, as others have said, a more competitive environment produces the best outcomes, so he is right to draw attention to that issue.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Briefly, what will be the direct impact of the Bill on the cost to the state and to business?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The annual cost to business is £178 million, which we must consider carefully when we bring forward new regulatory burdens, but most people will think that the measures are needed because there is a huge consumer benefit of roughly £1 billion a year over 10 years, so it is important that we strike that balance. I am not aware that the cost to the state has been calculated, but my right hon. Friend and I are probably most concerned about the cost to business.

[John Penrose]

I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way again.

The Minister’s response to the question about regulatory burden mentioned the welcome, necessary and important review of economic regulators. However, he will understand that enormous regulatory burden is created by other regulators. There are only eight economic regulators, but there are dozens of other regulators, many of which create vastly more regulatory burden than the economic regulators, although the economic regulators are not exempt. What plans does he have to address those regulatory burdens, which are much broader and cover much more of the economy?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and it is why only a few days ago we published a framework for better regulation to look at these things in the round and to make sure we have regulators that serve the public, rather than the interests of the regulator. We do not want to see regulatory creep for any purpose other than consumer benefit, and he and I will continue to have significant dialogue on those issues.

Some Members will argue that we should legislate more like the EU’s Digital Markets Act, by using this Bill to create sweeping, one-size-fits-all measures. However, our Brexit freedoms mean we can draft legislation that drives innovation without placing blanket obligations on firms or creating unnecessary regulatory burdens. Some will respond to the Bill by saying that we should go harder against big tech, but I remind them that the Bill’s primary purpose is to reduce economic harms, to boost competition, to create a fair and level playing field, and to give consumers greater choice and better prices.

We need to act, but we must act proportionally because tech firms make a valuable contribution to the economy and our lives. Big does not equal bad. A war on tech will not create growth. It has already been argued in this debate that the CMA has enough power, and my response is that technology is changing rapidly and our watchdogs need to be equipped to fully support businesses and consumers in this competitive world.

I look forward to engaging with colleagues as the Bill makes its way through the House, and I hope Members will give it their backing so that the Government can continue our work of protecting consumers, increasing competition in all markets and growing the UK economy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Thomson]

The right hon. Member is absolutely right that it is not easy, but that does not mean it is something that we should avoid trying to tackle, or that we should not try to come up with a way of improving the competitive environment. I am certainly more than happy to engage on an open and constructive basis with anyone about how we might do so.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Gentleman therefore support our approach, which is to consult in parallel with the passage of the Bill through both Houses about things like drip pricing and fake reviews, so that we can have that open dialogue and make sure that we get the answers right, including to the questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood)?

[Richard Thomson]

I thank the Minister for his intervention. Indeed, I would be quite happy to see what comes back from that consultation, because there are areas of real concern. If we can find consensus on how those matters can best be tackled—we might not be able to please everybody, but we can address them as best we can—that would be a welcome step forward.

In closing, the Bill is important for growth and competition, but also for consumer protection. The exchange that we collectively had just now on those matters was encouraging, and I would certainly like that spirit to continue in Committee. I do not think I have ever managed to successfully get something passed in Committee; I look forward to that changing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

I enjoyed the Minister’s opening gambit about how much the internet has changed our lives over many years. He is right, but the House has now been regulating the internet and its effects for many years as well, and this is in some ways a long-overdue Bill. When I was the Minister, my great fear was that Back Benchers would treat it like a Christmas tree and try to add many great ideas of their own. Now that I am on the Back Benches, that is precisely the approach that I intend to take.

I hope that the Minister—and you, Mr Deputy Speaker—will indulge me on a few issues that are somewhat in the weeds of the Bill as well as on two broader points. This is fundamentally a welcome Bill. It is hugely consequential in the effects that it will have on the digital landscape and Britain’s ability to regulate in a new and different, fundamentally pro-competition way in an age that will be affected by markets that operate very differently online from those that we have been used to regulating.

There are a couple of relatively small issues. First, on subscription traps, we have heard a little from other hon. Members about auto-renewal. I think that it should simply not be the default. That is worth looking at. The Minister may take the view that it is for the CMA or the DMU to look at that rather than for the Government to take a view, but that fundamentally could protect consumers.

Secondly, the Minister has made really welcome moves on protecting consumers from online scams. Such scams operate fundamentally differently from the scams of the past, so his new approach is welcome. There is, however, a key interaction in scams and unsafe goods. People who knowingly sell unsafe goods online are surely, by some definition, scammers, yet the Bill does not appear to do quite the whole job. He may be able to offer reassurance on that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend raised a fair point. A fair and level playing field is important for our wider economy and opportunity. Alongside the Bill, we are keen to bring forward the product safety review, which looks at online marketplaces and how they sell and distribute products compared with our normal high-street locations, which have far more stringent product safety requirements. So a body of work is going on alongside this one.

[Matt Warman]

I welcome that. The Minister will know that that body of work has been going on in parallel with this one for some time. It is welcome, and I hope that its results will be presented relatively quickly.

The new judicial review standards for CMA and DMU decisions have been welcomed by the Coalition for App Fairness, which is a good and credible group. But, simultaneously, this is a big shift and we need to be confident that it will genuinely protect both larger operators in the right way and smaller operators. I think we will hear more about that from hon. Members in this place as well as in the House of Lords.

I have two larger points. First, it is DMU mission creep, which we heard about briefly from my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), that we should fundamentally be most nervous about. It was certainly my concern a little while ago that the Bill gives the regulator the flexibility it needs to deal with the modern world in the right way. That is absolutely the right approach and I am pleased that it has persisted, but it is important that it is appropriately regulated—if I can use that word about a regulator—so that it does not end up potentially going further than any Minister or Government might wish. It is important that the CMA and the DMU operate in the way that this House intends, with all the independence that this House also intends.

My final broader point is that the Bill does some excellent work on interoperability of software. What it does not do, at least on the face of the Bill, is consider that interoperable software is fundamentally linked to interoperable harm. If I can try to turn that into real terms, it is obviously great that operators such as Apple are able to build their own superb and unique ecosystems. The same goes for Android and so on—there are other equivalent versions. What would be useful to try to guard against, probably via the DMU rather than directly via Government, is the current situation whereby, to take one example, the way we use iMessage or video calls is fundamentally limited if we seek to do it on a different platform. We have all seen the different blue and green bubbles on Apple iMessage. That is partly because of the interoperability of hardware and software. I am somewhat conflicted about whether that should be a point of differentiation for Apple, Android, WhatsApp or other operators, or whether we see it as part of a problem within emerging monopolies. I therefore suggest it is exactly the sort of thing that an independent regulator might wish to take a view on.

We heard, furthermore, about the metaverse. What we do not want, surely, is a series of emerging and conflicting metaverses—if that were to be the case—that fundamentally embed monopolistic behaviour, because they will be some of the largest economies of the future. Again, it is potentially hugely beneficial to have a unique and brilliant metaverse under the personal command of Mark Zuckerberg and one under the personal command of Tim Cook, as a competitor. However, a regulator may take a different view and it is important that we think through these emerging opportunities. The Bill is a place where we may start some of that work. It is right that it seeks to be future-proofed against some of those interesting challenges, but at the moment there are a small number of potential opportunities that the Minister may yet seek to seize—shall we put it like that?—rather than allow them to pass by and have to address them later on.

Fundamentally, I welcome the Bill. It already embodies some huge opportunities to make real progress and there are some more that we may be able to take forward. I look forward to supporting its passage through the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I certainly do not ask for any bragging rights. May I thank the hon. Lady for the work she does on the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse? On the case she refers to, she is right to say that it is three years since the conviction took place, but the confiscation order, which was for £6.1 million, took place only in December last year. Does she think that sends a strong message to the cohort of people she refers to that there are strict and strong penalties for people who engage in that kind of activity?

[Mrs Hodgson]

We would all like to think that it would with right-minded people, but I do not think professional touts think like the Minister or any of us in this House, so they probably have not seen it as a deterrent. From what I am hearing from the experts I work with, it is still going on—it is business as usual for the touts. We really need more enforcement in this area. More laws are good, but laws without enforcement just do not work.

The UK is rightly proud of its live event industry, but do the Government really know what the consumer experience often is? I would be interested to learn which experts, campaigners or live music representatives the Government worked with or consulted when they rejected the CMA’s advice so firmly. I have written to the Minister to ask him that, so he can respond in writing if he does not have that information to hand or in his memory from those meetings.

