Post Office Board and Governance

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Andy McDonald

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Thankfully, not me. I have nothing against Mr Staunton personally. He had a strong track record as the chair of various large organisations, as he said yesterday. I think we would all agree that the Post Office is a specific organisation with specific challenges. Yesterday’s evidence from Ben Tidswell, the senior independent director, was interesting. He felt that Mr Staunton’s behaviour changed in November last year and became far more “erratic”—his word. I do not know the reasons for that specifically, although Mr Tidswell suggested some yesterday. Whatever the reason, Mr Staunton’s recent conduct is not consistent with remaining chair of the Post Office. That is why we decided to act.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Ind)]

I thank the Minister for his work in this area. He has been assiduous in his attention to detail—I cannot say the same of the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, yesterday was unedifying, and we are sick to death of the “He said, she said” business—we are not interested, except that two witnesses yesterday took the oath and spoke to the same issue: as to whether Mr Read had ever tendered his resignation or threatened to. It was totally conflicting evidence from the two people; they both cannot be right, so I suggest that one might have been a little economical with the truth. From Dr Neil Hudgell, though, the message came loud and clear: these schemes are way too “over-engineered” and far too “bureaucratic”, and that has led to the delay in getting the money out of the door. I have to correct the Minister—only 20% of the fund is out of the door as yet. We have to speed it up.

Finally, I ask him to take on board the words of the predecessor Select Committee, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, in February 2022, which said that the best way through this was to remove the Post Office from the system. Now, it may be too late to do that, but my goodness, was not the Committee right to say that? Can we find ways to relegate the role of the Post Office, because that is the only way we will get justice for postmasters? Ultimately, that is what this is about—getting them compensated.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman’s final point, and a number of the points he made. It is fair to say that on the compensation schemes, we could use the old phrase, “If you were going there, you wouldn’t start from here.” I think that Sir Wyn Williams has said that, but the best way now is to say, “When you’re going through hell, keep going.” We have to improve the schemes we have got. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about the Post Office, and he will have heard what I said earlier. I think the fixed-sum awards do take the Post Office out of the schemes completely, because no disclosure is required for them.

On tendering resignation—again, I thought it was extraordinary that a chair would disclose confidential and private conversations that he has had with the chief executive. I have to say for the record that Mr Read has never tendered his resignation to me or to the Secretary of State. Others would be better than me to comment on the nature of those conversations, but I do not think that it was right for Mr Staunton to comment at all.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State has given me 100% support in everything I have done in trying to address these matters. I accept what Neil Hudgell said—I spoke to him afterwards, and we have spoken before about the schemes being over-engineered—and he suggested some ways to try to accelerate compensation. We are of course looking at those to see what the best way is to ensure that they are not over-engineered, but deliver rapid and fair outcomes as quickly as possible.

Post Office Horizon: Compensation and Legislation

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Andy McDonald

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for her engagement with this issue and for her work on behalf of her constituent, whose case I am very aware of. Yes, we absolutely should be taking a view where evidence is impossible to obtain. Of course, it is fair to request certain bits of information to support a claim, but where such information is not available because it pertains to 20 or 25 years ago, it would be unreasonable to expect that as the basis for a claim. As I said earlier, where there is an absence of evidence but a broader claim that is compelling, there is no doubt that the claimant should get the benefit of the doubt, and I am very keen to make sure that her constituent gets compensation as quickly as possible.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Ind)]

I thank the Minister and his predecessor for their work on this. I know that he has been paying a lot of attention to it. On the issue of full and fair compensation, may I express a worry about the £600,000 option? It has been said that this is a complicated process, but it does not have to be. Schedules of past and future loss are regular events when calculating these matters, and if ever there were a case for aggravated and exemplary damages, surely this is it. My fear is that people who are up against time limits and perhaps getting older will want to accept the £600,000, which will be a vast undersell of the true value of their claim. What mechanisms is the Minister putting in place to ensure that people do not undervalue their claim and take that easy option to bring the matter to a close?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Full and fair compensation lies at the heart of this matter, and we do not want people to feel that the £600,000 is the only option for getting compensation in quick time. It is there for those who want to take the money, walk away and draw a line under the matter, particularly where they think their claim is below that figure. As the hon. Gentleman might have heard me say earlier, on the recommendation of the advisory board and others involved in the process, as soon as a full claim is received, individuals in the overturned conviction cohort will get their interim compensation of £163,000 topped up immediately to £450,000. That will ease the financial pressure and reduce what he suggests might be an incentive for people to take a lower amount than they deserve. A significant amount of money will be paid forward on that basis while the remainder of the compensation claim can be properly assessed.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Andy McDonald

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We have been clear that there is a balance between people being able to seek industrial action and being able to go about their daily lives. That is the balance that we are trying to strike. He asked if we fear scrutiny; not at all. What we fear is delay. That is what the Opposition parties are trying to bring about: delay in wrecking amendments.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Will the Minister expand on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and give us a list of the people whom he thinks should be able to go on strike? Who are the ones he approves of?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Any person who is legislated for in these measures should be able to go on strike, subject to minimum service levels. It is quite clear, and we have been consistent all the way through.