The Minister rejected the advice on this area, saying that resale sites like Viagogo may

“still provide a service of value to some consumers”.

The many tens of thousands of victims of Viagogo may disagree. That misses the point entirely. Resale sites allow touts to commit fraud every single day and permit them to charge inexplicably high prices for such tickets. Illegal activity is happening on those sites right now, as we sit here discussing the issue. Such sites are profiting from that, and the CMA has no power to do anything about it, which is why the Bill needs additional measures. I hope the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will take a different approach to its forerunner Department, because the Bill is a perfect and timely opportunity to rectify the situation.

If, as the Minister has said, broader changes to consumer law are the priority, I look forward to learning what changes to the proposed legislation his Government will allow. At present, despite the enhanced consumer protection in the Bill, which he spoke of in his opening remarks, it will not be able to tackle all the problems in the online secondary ticketing market, as the enforcement is just not there. Speak to any National Trading Standards officer: they want to go after the touts, but their budget of circa £16 million is for everything they need to do and is not sufficient. I am sure they could spend that on enforcement against illegal ticket touting alone.

The Bill looks to provide the CMA with stronger tools to investigate competition problems and take faster, more effective action, including where companies collude to bump up prices at the expense of UK consumers. Is that not exactly the case in the secondary ticketing market, where sites like Viagogo allow individuals, as well as themselves, to profiteer from a manner of resale that contradicts legislation? As part of the Bill, will the Government take the necessary steps to make sure that laws, including those in the Bill, are upheld and enforced properly?

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on this matter. Our cross-party group, the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse, would be delighted to work with him and his Department to strengthen the legislation and to protect consumers from the abomination of ticket abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

Many of the regulators will be under the remit of the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). Indeed, that is something that I did—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

indicated assent.

[Paul Scully]

I just heard the verbal nod from him to say that he continues to do that.

I will come to the CMA in a second. In answer to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West, whom I congratulate for the APPG’s work, the CMA is continuing to monitor the online secondary ticketing market, including the issues that have been reported about refunds and cancellations as a result of the pandemic. The Government welcome the CMA’s report, but we believe that we have the measures in place to ensure that consumers have the information that they need to make informed decisions on ticket resales. The Bill will give the CMA significant new civil powers to tackle bad businesses ripping off consumers, so we do not see the need for additional regulatory powers. However, I agree with her that enforcing the existing regulations is key. I thank her for her work in this area.

I will briefly cover some of the other issues. On judicial review, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, we have heard that the entire purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we tackle an area where a small number of companies have dominance in many parts of our lives. That is not necessarily a bad thing, so this is not an attack on big tech. None the less, some of the challenger firms mentioned by the hon. Member for Pontypridd, although they may be household names, are rightly scared because of the relationship they have with big tech. We must get the balance right by ensuring that there can be an appeal on judicial review standards, but it must not be something that a company with deep pockets can extend and extend. Because the harms happen so quickly in a tech business, the remediation needs to take place as quickly as possible.

Contingencies Fund Advance: Companies House

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill will reform the operations of Companies House by setting out new objectives for the Registrar of Companies, including additional powers to query and amend the register where it is suspected that there is fraud or error, as well as scope to proactively share intelligence on criminal activity across Government to combat economic crime. These provisions will help Companies House do more to tackle criminals, terrorists, and corruption, strengthening the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business can thrive, while driving dirty money out of the country.

The legislation enables further investigation and enforcement activity to be undertaken against corporate entities. In readiness for this responsibility we propose to ensure Companies House has the right staff and systems in place to deliver the Registrar’s new powers.

Parliamentary approval for additional resource of £425,000 and capital of £37,000 for this new service will be sought in a main estimate for the Department for Business and Trade. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £462,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

[HCWS773]

Artificial Intelligence and the Labour Market

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I am grateful to be called, Dame Maria, and it is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on bringing this timely subject forward. I thought it would be appropriate to type his question into ChatGPT. I put in, “What is the potential impact of AI on the labour market?” It said, “AI has the potential to transform many aspects of the economy and society for the better. It also raises concerns about job displacement and the future of work.” That is it in a nutshell. It did not say that it was time for a Labour Government.

[Justin Madders]

Did the AI tell the Minister that the Conservative Government have got everything right?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I have not actually posed that question, but perhaps I could later.

This is an important debate, and it is important that we look at the issue strategically. The Government and the Labour party probably have different approaches: the Labour party’s natural position on this kind of stuff is to regulate everything as much as possible, whereas we believe that free markets have had a tremendous effect on people’s lives right across the planet. Whether we look at education, tackling poverty or child mortality, many of the benefits in our society over the last 100 years have been delivered through the free market.

Our natural inclination is to support innovation but to be careful about its introduction and to look to mitigate any of its damaging effects, and that is what is set out in the national AI strategy. As we have seen, it has AI potential to become one of the most significant innovations in history—a technology like the steam engine, electricity or the internet. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said exactly that: this is like a new industrial revolution, and I think it is a very exciting opportunity for the future. However, we also have key concerns, which have been highlighted by hon. Members today. Although the Government believe in the growth potential of these technologies, we also want to be clear that growth cannot come at the expense of the rights and protections of working people.

Only now, as the technology rapidly improves, are most of us beginning to understand the transformative potential of AI. However, the technology is already delivering fantastic social and economic benefits for real people. The UK’s tech sector is home to a third of Europe’s AI companies, and the UK AI sector is worth more than £15.6 billion. The UK is third in the world for AI investment, behind the US and China, and attracts twice as much venture capital investment as France and Germany combined. As impressive as they are, those statistics should be put into the context of the sector’s growth potential. Recent research predicts that the use of AI by UK businesses will more than double in the next 20 years, with more than 1.3 million UK businesses using AI by 2040.

The Government have been supporting the ethical adoption of AI technologies, with more than £2.5 billion of investment since 2015. We recently announced £100 million for the Foundation Models Taskforce to help build and adopt the next generation of safe AI, £110 million for our AI tech missions fund and £900 million to establish new supercomputer capabilities. These exascale computers were mentioned in the Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. These developments have incredible potential to bring forward new forms of clean energy, and indeed new materials that can deliver that clean energy, and to accelerate things such as medical treatment. There are exciting opportunities ahead.

If we want to become an AI superpower, it is crucial that we do all we can to create the right environment to harness the benefits of AI and remain at the forefront of technological developments. Our approach, laid out in the AI White Paper, is designed to be flexible. We are ensuring that we have a proportionate, pro-innovation regulatory regime for AI in the UK, which will build on the existing expertise of our world-leading sectoral regulators.

Our regulatory regime will function by articulating five key principles, which are absolutely key to this debate and tackle many of the points that have been made by hon. Members across the Chamber. Regulators should follow these five principles when regulating AI in their sectors: safety, security and robustness; transparency and explainability; fairness; accountability and governance; and contestability and redress. That feeds into the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who held this ministerial position immediately prior to myself, about deception, scams and fraud. We can all see the potential for that, of course.

Clearly, right across the piece, we have regulators with responsibility in those five areas. Those regulators are there to regulate bona fide companies, which should do the right thing, although we have to make sure that they do. For instance, if somebody held a database with inappropriate data on it, the Information Commissioner’s Office could easily look at that, and it has significant financial penalties at its disposal, such as 4% of global turnover or a £17 million fine. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford made a plea for a Turing clause, which I am, of course, very happy to look at. I think he was referring to organisations that might not be bona fide, and might actually be looking to undertake nefarious activities in this area. I do not think we can regulate those people very effectively, because they are not going to comply with anybody’s regulations. The only way to deal with those people is to find them, catch them, prosecute them and lock them up.

[Damian Collins]

The Minister talks about safety, but does he agree that that has to be safety by design, and not just having response mechanisms built into the system so that a victim can appeal? I know he has looked at fraud a lot in the past, and there is a presumption that all will be done to combat fraud at its known source, rather than just providing redress to victims.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is absolutely right. We will not deal with everything in the world of AI in this respect, but there needs to be overarching responsibility for preventing fraud. That is something we have committed to bringing forward in another legislative vehicle—the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which is passing through Parliament now—but I agree with my hon. Friend that there should be a responsibility on organisations to prevent fraud and not simply deal with the after-effects.

Our proposed framework is aligned with and supplemented by a variety of tools for trustworthy AI, such as assurance techniques, voluntary guidance and technical standards. The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation published its AI assurance road map in December 2021, and the AI Standards Hub—a world-leading collaboration led by the Alan Turing Institute with the National Physical Laboratory and the British Standards Institution—launched last October. The hub is intended to provide a co-ordinated contribution to standards development on issues such as transparency, security and uncertainty, with a view to helping organisations to demonstrate that AI is used safely and responsibly.

We are taking action to ensure that households, public services and businesses can trust this technology. Unless we build public trust, we will miss out on many of the benefits on offer. The reality is that AI, as with other general-purpose technologies, has the potential to be a net creator of jobs. I fully understand the points raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead—of course, we do not want to see swathes of people put out of work because of this technology. I hasten to add that that has never been the case with other technologies. There have been many concerns over the ages about how new technologies will affect jobs, but they tend to create other jobs in different sectors. The World Economic Forum estimates that robotics, automation and artificial intelligence will displace 85 million jobs globally by 2025, but create 97 million new jobs in different sectors, which I will discuss in a second. I think the hon. Member for Birkenhead asked in his speech whether I would be willing to meet him to discuss these points; I am always very happy to do that, if we can convene at another time.

The hon. Member also raised the point about how AI in the workplace has the potential to liberate the workforce from monotonous tasks such as inputting data or scanning through documents for a single piece of information. I will address the bigger concerns he has around that, but in the public sector it would leave teachers with more time to teach, clinicians with more time to spend with patients and police officers with more time on the beat, rather than being behind a desk.

As was raised in a salient point by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, AI also has tremendous potential in defence and national security. That is absolutely critical. It was interesting that leading people in the world of technology, led by Elon Musk, recently wrote a letter asking for a six-month pause while we look at how we can properly moderate the impacts of AI. I am not sure that that is a good idea, because I am not sure China and Russia would play that game. It is important that we stay ahead of the curve, for exactly the reasons pointed out by my hon. Friend.

[Damian Collins]

The Minister is exactly right. That initiative also suggests that AI is not yet here but, actually, the issues we have discussed today exist already. We can look at them already; we do not need a six-month pause to do that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is absolutely right. There is an opportunity but also a potential threat. It is important that we continue to invest, and it is great that the UK is ahead of the game in its investment, behind only the US and China, which are obviously much bigger economies.

The key thing is that we take action on skills, skilling up our workforce in the UK to take advantage of the potential of AI. Clearly, a good computing education is at the heart of that. We have overhauled the outdated information and communications technology curriculum and replaced it with computing, and invested £84 million in the National Centre for Computing Education to inspire the next generation of computer scientists. Our national skills fund offers to do just that, with free level 3 qualifications for adults and skills bootcamps in digital courses, including coding, AI and cyber-security, available across England.

On that point, as well as the opportunities in AI, we need to look at the new opportunities in the new economy. Some jobs will be displaced, so we need to ensure that we are skilling up our workforce for other opportunities in our new economy, be it data science or green jobs with the green jobs taskforce. Recently, in Hull, there were 3,000 new jobs in the wind turbine sector with a starting salary of £32,000, which illustrates the potential for green jobs in our economy. So although jobs might be displaced, others, hopefully better-paid jobs will replace them. We want a higher-wage, higher-skilled economy.

The Government are also supporting 16 centres for doctoral training, backed by an initial £100 million, delivering 1,000 PhDs. We expanded that programme with a further £117 million at the recent launch of the Government’s science and technology framework. Last year, we invested an additional £17 million in AI and data science postgraduate conversion courses and scholarships to increase the diversity of the tech workforce, on top of the £13 million that has been invested in the programme since 2019-20. We also invested £46 million to support the Turing AI fellowships to attract the best and brightest AI talent to work in the UK.

The point about protections for workers’ rights was raised by many Members in the debate, not least the hon. Members for Gordon (Richard Thomson) and for Birkenhead; the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders); and my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe and for Watford. It is important to see the Government’s position on workers’ rights here. We are bolstering workers’ rights, raising the national living wage, with the highest increase on record—a near 10% increase—and six private Members’ Bills that increase workers’ rights, including on flexible working and other issues. There is also the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill, which is the favourite Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, who was its sponsor prior to becoming the Minister.

On the concerns many raised about workplace monitoring, we are committed to protecting workers. A number of laws are already in place that apply to the use of AI and data-driven technology in the workplace, including in decision making, which was raised by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. The Equality Act 2010 already requires employers and service providers not to discriminate against employees, job applicants and customers. That includes discrimination through actions taken as a result of an algorithm or a similar artificial intelligence mechanism. Tackling discrimination in AI is a major strand of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s three-year strategy. Existing data protection legislation protects workers where personal data is involved, and that is one aspect of existing regulation on the development of AI systems and other technologies.

Reforms as part of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill will cast article 22 of the UK GDPR as a right to specific safeguards, rather than as a general prohibition on solely automated decision making. These rights ensure that data subjects are informed about, and can seek human review of, significant decisions that are taken about them solely through automated means, which was a point raised by the shadow Minister. Employment law also offers protections. The Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that employees with two years of continuous service are protected from unfair dismissal, which would encompass circumstances where employees’ article 8 and UK GDPR rights have been breached in the algorithm decision-making process that led to the dismissal.

Of course, all good employers—by their very nature—should use human judgment. The best way we can help employers in any workplace is to have a strong jobs market where employers have to compete for employees. That is the kind of market we have delivered in this economy, despite some of the difficulties that surround it.

I once again thank the hon. Member for Birkenhead for tabling this timely and important debate. To be clear again, we have a strong ambition for the UK to become a science and technology superpower, and AI is a key part of that. However, the Government recognise the concerns around these technologies and appreciate that, as with all new technologies, trust has to be built. We will continue to build our understanding of how the employment rights framework operates in an era of increasing AI use. AI has the potential to make an incredibly positive contribution to creating a high-wage, high-skill and high-productivity economy. I very much look forward to seeing the further benefits as matters progress.

Post Office Horizon Compensation

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

On 23 March my Department launched its compensation scheme which aims to ensure that postmasters affected by the Post Office Horizon scandal who were part of the “GLO” High Court case get compensation on a similar basis to other postmasters.

To ensure that postmasters get fair, consistent and rapid compensation, the GLO Compensation Scheme Guidance and Principles document identifies the characteristics of moderate, serious and severe losses in some categories of compensation, including reputational damage and stigma, and gives figures indicating the likely range of awards. In the light of media comments on those figures I asked the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board to consider the matter. The group includes the right hon. Member for North Durham (Kevan Jones) and Lord Arbuthnot as well as two senior academics.

A report of the Board’s discussion is now available on the Department’s website. It recommends that the GLO Compensation Scheme’s guidance and principles should be amended to make it clear that:

The bands are not limits but indicative guidance to claimants, their lawyers and the Independent Panel.

Each case will be decided on its merits.

The GLO Compensation Scheme expects to find some cases where the facts of the case demand awards significantly higher than the upper figure for the top band.

If a claimant’s compensation cannot be agreed through the Alternative Dispute Resolution process, they have the right to have it considered by the Independent Panel including a KC and other experts.

As for other aspects of compensation, where the guidance and principles set out bands, decisions will be taken by DBT and the Independent Panel based on the facts of each case looked at “in the round” and guided by considerations of fairness.

I am happy to accept these recommendations. My Department will publish a revised version of the guidance and principles in due course.

[HCWS742]

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

Today, the Government are introducing the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill. The Bill will drive growth, innovation and productivity, ensuring that businesses and consumers in the UK reap the benefits of competitive markets. The Bill will:

boost innovation by increasing competition in digital markets, taking action against a small number of the most powerful tech companies that force businesses and consumers to sign up to unfair terms and pay inflated prices;

grow the economy by enhancing our wider competition regime to focus it on the areas of greatest harm, delivering a level playing field for businesses; and

protect consumers by strengthening the enforcement of consumer protection law and introducing new consumer rights, for example tackling subscription traps that currently set consumers back £1.6 billion a year.

Digital technologies have transformed the way we buy products and services, increasing accessibility, flexibility and choice, but we need to act now to address their potential for consumer harm. For instance, companies can make it unreasonably difficult for consumers to cancel a subscription, or inhibit choice by artificially ranking their own products higher in search results.

The Bill will give consumers greater choice and drive innovation, leading to new products that transform lives. It will also establish new, faster tools to address the unique barriers to competition in digital markets, allowing the Competition and Markets Authority to proactively drive more dynamic markets and prevent harmful practices such as making it difficult to switch between operating systems.