In response to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), our objection to the amendments is the delay that they will cause. We want to ensure that people can go about their daily lives. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised some points about reasonable steps. Unions will not somehow have to compel people to go to work; we are asking them to undertake reasonable steps to ensure that people comply with a work notice. In fact, we were willing to set out in the Bill what those reasonable steps would be, but the right hon. Gentleman’s counterparts in the other place rejected such measures.

The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) talked about the independence of unions; of course we respect that. It is true that if a union fails to take reasonable steps, the strike would be unprotected, as it would if the trade union failed to meet other existing requirements in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, such as balancing requirements. This is not a departure from the existing position.

P&O Ferries Redundancies

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Andy McDonald

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.

Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Andy McDonald

Monday 6th March 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 National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. The regulations will raise the national living wage and the national minimum wage on 1 April 2023. We remain proud of the strength of the UK labour market. There are now 1 million more people on payrolls compared with pre-pandemic levels, and demand for workers remains close to record levels. However, we recognise the continued impact of the cost of living pressures, which is why the Government have taken, and will continue to take, robust action to protect the most vulnerable in society.

The national living wage and the national minimum wage act to put more money in the pockets of the lowest-paid workers. This year will be no different, with the largest cash increase in the 24-year history of the minimum wage. We are also increasing benefit payments by 10.1%, in line with September’s consumer prices index inflation rate. Almost 12 million pensioners will benefit from the triple lock, as the state pension will also increase by 10.1%.

Our package of measures includes the energy price guarantee, which has saved a typical UK household around £900 since its introduction in October, and a series of cost of living payments worth hundreds of pounds for millions of eligible households on a means-tested basis. Our commitment to a high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy will further address the cost of living, as well as level up every part of the UK and hasten the transition to net zero.

The regulations will increase the national living wage and national minimum wage rates and will come into force on 1 April. Following a comprehensive impact assessment, we estimate that they will give a pay rise to 2.9 million workers across the United Kingdom. I am pleased to confirm that the Government have accepted all the rate recommendations made by the Low Pay Commission in October. I place on the record my gratitude to the commission; I also gave my thanks personally in a meeting last week. As ever, it has worked tirelessly to bring together the views of business and worker stakeholders and remaining informed by expert research and analysis.

The regulations will increase the national living wage for those aged 23 or over by 9.7% to £10.42 an hour, which is an increase of 92p. After this year’s rise, the national living wage will have increased more than twice as fast as inflation since its introduction. The regulations will also increase the national minimum wage rates for younger workers and apprentices, as well as the accommodation offset. Workers aged 21 and 22 will receive an increase of £1, or 10.9%, to a minimum hourly rate of £10.18. Workers aged between 18 and 20 will now be entitled to an extra 66p an hour, taking their rate to £7.49, while the rate for under 18s will reach £5.28, which is a rise of 47p an hour. Those changes represent an increase of 9.7%.

Apprentices aged under 19 or those in the first year of their apprenticeship will also receive an increase of 9.7%, as their rate rises from £4.81 to £5.28. Meanwhile, the accommodation offset, which is the maximum daily amount that an employer can charge a worker for accommodation without it affecting their pay for minimum wage purposes, will increase by 4.6%, from £8.70 to £9.10.

The Government have continued to take action to fulfil their manifesto commitment to enhance the rights of workers and support people to stay in work. We are backing six private Members’ Bills in this Session to deliver on our commitments. Once passed, those measures will ensure that all tips, gratuities and service charges are allocated to workers; create a statutory entitlement to neonatal care leave for workers with caring responsibilities; protect workers from redundancy during or after maternity; and grant workers the right to request flexible working from day one.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

On the right to request flexible working, what happens when the employer says no?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The employer can say no when they have considered the request properly, and they need to set out their reasons. It is important to note that there are eight different business reasons. We want to ensure that businesses can also cope with the six new key measures, as well as the £2.5 billion of extra cost for business organisations throughout the country, of the national living wage increases. We want to ensure that any burdens that we place on businesses are proportionate, and a right to request delivers that balance.