We are using the freedoms we have gained by leaving the EU to address these issues in a way that best works for the UK. We can now make our own decisions on how we maintain a proportionate system of regulation that drives innovation and protects consumers. Our new pro-competition regime, focused on the most powerful tech companies, is flexible and principles-based rather than following the EU Digital Markets Act’s blanket set of obligations on all “gatekeepers”, which risks creating unnecessary regulatory burdens for firms. Our more targeted and pro-innovation approach involves investigating specific harms, developing tailored obligations and taking more evidence-based regulatory decisions—informed by significant engagement with the firms themselves. We are also taking a power to ban unfair commercial practices, such as fake reviews, and are strengthening oversight of alternative dispute resolution services that would have been more constrained while in the EU.

The Bill will also support consumers through new and improved rights to deal with bad business practices such as subscription traps. This includes better information up front as well as easier exiting and earlier cancellation rights. These and other new measures will save consumers’ hard-earned cash and protect them from scams and rip-offs. We expect the Bill’s enforcement reforms to increase consumer benefits by tens of millions of pounds above the CMA’s current estimate of £146.5 million a year.

The Bill will grow the economy by boosting competition, better placing UK businesses to succeed in export markets. It will allow the CMA to more effectively deter, prevent and, where necessary, enforce against monopolistic behaviours, to ensure that the free market can operate effectively.

[HCWS737]

Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Definition of Foreign Limited Partner, Protection and Rectification) Regulations 2023

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Register of Overseas Entities (Definition of Foreign Limited Partner, Protection and Rectification) Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue.

The regulations were laid before the House on 15 March 2023. They form part of a series of secondary legislation that is needed to implement effectively the register of overseas entities. The register was created under part 1 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which gained Royal Assent last year.

The register will crack down on dirty Russian money in the UK and other foreign corporate elites abusing our open economy. The register requires overseas entities owning or buying property in the UK to give information about their beneficial owners and/or managing officers to Companies House. The register provides more information for law enforcement to help it to track down those using UK property as a money laundering vehicle.

The register went live on 1 August 2022, and the deadline for registration was set for 31 January this year. There has been a relatively high rate of compliance, with more than 27,500 overseas entities registered so far. Over 700 have provided details to Companies House as they had disposed all their interests in land before the end of the transitional period. That means that over 28,000 entities have complied with the requirements. While that leaves probably a few thousand entities still to register, some of the unregistered entities are believed to have been dissolved or struck off, and others have not kept their address details up to date with the Land Registry. Companies House continues to work to increase compliance even further and is now also assessing cases for compliance action.

The first tranche of regulations was laid last year. Today we are considering the first regulations in the latest tranche that are subject to the affirmative procedure. Other instruments are in preparation, and they will ensure that the register can function even more effectively. The regulations we are considering have three main elements: they prescribe the characteristics of a foreign limited partner for the purposes of the 2022 Act; they allow for information held on the register to be removed on application under certain circumstances; and they amend the protection element of the Register of Overseas Entities (Verification and Provision of Information) Regulations 2022.

The first part of the instrument sets out the characteristics of a foreign limited partner for the purposes of the register. The regulations require that such individuals must participate in a foreign limited partnership, or hold shares or an interest, either directly or indirectly, in a legal entity that participates in a foreign limited partnership. The regulations also define exactly what is meant by a foreign limited partnership and how an individual would qualify as a participant in a limited liability partnership. These provisions will assist overseas entities to decide who are registrable and beneficial owners under the legislation for the register of overseas entities.

Regulation 4 of the instrument sets out the grounds for rectification of the register. There may be occasions when information submitted to the registrar and visible on the register is factually incorrect, forged, or submitted without the consent of the overseas entities. It therefore allows for rectification of the register through the removal of such information.

Regulation 5 establishes the criteria for those entitled to receive notice on an application for rectification. In addition, the regulation specifies the information that must be included in the notice. The regulation also covers particulars of recipients’ rights and obligations under the provision. Accordingly, regulation 6 lays down the grounds for interested parties objecting to such an application. It also confirms how an objection should be made and the time limit for making one. Without these regulations, it would be impossible to know how to make an application to remove inaccurate or false information from the register, which would affect the register’s utility and accuracy.

Regulation 7 sets out the details of an amendment to the existing protection regime, which covers protecting personal information from public inspection. However, as things stand, protection can be granted only on an application subject to strict criteria. Applicants must provide evidence that they or a person they live with are at risk of serious violence or intimidation if their details are publicly disclosed. Such a disclosure must result directly from their link with the overseas entity.

The amending provision will remove the requirement to demonstrate the risk of violence or intimidation arising directly from the individual’s association with the overseas entity. The measure will subsequently allow applications for protection that are necessary because an individual is at serious risk. They would still need to demonstrate the risk before protection is granted, but the risk would no longer need to be linked to the overseas entity.

The amendment will also allow for a relevant individual’s usual residential address to be protected. For example, if the individual provided their usual address as a service address, not realising that it would be displayed on the public register, the person would have to provide an alternative address to protect their usual residential address. Protected information must still be provided to Companies House and will be available to law enforcement. The changes are being made because it has become apparent that the current criteria are not flexible enough. Without these changes, there is a real risk that some people will be in danger of serious violence or intimidation following the public disclosure of their details, given the ease with which that link could potentially be made to their usual address.

I emphasise that the regulations are crucial for the effective operation of the register of overseas entities. I hope that Members will support the measures and their objectives. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank members of the Committee for their valuable contributions to the debate. As the Committee knows, the Government are committed to ensuring that the register of overseas entities is robust and effective at tackling the illicit use of UK property to launder money. The draft regulations provide the mechanics that ensure the effective operation of the register.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly made a very good point. Clearly, sometimes individuals are under threat from other people for a variety of reasons. For example, a celebrity or public figure may not want their identity to be public because of potential risks posed by individuals to them or their families. That might be the case for a host of reasons—stalkers, for example. Where there is serious risk of violence or intimidation of that nature, which has to be proven to the registrar, the person is allowed not to disclose their address, particularly when it is a residential address, although the information is still held by Companies House and is available to law enforcement agencies. The protection regime is not a way of circumventing the purpose of the legislation; it applies in situations where there is proven potential for harm to the individual.

I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, was a little unfair in some of her comments. The Government have certainly never turned a blind eye to some of the corruption that goes on in society. She says the Government have not acted, but as someone who has often spoken out about the need for stronger measures to deal with economic crime, I would say that Governments of all persuasions have not dealt with this issue in the past. She points to the fact that David Cameron stood up in 2015 and talked about the need for these kinds of measures. I agree with both him and her, but this country has failed to introduce appropriate measures for decades, and now we are doing so.

The hon. Lady points to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine bringing this issue into public consciousness. We parliamentarians react to public concern and we have concerns in the House about the invasion, which brought these kinds of issues into stark relief and provided the impetus to deal with them. We should all welcome the fact that we are dealing with them now. This SI is one of a number of measures we are taking forward that will make it much more difficult to use either properties or companies to launder ill-gotten gains through our society.

[Seema Malhotra]

The Minister has a track record in Parliament on this, but I think it is important to say that over the last seven years things have not been moving as quickly as they should have done. It is important to put on the record that various Committees in Parliament have raised this issue. We welcome things moving forward more quickly, but we have to keep our foot on the accelerator. That is extremely important.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We are in violent agreement on moving things forward more quickly. I absolutely agree that we should have moved more quickly, but we are where we find ourselves. We have the momentum to act now, so let us make the best use of that opportunity.

The hon. Lady asks what Companies House is doing. As far as I am aware, 7,000 entities have not complied with the legislation. Some of them will no longer be entities that we need to worry about—they may well have closed down, and an address may have changed because there is no more purpose to an entity—but we are clearly keen to find out such information. Companies House has written to tens of thousands of organisations to ask them to register and to point out that there are now restrictions on being able to rent or sell land. There are meaningful measures in place to restrict the use of land and property, which is important. Companies House is also preparing cases for enforcement, which is another important message that we send to people who have not complied with the legislation. I am keen to make sure that the measures are taken forward as quickly as possible, and I am prepared to take personal oversight of making sure they are properly implemented.

The hon. Lady asked about how the measures can be avoided, such as by sharing ownership between a family of six. A beneficial owner is a beneficial owner regardless of how the ownership is distributed, and even if there are proxies. We had this discussion on the economic crime legislation, too. I think it is fair to say that if somebody is determined to avoid the rules by giving false evidence, they will do so, but there are significant penalties for doing that, which are a key part of the legislation.