[Andy McDonald]

If the answer is no because the business is exempt through the various ways to get out of it, what is the cost?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman, but according to our research 83% of flexible working requests are granted. The right to request flexible working, which is not related to the regulations, creates the opportunity for a conversation between an employer and worker about flexible working. That is its purpose. I understand that the hon. Gentleman would want to put a burden on business—I suppose he is saying there should be a right to insist—but we think that would go too far.

We are also looking to grant workers, including agency workers, the right to request more predictable terms and conditions of work. The private Members’ Bills will further strengthen our flexible and dynamic labour market and ensure that businesses have the confidence to create jobs and invest in their workforce, which will allow them to generate long-term prosperity and growth.

The Government set the ambitious target for the national living wage to equal two thirds of median earnings by 2024, provided that economic conditions allow. We remain committed to that target, and this year’s increases keep us on course to reach it. We also aim to further reduce the age threshold for the national living wage so that it will apply to those aged 21 and over by 2024.

We recognise that this is a difficult time for many businesses, workers and consumers, and we know that sustainable rises in the minimum wage rates depend on the wider economy. In making its recommendations, the Low Pay Commission will continue to take the wider picture into account, alongside extensive stakeholder engagement. I thank the commission for making additional recommendations relating to the accommodation offset in its recent report. We are considering them carefully and will respond in due course.

The regulations aim to protect the lowest-paid workers across all sectors and regions and reward them for their contribution to our economy. I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, because this applies to a much smaller cohort. If the hon. Gentleman is proposing that we pay everyone across the public sector an inflation pay increase, which I guess he is from his comment, he has to explain to the taxpayer how we will raise that £28 billion a year, because that is what it would cost. Obviously, the Low Pay Commission works with employer groups, but it also works with business groups, other stakeholders and other employers to try to strike a balance between what is affordable for employers and what is an appropriate rise for those at the bottom of the income scales.

The hon. Gentleman asked about our ambition to get to two thirds of the median salary by 2024. That is certainly what we believe to be attainable, and it remains our target. With the growing economy that we expect to see by the end of the year, the economic context will be a lot brighter than it has been over the last few months.

On age limits, the hon. Gentleman is right; our ambition is to lower the age limit in terms of access to the national living wage, as we did from 25 to 23 in 2021, based on the Low Pay Commission’s recommendation. We are hoping to lower it to 21 by 2024. Part of the reason that it is lower—other Members asked the same question—is that there is no doubt that there is a greater vulnerability for young people. Unemployment levels tend to be higher in these lower age groups and it is important that we do not price people of low age out of the market. That is probably why Labour had different rates for 18 to 21-year-olds when it introduced some of these provisions when it was in government.

Let me turn to zero-hours contracts. Only 3% of the population is on a zero-hours contract. Sixty-four per cent. of those people do not want more hours, so the contracts kind of work for both sides, but we recognise that there is an issue with exploitation in some situations and we are trying to create the conditions for a conversation between employers and employees while not putting too great a burden on employers. That is why we are legislating for a right to request predictable hours. We have already legislated for things such as exclusivity clauses, which are not allowed for zero-hours contracts. For those below the lower-earnings limit, there cannot be an exclusivity clause in a zero-hours contract.

On compliance, the hon. Gentleman was absolutely right. It is very important to us, which is why we have doubled enforcement since 2015. I have met His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs team to discuss that. I welcome the fact that they have put £100 million back in the pockets of lower-income workers since 2015 through their excellent work. The care sector is one of the sectors they look at all the time, and there was no differential between it and any other sector. As far as employment law is concerned, travel time to appointments should be covered within employment law when it comes to calculating the national minimum wage or national living wage.

We believe that internships should be paid positions and should be subject to the national minimum wage or national living wage, and that trial shifts should be no more than a few hours.

[Andy McDonald]

I did not quite catch what the Minister said about travel time. Is he saying that care workers should be paid the same hourly rate when they are travelling between domiciliary appointments—paid at the full rate, effectively? Is that his position?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Travel to appointments certainly should be calculated under national minimum wage levels. That is our position under employment regulations.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston was right to point out that we have not named and shamed for some time. I am very keen—I have had conversations about it today—to do that as soon as possible. We hope to have some news very shortly about a list of people who have not adhered to our national living wage requirements.