The register of overseas entities provides a novel approach, and it is important to recognise that we are setting a new global standard. By setting up a register and introducing transparency, we are at the front of the pack with the legislation, so although the Opposition constantly put forward a fair challenge by saying that we are not going far enough, we are going further than any other jurisdiction I am aware of.

[Seema Malhotra]

It is not just the Opposition who are raising this issue. The Minister will know that many of the organisations with which he has worked in the past have also raised concerns about the threshold. I want to probe him on the threshold being 25%. It was not clear from his answer whether he was saying that any threshold, even a low one, would have people working around it. It feels fairly high for this purpose.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We think it is at the appropriate level. We can perhaps have a discussion about it at length on another occasion, but as I say, the idea behind this is that the beneficial owner is disclosed. I will probably write to the hon. Lady to clarify this, but as I understand it, even if somebody put a proxy or nominee in place for the ownership of a property, it would still not get them off the hook in terms of whether they are actually the beneficial owner of the property. Perhaps I can write to her to confirm that.

The register is a crucial part of the Government’s fight against illicit finance. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which is before Parliament, features substantial changes to UK company and partnership law, and complements the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. The Bill will introduce amendments to the Act that provide further operational detail to the register of overseas entities. For example, new measures in the Bill will require more information about overseas entities, including the title numbers of the properties held by overseas entities, and put in place minimum age limits for managing officers, to ensure that details of a person over 16 years of age must always be provided. The Bill will also make further provisions for registrable beneficial owners in cases involving trusts, and it includes an anti-avoidance mechanism to ensure that those in scope of the register at the time that the Act was first published as a Bill to Parliament cannot circumvent the requirements. The laying of the draft regulations complements the measures in the Bill to ensure that the register is as effective as possible, and I commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Business and Trade

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 17th April 2023 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the Westminster Hall debate on Unpaid Work Trials on 29 March 2023.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

In 2021, HMRC returned more than £6.7 million in arrears to over 155,000 workers, and issued fines totalling more than £14 million to businesses that had failed to pay the minimum wage.

[Official Report, 29 March 2023, Vol. 730, c. 361WH.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake):

An error has been identified in the speech I gave in the debate on Unpaid Work Trials.

The correct statement should have been:

[Kevin Hollinrake]

In 2020-21, HMRC returned more than £16.7 million in arrears to over 155,000 workers, and issued fines totalling more than £14 million to businesses that had failed to pay the minimum wage.

Unpaid Work Trials

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the use of unpaid work trials.

It is always good to see you in the Chair in Westminster Hall, Mr Hollobone. You will remember, because I think you might have been present, that I introduced in the previous Parliament a Bill to amend the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 in order to outlaw the practice of unpaid work trials. I will come back to the substance of that Bill, which is now a piece of history, but I want to begin with the genesis of this entire issue and why I decided to take it up as a Member of Parliament in the private Members’ Bills selection.

There is a bubble tea company called Mooboo, which had an outlet in Glasgow that was offering unpaid work trials—the practice of inviting applicants to apply for a job and making them work for a trial period for which they are not paid. Although there are many variations on what an unpaid work trial looks like, this was perhaps the most extreme version that I have come across, because the applicants were invited to work for a full 40 hours without payment, at the end of which they were or were not offered a job. That is a particularly egregious and extreme example, but when I decided to take up the case on behalf of a constituent who went through that process, I started to find that this practice was rife and much more common than I had first thought. As I mentioned, it presents itself in many guises.

Although that example is at the extreme end of the practice of unpaid work trials, there are many intricacies and differences in the way it presents itself. When I started to talk about this issue publicly and wrote to Ministers and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, I started to gather in my inbox various horror stories about the practice of unpaid work trials across the country. A study in November 2017 by Middlesex University and the Trust for London, called Unpaid Britain, shows that unpaid work trials contribute to about £3 billion in missing wages in the United Kingdom. That figure is six years old, and I do not know what it is today—perhaps the Minister has a better idea—but I would wager that it is probably higher now than it was then. Polling from YouGov shows that 65% of Brits say that such a practice is unfair and only 24% think it is fair.

The way in which unpaid work trials present themselves is often different, as I mentioned, but it is none the less insidious. Quite often an applicant will apply for a job where the trial period may be an hour or two, so that they can come in and show what they are made of—whether that is in a restaurant, a cocktail bar, a hotel, a retail setting or whatever it might be. I discovered that quite often those trials were being offered to applicants for jobs that did not actually exist. Applicants were being exploited to cover staffing shortages and busy periods, such as Christmas trading. Those poor people had often spent hours applying for jobs, sending in CVs and filling out application forms, often going through the soul-destroying process of hearing nothing back. They were being invited to unpaid trials for jobs that did not exist, that were never going to materialise and that they would never be offered.

I suspect the Government position is the same as it has always been—that legislation is not required. I think we can all agree that that it is an egregious thing to ask somebody seeking employment to go through. It is fraud; it is morally fraudulent and must almost certainly be legally fraudulent—except it is not. I have no ambition to relitigate the Government talking out my Bill. The Minister who did so is no longer a Member of Parliament, and I am, so I like to think I won that fight with that Member at the time. When I talked to Ministers and officials about this at the time, we all agreed it was an abhorrent and unacceptable practice, but the Government position was that legislation was not required to fix it.

I would say to the Government today that the fine guidance they produced for employers on unpaid work trials has not had the effect that we all wanted, which was that they would not be used at all and certainly not used in the egregiously fraudulent way that I described. At the time, there was some good will on the Government side, among Labour colleagues and on my own side, which even in today’s Scottish National party environment still exists.

The fact that the practice is still going on and partly contributing to billions of pounds in missing wages that people should rightfully receive—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Member’s speech, and he is making some very valid points. I agree that such behaviour is egregious. Is the £3 billion he quotes for unpaid work trials or unpaid work? There is an important difference between the two.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Yes—and no, in terms of the Minister’s final point about there being a difference. The unpaid work trials contribute to the figure of £3 billion. I am not saying that the trials are worth £3 billion, but the study by the university concluded that that was part of the bigger £3 billion picture. I confess I do not think there has been an updated study. I do not know if the Government have anything to share with us this afternoon. I would be amazed if that figure had not grown since that study was done six years ago.

Among all the good will to try to stop this miserable exploitation, the Opposition and the Government arrived at different conclusions. I was of the view, supported by colleagues in the Opposition, that legislation was required —an amendment to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998—to outlaw the practice. The Government took the view that guidance was adequate, but it is not. It was proven not to be as recently as December last year in a court ruling. The ruling in Ms P Karimi and Ms C Patricio v. Fadi Ltd, published by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service on 2 December 2022, found that the claimant was entitled to the minimum wage for all hours worked during the trial period. Reasoning the judgment, the employment judge, Judge D Wright, stated that the

“legislation does not give explicit guidance”

as to how long these unpaid trial shifts may last.

An exploitation had taken place, whereby someone had worked in an unpaid trial, and the tribunals service determined that they should have been paid for it, but the judge said that the guidance is not sufficient on the regulation of work trials. I am not against work trials. I entirely support an employer’s right to say to someone, “Come in and show us what you are made of. Come in and show us that you actually have the skills and experience that you set out in the interview process.” What I do not support is exploiting people for jobs that do not exist, or for covering staffing shortages and doing so for 40 hours, as in the extreme examples that I mentioned at the start of my remarks.

Forty hours is an extreme and unusual example. What I thought I would find initially was that the norm would be two or three hours—half a shift or a morning. What I found more often than not was that the time was longer, and the physical experience of the unpaid work trial was demeaning. The number of people—mostly young people—who would work their unpaid trial shift and then just be left, not told whether they had a job, confused as to what was supposed to happen next, clearly tells us that better regulation of trial periods needs to be forthcoming from the Government. I do not think that that is too much to ask in this day and age. A fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay; it could even be said that it is a broadly Conservative value. It is something that even my colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) can rally around.

Let us be clear about what my proposed legislation was not; it was not about banning trial periods, and it did not concern itself with things like unpaid internships. Although I find them objectionable, I felt that would require its own piece of separate legislation. The aim of my proposal—the banning of exploiting people through unpaid work trials—remains an entirely just one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for securing the debate and for the work he has done over six years to try to deal with this wholly egregious situation.

We can probably start on a note of common concern, because every right-minded person would regard it as wrong that workers should be expected to work for free. In many cases, as we have heard, they actually end up out of pocket after working a trial shift. I firmly believe that we should all adhere to the principle that there should be a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, and any action to stop exploitation—whatever form it takes—should be welcome.

As we have heard, there clearly ought to be means by which an employer can test an individual’s suitability for a position, but—call me old-fashioned—I have always thought that that was what a job interview was for. If not that, what about a paid probationary period for someone to be assessed for their suitability? Let us not forget that people have to work somewhere continuously for two years before they get any protection against unfair dismissal, which could be seen as a very long trial period, albeit one that is paid. When we consider the many options available to employers to assess the suitability of potential employees in the round, we inevitably get drawn to the conclusion that, in the main, trial shifts are not necessary—certainly not unpaid ones. When we are confronted with the evidence that we have heard today and on previous occasions, the suspicion continues to grow that they are often used as a quick way to get free labour.

We have to ask what is being done to stop jobseekers being exploited. Although it is welcome that the Government have published guidance on the practice of unpaid trial shifts, it is not worth the paper it is written on without proper enforcement. There is a problem with both the wording of the guidance and the Government’s general attitude to upholding UK employment law. In particular, I have concerns about the fact that, as the guidance notes, there are no definitive rules or tests for whether a trial shift is legal.

As we know, there are six factors in the guidance that a court or tribunal will consider when making a judgment about whether a trial shift should be paid. I ask the Minister to consider how many people have the legal knowledge, patience, time or money to pursue an employer for a handful of hours of lost earnings at the tribunal, particularly if they are in a legally vulnerable position from having no employment protection at that point. Does the Minister agree that the threat of being taken to a tribunal for an unpaid trial shift is self-evidently a hollow threat to employers, and that the Department should be much more proactive in pursuing complaints on behalf of workers? Does he agree that, given that the majority of people in these sectors are young people, because of the nature of the work, and are unlikely to be members of a trade union, they need support in enforcing their rights?

Let me give an example from my own family of what is probably a pretty typical situation. My son has plenty of experience working in bars—quite often in Glasgow, actually. He has applied for various jobs in bars, including one at a bar in Chester. He had an interview. He has all the experience needed to work there, but was offered a trial shift despite the fact that he clearly could do the job. It transpired that the trial shift would run for eight hours and finish in the early hours of the morning, when there is no public transport, so he would have to pay for a taxi out of his own pocket to get home. That looked to me like blatant exploitation. Luckily for him, his father was the shadow employment rights Minister so he could be guided on what to do in that situation, but it begs the question: how many other times have they gotten away with that? How many hours each week are young people being asked to work trial shifts for which they get no payment? The Minister should be tasking his officials with trying to find out exactly how many times this happens each week, because we are probably seeing only the tip of the iceberg.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

What guidance did the hon. Member give his son in that situation? I would be interested to know.

[Justin Madders]

I am not sure Hansard can record in a polite way the suggestion that I conveyed to him. Let me put it this way: the employment relationship did not continue.

The six factors contained in the guidance are useful, but a lot of subjectivity is applied to them. For example, how is observation—which is one of the criteria—defined? How long is a reasonable period of observation? Ultimately, how can a jobseeker be expected to know if their employer has acted in line with the guidance, given how ambiguous it is? The ACAS website does not make any reference to trial shifts at all. People need a lot more support to understand when they are being asked to do something that is unlawful.

Ambiguities aside, the guidance needs to be properly enforced. As has been mentioned, we have this figure of £3 billion for unpaid work in various forms—it is probably is an even greater figure now. The continued reliance on an underfunded and overstretched tribunal system is failing our workers. Surely it is time for a single enforcement body to follow through for workers to ensure that their rights are enforced. I know the Government promised that along with an employment Bill, which we unsurprisingly have touched on. Will the Minister give us a timescale for when this single enforcement body will emerge?

The Government’s record on national minimum wage enforcement in recent times has been concerning. A naming and shaming list has not been published since December 2021, and I know the Minister has expressed his support for that as an important pillar of enforcement. As I have mentioned to him on previous occasions, a number of Departments have awarded lucrative contracts running into the hundreds of millions of pounds to companies that have appeared on the list of shame. What kind of message does it send to companies about the importance that the Government place on enforcement of the national minimum wage if they are then rewarded with Government contracts? I hope the Minister can give us an update on when the next list will be released.

In conclusion, the debate is a useful reminder that this is unfinished business. We can see very clearly how current ambiguities are being used to exploit workers. I want to hear from the Minister about what more can be done to ensure that people get paid for the work they do, and to ensure that these ruses, in all their forms, are put to an end, so that we get to a point in this country where a fair day’s work means a fair day’s pay.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on introducing this important debate, and on his persistence. I think it is his seventh year of talking about this issue. He rightly feels strongly about it. He, like me, the rest of Government and probably every parliamentarian, absolutely believes that people who are at work should get paid the national living wage. I am delighted to be the Minister responsible for national living wage policy and workers’ rights.

Broadly, I agree with the points the hon. Member made. As others have said, if employers are engaging in the behaviour to which he referred—I accept that there is some evidence that some are—that is a scandalous practice. It is absolutely our case that all workers should be fairly rewarded for their work. Most people think that. Who would not agree with the point that a fair day’s work should mean a fair day’s pay? We are all on the same page on that.

We are also all on the same page on a related and very important point. As Minister responsible for national living wage policy, I am pleased to see the largest ever increase to the national living wage: a 9.7% increase to £10.42. That applies from Saturday. It is great to see it go over that £10 mark. Some 2.9 million people across the country will benefit from that measure, including 210,000 in Scotland and 160,000 in Northern Ireland. It is a very welcome move.

We should pay tribute to the vast majority of businesses and employers who—I think we all agree—are decent, do the right thing and do not engage in these scandalous practices. It is really important that we reiterate that, as well as the fact that lots of businesses are already struggling in the cost of living crisis, not least because of high energy bills, for example. They are suffering because of numerous cost pressures, and their paying this increase in the national living wage will not only affect the people on the bottom rung of the pay ladder, but have a knock-on effect on others in their workforce. We are determined to build the high-skill, high-wage economy that most people would like to see.

We have further ambitions. We want the national living wage to reach two thirds of median pay by 2024. That remains our ambition. It is the right thing to do. We are putting in place other measures that reinforce our point that we are absolutely protecting and indeed strengthening workers’ rights. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) made an interesting point about finding parliamentary time; we are effectively finding parliamentary time for a number of pieces of legislation, including six private Members’ Bills for which I am personally responsible. Those Bills include measures to ensure workers get full allocation of tips and service charges; to protect neonatal care for new parents who have difficulties with a newborn, ensuring more leave—up to 12 weeks; to entitle everybody to at least a week’s carers’ leave, which could help many people in the workplace look after dependent relatives; and to ensure redundancy protections pre and post maternity, which, again, is a welcome change.

A further change, and a key measure in the Taylor review, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is the right to request predictable terms and conditions. It will give people on, for example, zero-hours contracts the right to request predictable hours. We support legislation on that, and on making flexible working something that people have the right to request on day one. Those are all things that we are doing to strengthen workers’ rights and make the workplace more attractive.

[Chris Stephens]

I have been listening to the Minister very carefully, and I welcome what he says about the right to request, but a right to request does not necessarily mean that the right will be given. Will the Minister talk about how he intends to enforce that legislation, and increase enforcement around unpaid work trials?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not want to get too distracted from the issue at hand, but I am happy to address that point in detail afterwards. We think those measures strike a balance. The recommendation from Matthew Taylor was not that there be a right to insist; it was the right to request. The employer could reject that request only on one of eight grounds, and in doing so, has to adhere to a process. We think that strikes a balance and meets the needs of businesses. For example, businesses can refuse a request in order to ensure that they have the right customer service availability and are not put under an undue burden. Those criteria have been set out, and I am happy to have that discussion with the hon. Member after the debate.

On the issue that the hon. Member for Glasgow South raised, there are two things that the Government would question about his policy: is it necessary, and what is the extent of the problem? It is important that we reflect the actual extent of the problem. He said that there is £3 billion of unpaid work; clearly that is a different issue. Following my intervention, he clarified that unpaid work trials are an element of that. The figure of 29% is also about unpaid work; the hon. Member for Glasgow South West said that among the 29% of employers that use unpaid work, work trials were a factor. The extent of the problem is not clear. I would describe people who are abusing the system as rogue employers, rather than something to benchmark.