We are still looking at the best way to create a single enforcement body and whether it is right to do so given parliamentary time. We also do not want to increase the costs of enforcement. I work closely with the director of labour market enforcement to ensure that she has all the measures at her disposal and that there are no gaps in enforcement between different areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay is right that research and development leads to higher productivity, higher wages and higher growth. I support that 100%. He was the only speaker other than me to point out the cost to business of these measures, and it is disappointing that the contributions of Opposition Members did not point out that business has to bear this cost, which is about £2.5 billion for employers annually. He also raised the very important point about corporation tax. Under the new rules, 70% of businesses will not pay additional corporation tax, because there is a small profits rate. Indeed, in my 30 years in business, when corporation tax was at similar levels, I cannot think of a time when our boardroom considered not investing. Given a higher level of corporation tax than we see today, we still felt that we could invest. I understand my hon. Friend’s points, and I am sure that he will make them to the relevant Department, which is of course the Treasury.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North talked about whether the rise is sufficient for low-paid workers, and I understand his point. I urge him, as I said before, also to consider employers in this conversation. We have to ensure that we do not raise the national living wage too quickly, which would cause problems for employers. That could be detrimental to the labour market generally and could have difficult consequences for some people who work in these kinds of jobs.

I am a big fan of the Living Wage Foundation, and it is absolutely right that we want the national living wage to increase. The gap between the Living Wage Foundation level and the national living wage is narrowing, and the Living Wage Foundation has always been keen to point out that its campaign for the national living wage is about trying to encourage employers to pay higher wages on a voluntary rather than a coercive basis.

From April, a full-time worker on the national living wage will earn over £6,700 more before tax than in 2015, when the policy was introduced, while younger workers and apprentices will also benefit from large rate increases across the board. This package of measures will have a huge, positive impact on the lives of millions of people. It should also serve as a reminder of the progress that can be made when Members across this House work together. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Andy McDonald

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for their contributions.

Consistent with the contributions that have been made, this Government firmly believe that the ability to strike is an important element of industrial relations in the UK—it is rightly protected by law—and we understand that an element of disruption is likely with any strike. However, we need to maintain a reasonable balance between the ability of workers to strike and the rights of the public, who work hard and expect the essential services that they pay for to be there when they need them. We need to be able to have confidence that, when strikes occur, people’s lives and livelihoods are not put at undue risk.

[Andy McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will make a little progress and then bring the hon. Member in, although I might cover his point in my next comments.

To respond to some of the points made in the debate, particularly on scrutiny and process, clearly the consultations offer plenty of opportunities for hon. Members, their constituents, employers and unions to play a role in shaping minimum service levels before regulations are made, and both Houses will be able to provide additional scrutiny.

[Andy McDonald]

A lot of the remarks made this evening have focused on safety, but section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides workers with the means to contest the adequacy of safety arrangements and withdraw their labour—they can walk away. Given that, can the Minister explain to the Committee which statute would take precedence: the Employment Rights Act 1996 or this Bill?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think it is quite clear. I was interested in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) when she talked about the International Labour Organisation and its specifying of minimum service levels. It has stated that they do apply to essential services but could also apply to other services, such as education and railway workers. We think the legislation is consistent with international law and the International Labour Organisation.

[Andy McDonald]

rose—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will give way one last time; then I want to make some progress.

[Andy McDonald]

I am sorry, Minister, but that really does not address the point I made. There is an inalienable right under the Employment Rights Act 1996 for people to withdraw their labour. It is nothing to do with the International Labour Organisation. We are going to have two UK statutes that are in direct conflict with each other; which one will prevail—that Act or this legislation?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm that point, but we absolutely believe that this legislation is lawful and compatible with human rights legislation and international obligations.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) made a typically insightful and thoughtful speech that no doubt provoked thinking on both sides of the Committee. He talked about the Henry VIII powers in the legislation, but I reassure him that they are restricted only to genuinely consequential amendments. I do not believe they are as wide ranging as he set out.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) was absolutely right—this was also reflected in the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth)—that we are not anti-union, but we are pro-protecting the public.

Draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Andy McDonald

Tuesday 13th December 2022 General Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I understand it, nothing is different, but I will check with my officials and come back to the hon. Lady before the end of the debate.

The outdoor equipment manufacturer I referred to will be able to continue to access international markets more easily when assessment is facilitated in the way I described, thereby increasing its exporting potential and customer choice. The MRA benefits that the UK experienced for years as an EU member are maintained through the provisions of the new MRA with Switzerland.

The statutory instrument we are considering implements the MRA by amending an earlier set of regulations made last year: the Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) and Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The Minister is explaining to us that this is putting the UK and Switzerland in the same position as now, making a temporary arrangement permanent. On a point of clarification, is there any differential between the relationship with Switzerland on those matters, as compared with that with the rest of the EU? Is there any difference or are similar arrangements being made?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The rest of the EU uses the CE mark. If we want to export products to the EU, we use the CE mark. That is a European certification process. These are relationships simply between the UK and Switzerland, not with the rest of the European Union. We have a separate arrangement for that.