Anybody who is defined as a worker should receive the national living wage. We updated the guidance in 2018, probably prompted by the work of the hon. Member for Glasgow South. The guidance is clear on the time that someone is allowed to have a work trial for. It says:

“in the Government’s view an individual conducting work in a trial lasting longer than one day is likely to be entitled to the minimum wage in all but very exceptional circumstances”.

Employment tribunals, for example, have a basis on which to make a judgment, and there are other bases.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I am unclear. Do the Government and the Minister’s Department collect data on the use of unpaid work trials?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not have access to that data. The hon. Member refers to a survey that was done some years ago. It is our belief that unpaid work trials are not widespread, and there are measures to deal with the problem, which I will set out shortly. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said, there are six criteria applied to unpaid work trials.

[Jim Shannon]

Some of the responses have been very positive. The Carer’s Leave Bill, which I have been following, is really welcome. The Minister mentioned the outcome of tribunals, but a person cannot take a case to a tribunal if they have not been in the workplace long enough, which means that a tribunal may not be an option. Can the Minister also give some direction on the uniform issue?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for all the good work he does in this House. In all the debates he speaks in, he is a champion for doing the right thing. As he said, we have been on the same side of the fence in debates on many occasions, and I am sure that will continue despite my ministerial position. I will come back to both of those points shortly.

Six different criteria apply in deciding whether an unpaid work trial is appropriate. The first is the length of time. The trial should be no longer than a day. Observation is another: is the employer observing, or is somebody just working unobserved? Other criteria relate to the nature of the work, and the value to the employer—is there a value to that work? That would be inappropriate. If the worker is observed, the work would have less value, because somebody has to observe them, and they might as well be doing the work themselves. All those things are taken into account in judging whether that shift should be paid.

There are reasons for having an unpaid work trial; for example, a teacher might be required to do a model lesson. It might be appropriate to ask teachers who are being interviewed to show what they would do in the actual situation. It would not be right to ban the practice altogether.

On having more specific guidance, which the hon. Member for Glasgow South mentioned, the problem is that being too specific in guidance could result in a race to the bottom by some employers—something that he is looking to clamp down on. If we said, “This categorically is the perimeter of work trials,” rogue employers may well take advantage. There needs to be a balance of judgment, rather than exact criteria.

The Government think that work trials can be a legitimate recruitment exercise at times, which is why we are not legislating in this area and do not intend to. I know the hon. Member disagrees, and I respect his opinion, but we do not think it is right to legislate further in this area. What we already have strikes the right balance.

[Chris Stephens]

On the one hand, the Minister says that the Government do not collect data, and on the other, he says that legislation is not necessary. That seems a bit confusing to those of us in the House who study these matters. Before the Government decide whether to legislate, would it not be better to do some investigation into the root of the problem to see how widespread it is?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Of course, we will always look at information and evidence. As parliamentarians, we get information and evidence from lots of different sources, but we tend to work by seeing where there is obvious detriment and therefore loopholes that we need to close. I do not think it is practical for the Government to look at every single problem and then decide where to legislate; it is usually the other way round. I think we disagree on that, but we will always look at information. If the survey was updated and specified unpaid work trials as an issue, the hon. Gentleman would have a more compelling case.

On uniforms required for a place of work, deduction of the cost of the uniform should not take a person’s earnings below minimum wage. If it did, the employer would be guilty of an offence under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. It can be appropriate for an employer to say that there is a uniform that an employee must wear, at the employee’s cost, but that must not take that employee below the minimum wage.

[Jim Shannon]

The example I gave was a true one—I bring all my examples with honesty. The person had to buy a black shirt and black trousers to have the trial. If they did not get the job, they were out of pocket. Where is the comeback? It might be better for the employer, who will probably have spares, to make them available.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree with the hon. Member, but that is a different point; I am speaking more to uniforms and how they relate to the minimum wage. It would be entirely inappropriate for an employer to say, “I want you to come on an unpaid work trial, and I want you to buy a new shirt and a new pair of trousers to do that.” I would define them as a rogue employer for taking that approach. As I have said, I was an employer for 30 years, and we would never have even considered that kind of behaviour.

The hon. Member for Strangford talked about awareness. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs undertakes a programme on best practice for employers. It is an enforcement body, as well as one that tries to help employers meet the relevant employment conditions.

A number of contributors said that an employment tribunal is the only way to deal with the issue. I quite understand that employment tribunals can be expensive and time-consuming. There are other processes; if people feel that they have been wrongly and inappropriately asked to do an unpaid work trial, they can report that to ACAS or His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, through its online form. All reports are investigated.

We are keen to expand the reach of HMRC’s enforcement capability. We have doubled our investment in national minimum wage enforcement since 2015-16. We spend nearly £28 million every year on ensuring that employers meet their legal responsibilities. Employers who are found to underpay their staff must repay all arrears that they owe to their staff and a penalty of up to 200% of the underpayment, and may be eligible to be publicly named by the Department for Business and Trade.

In 2021, HMRC returned more than £6.7 million in arrears to over 155,000 workers, and issued fines totalling more than £14 million to businesses that had failed to pay the minimum wage. Since 2015, the Government have ordered employers to repay over £100 million to more than 1 million workers, which demonstrates that it is never acceptable to short-change hard-working employees. The shadow Minister rightly asked when we will do the next naming and shaming. It has been too long. The last one was in December 2021. I have absolutely met my officials and said, “We need that list out very shortly.” It will happen very shortly.

I conclude by again thanking the hon. Member for Glasgow South. We absolutely agree that it is vital that the right of workers to be paid the minimum wage continues to be upheld. That is why the Government listened to concerns relating to work trials, and issued new guidance in 2018—prompted by his work, I would say, though I was not in this role at the time. That revised guidance, combined with strong enforcement of existing legislation, will continue to ensure that workers are not exploited through unpaid work trials.

P&O Ferries Redundancies

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Gary. I thank the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) for bringing forward this important debate.

G. K. Chesterton said:

“Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists but too few capitalists”.

I absolutely agree with that. I think there is agreement across the House that the vast majority of employers are decent people who treat their employees properly. However, some of the egregious behaviour we have seen in this case, and in others as well, happens when there is too much power in the hands of a few very large operators that dominate certain sectors. The title of this debate is absolutely right, in that there are lessons we can learn from the case of P&O.

The hon. Member for Wansbeck made lots of points. He said to me before that he did not expect me to respond to them all today, and I probably cannot, but I will write to him about the ones I do not pick up on. Some are dealt with by other Departments such as DFT, but I am keen to facilitate responses on all his points where I can. We are in total agreement here: the behaviour of P&O and its chief executive was disgraceful and gratuitous, running roughshod over UK legislation, as I saw in the testimony referred to by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald). That is absolutely appalling, and we must deal with it. Yes, we need to learn the lessons, and we have learned some already. We are determined to look at this issue carefully and to go further where we need to. I think the hon. Member for Wansbeck knows that we have taken some action already, but I fully understand that he might want us to go further.

So much attention has been drawn to this appalling behaviour because it is very unusual. I was an employer for 30 years, and most employers would never have considered not carrying out the requirements around consulting the workforce. That is because it was the right thing to do and because we wanted to have a good reputation as an employer with our existing staff and any staff who would join us in future. There is something fundamentally wrong when an employer can set aside the clear requirements to consult the workforce in these instances.

It is fair to say that the Government were very clear in their condemnation early on. The Secretary of State wrote to P&O to ask it to reverse its decision and asked the Insolvency Service to investigate whether the law was complied with. That investigation has not yet concluded. The criminal side of the investigation has reported back. A senior prosecution barrister looked at the matter and decided there were not sufficient grounds to take forward a criminal prosecution. The civil investigation is still live, and it is important we give it the opportunity to run its course.

We all believe in the principle of due process in these cases. Certainly, there is still a chance, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough noted, of an up to 15-year ban of a director if there are sufficient grounds, so we should let the Insolvency Service conduct its work. Like others, I urge the service to do that work as quickly as possible so that it can come to a resolution and more lessons will hopefully be learned. Indeed, if lessons are learned, I am keen to take further action where necessary to clamp down on such behaviour.

[Andy McDonald]

Does the Minister accept that we were told that action would be taken urgently and it was not? In that vacuum, there is no reason why DFDS, Stena and other ferry services could not do the exact same thing and more seafarers could lose their jobs.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I do not accept that no action has been taken, and we are consulting on some things now to try and beef up the requirements in terms of consultation. We have already done some things.

The hon. Member for Wansbeck referred to the Seafarers’ Wages Act and the requirement to pay a minimum wage in UK waters. He is right to say that the seafarers’ charter is a voluntary code for now, and we want to see how that operates. I fully respect his perspective that this should be mandatory across the piece, but when there is a proportionate approach—we do not feel at this point that it is. Nevertheless, we have legislated in that area. That legislation has received Royal Assent and is now law, but the hon. Member for Wansbeck is right that some secondary legislation is required for it to be fully and effectively implemented.

On the Thames freeport, let me clear: we have not given any money to DP World, but we have given money to Thurrock Council. However, some of the land needed to operate a Thames freeport includes land owned by DP World. It would be cutting off noses to spite faces if we said, “You can’t use that land, because of its ownership,” and we do not believe in compulsory purchase, except in certain circumstances. I think that would be the wrong—

[Andy McDonald]

You’ve just done that on Teesside!

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Well, that is a slightly different case.

It was interesting that none of the contributions suggested that we would ban fire and refire. Interestingly, the deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), said Ministers would not ban the behaviour, judging that it is “acceptable in some circumstances”. So I think we are probably all on the same page in terms of making sure the bar is high on the requirements for anybody using these kinds of tactics and making sure that people cannot just run roughshod over them.

New guidelines from ACAS in 2021 were clear that this kind of action should be taken only as a last resort. In terms of a statutory code of practice, there is a 12-week consultation from January 2023. The principle behind that is that there is a 25% compensation uplift in employment tribunals if consultation requirements are not adhered to. We think that sets a sensible balance between the two. Having said that, I am keen to go further, where we can, and to look at the different provisions we can put in place to make sure that the requirements on employers work in practice. It is clear that has not been the case in this case, which is why we have gone further.

To conclude, I thank the hon. Member for Wansbeck again. He knows I am as incensed as he is by the actions of this employer because they bring into disrepute the good name of many other employers, which cannot be right.

[Andy McDonald]

Just briefly, on fire and rehire, we have to be clear about what we are talking about here. This was not firing and rehiring the same workers; this was firing workers and replacing them with cheaper workers. That is the point that concerns us. If companies get into financial difficulties, there has to be a proper mechanism for protecting people if they have to have lower terms and conditions. That is the point we are making.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We are totally on the same page. The fire element is the worry here. Setting aside the consultation requirements, hon. Members will remember the case of British Airways, which threatened fire and rehire during the pandemic. It did not go ahead with that tactic, as P&O did, but consulted the workforce and found a way through. That shows why the consultation period is so important. Making sure that the provisions we have work in practice is key.

As I say, we already have the Seafarers’ Wages Act. We will keep the issue under review. We are keen to see the outcome of the Insolvency Service investigation and, as far as I am concerned, where action can be taken, it will be taken. We should bear it in mind that we want to act in a proportionate way. Most employers do the right thing. I have never heard of a case like this one before. Most employers do adhere to consultation requirements. We should celebrate the good employers we have in this country, as well as clamping down on the bad ones, and I am determined that we do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 24th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Imran Hussain]

The hon. Gentleman’s constituency is known for the things he has said. He will appreciate there is a huge difference between shift working and zero-hours contracts. Those are two very different concepts, and I do not think anybody is arguing against shift working. Equally, nobody is saying there should be no flexibility. I accept that in a minority of situations—perhaps, for example, in the case of students, as was mentioned earlier—there may need to be that flexibility.

To answer the question from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan)—I will cover this later as well—the reality is that over the past decade we have gone from around 150,000 people on zero-hours contracts to more than 1 million, as the Minister will know. To suggest that the majority of those people somehow benefit from some flexibility in zero-hours contracts—or some of the points that the Minister may outline later—is just not true.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

The hon. Gentleman suggests that it is not true that a majority of people like that relationship, but surveys show that some 64% of people do not want more hours. He would ban zero-hours contracts, even though 64% of people want them. Where is the sense in that?

[Imran Hussain]

I will refer the Minister to another survey. By far the most over-represented groups of people on zero-hours contracts are women and those from ethnic minority backgrounds. The Minister quotes statistics, but in the current market people who have a choice between zero-hours contracts or no work at all are a different case altogether.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) for all his work. He has been a delight to work with all the way through and I have been delighted to support his Bill through its various stages. I reiterate the Government’s support for the Bill.

It has been encouraging to observe the support for the Bill from across the House. I was pleased to hear that reflected once again in this debate, including by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), who represents part of the fine city of Bradford, in my county of Yorkshire.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South pointed out, zero-hours contracts are an important part of the UK’s flexible labour market, for both employers and individuals who may need to balance work around other commitments. We believe they play an important role, and 64% of people surveyed said they do not want more hours and that they are happy with the basis of their current contracts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) pointed out, Labour is determined to take that option away from people, which once again illustrates that the Government believe in freedom of choice while the Opposition believe in state diktat.

Around 3% of workers in the UK workforce are on zero-hours contracts and such contracts may offer many of those individuals the kind of flexibility they want, but, of course, we are determined to tackle unfair working practices used by a small minority of employers. I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), who speaks in this House with such authority on employment matters, given her background. Many of those employers take advantage of what she describes, quite rightly, as “a grey zone”. Workers may be left waiting on standby for work that never materialises, unsure whether they will receive the hours they need to pay their bills.

We have already made significant progress in bringing forward measures that support individuals on zero-hours contracts and in low-paid work. In 2015, we banned exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts; in December 2022, we extended the ban to workers who have a guaranteed weekly income equivalent to or below the lower earnings limit of £123 per week; and on 1 April, we will increase the national living wage by 9.7%, to £10.42 per hour.

[Mr French]

In reference to the comments made by the shadow Minister, does the Minister agree with me that the Labour party’s words on sticking up for workers are rather hollow, particularly when they support the Labour Mayor of London’s ultra low emission zone expansion and tax rise, which will impact over 850,000 drivers in London and have been described as “anti-worker” by Unite the union?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is a fine champion on that issue; I would describe the measure as anti-worker and also anti-business, particularly at a time when we are all seeing cost of living challenges. It is simply the wrong measure to take and I applaud him for his constant campaigning on it.

The Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South represents a further step towards addressing one-sided flexibility, as he says. In 2018, the Government consulted on the right to request predictable working and in 2019 we committed to introducing a right to request a more predictable contract in our manifesto. That militates against the hon. Member for Bradford East’s argument that we have suddenly discovered this concern. We have always committed ourselves to legislating in this area.

The new right to request a more predictable working pattern will apply to all eligible workers, not only those on zero-hours contracts, meaning that a wide range of workers who have unpredictable working conditions will benefit, including temporary workers, agency workers and workers with non-guaranteed hours. Crucially, that is a right to request more predictable hours, not a right to insist on them, because we also need to look after the interests of businesses in this conversation.

My hon. Friend’s Bill includes a list of eight specific grounds on which any employer may decline a request, similar to those established for the existing right to request flexible working—for example, if the costs of providing a worker with a more predictable pattern would be too burdensome, or if accepting a request would have a detrimental impact on the ability to meet customer demand.

The Bill forms part of a wider package of six private Member’s Bills on employment rights that the Government are supporting. I pay tribute to the businesses and business representative groups that have supported them, despite the obvious impact on businesses—if hon. Members have read the impact assessment, they will know the additional impact on business is £16.9 million, at a difficult time for them, so we should pay tribute to businesses that are willing to take on these extra duties.

The hon. Member for Bradford East talked about a ban on zero-hours contracts. I gently ask whether he is doing that in the full and certain knowledge of the costs on business, because I have not seen a figure from Labour to say what would be the cost to business of doing that. That is a reasonable concern that businesses may have about the extra costs of doing business under a potential Labour Government.

Taken as a package, these Bills will deliver on our 2019 manifesto commitments to enhance workers’ rights and support people to stay in work. They will help new parents, unpaid carers and hospitality workers.

Before I close, I want to thank the officials who have worked on this Bill: Sasha Ward, Bex Lowe, Lizzy Blakeman, Mel Thomas, Sarah Boulton-Jones, Louis Ariss, Laura Robinson, Richard Kelly, Adrienn SzNagy, Rose Jefferies and Dan Spillman and, from my private office, Cora Sweet. I commend the Bill to the House.