The 2021 regulations are amended by the instrument we are considering so that they are also included in the Swiss MRA. I will return briefly to that point when discussing the territorial scope and the specifics of the regulations.

I will now consider each of the areas in greater detail. For goods coming into the UK that are in the scope of the MRA, we have committed to recognising the results of conformity assessment procedures carried out by recognised Swiss CABs and appointed bodies against our domestic regulations. The statutory instrument makes clear that assessments carried out by a recognised body based in Switzerland should be treated as equivalent to those carried out by a UK-approved or appointed body when products are placed on the market in Great Britain.

Draft Internal Market Information System Regulation (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2021

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Andy McDonald

Thursday 1st December 2022 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Internal Market Information System Regulation (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2021.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Robert. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 20 July 2021. Right hon. and hon. Members will understand the importance of the need to protect citizens and businesses through the effective operation of the Northern Ireland protocol. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that it is also important that our statute book provides a clear and up-to-date picture of UK law for the benefit of UK public authorities, businesses and citizens.

The statutory instrument tidies up the statute book by removing provisions relating to access to the EU’s internal market information system database that are redundant or inoperable as a result of the UK’s departure from the EU. It also forms part of the UK’s delivery of the Northern Ireland protocol. The IMI is a secure online tool used to facilitate the EU single market. The tool was created to resolve problems of ineffective, insecure and inefficient communication between the European Commission and EU member states. It is hosted and maintained by the European Commission. At the end of the implementation period, the UK’s access to the European Union’s networks, information systems and databases was blocked by the EU, save for specific exemptions.

Under the Northern Ireland protocol, the EU can grant the UK access to such systems as it considers necessary to enable the UK to comply with its obligations under the protocol. In a decision of 16 October, the European Commission granted the UK limited access to the IMI to enable the UK to fulfil certain obligations under EU legislation that continue to apply in respect of Northern Ireland under the protocol. I will set out those obligations in more detail shortly. The UK’s access to the IMI has otherwise been removed.

EU regulation 1024/2012 on administrative co-operation through the IMI sets out the framework for use of the IMI. That regulation is retained EU law under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and applies in areas where access to the IMI is retained. The draft regulations do not make any policy changes, impose new obligations or create new powers. They remove redundant provisions that are inoperable because access has already been removed by the European Commission on the grounds that UK access is no longer required. In particular, they remove references concerning legislative areas in respect of which the UK does not have access to the IMI, which include patient rights relating to cross-border healthcare, posted workers, public documents, the services directive, the recognition of professional qualifications and non-road mobile machinery. They also clarify that regulation 1024/2012 applies in respect of Northern Ireland only to facilitate communications and the exchange of information for three general purposes, which I will set out.

The first relates to the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed. The relevant EU directive sets out the procedures for the return to an EU state of objects that are national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value that have been unlawfully removed from that EU state to another. An EU member state can enter a case on the IMI to send a notification of the EU member state to which it is believed that that object has been taken. On receipt of the case, all reasonable steps would be taken to locate the object and protect it until such time as it can be retrieved, unless it cannot be located or has been found to have been legally imported. All actions taken would be recorded on the IMI. The UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for cases on the IMI module on the return of cultural objects.

The second purpose relates to the acquisition and possession of weapons. The relevant EU directive sets out the minimum standards for civilian firearm acquisition and possession in European economic area states for the purpose of controlling the movement of weapons between EEA states. The IMI is used by EEA states to notify other EEA states where they have granted authorisation to a business or an individual to acquire a firearm from, or transfer a firearm to, another EEA state. The UK Department for International Trade is responsible for all such communications through the IMI module on the control of firearms.

The third and final purpose is to facilitate mutual recognition of goods. The relevant EU regulation sets out a framework for ensuring that goods lawfully marketed in one EEA state can be sold in any other EEA state as long as they are safe and respect the public interest. It provides that economic operators who consider that their rights under this regulation have been breached by a public authority of another EEA state can use the single market problem-solving network, SOLVIT, to try to find solutions without the need to resort to action in court.

The SOLVIT network is hosted on the IMI. If a decision was made by a UK public authority to deny entry to the Northern Ireland marketplace of goods sold in an EEA state, and the EEA economic operator considered that to be incompatible with this regulation, he could lodge a case through the SOLVIT network. The IMI SOLVIT co-ordinator for the UK would then review the case and engage with the responsible authority in the UK in order to agree a response to the case, to be submitted through the IMI.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving a very detailed account on this important issue.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am nearly done!

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

On SOLVIT, the dispute about the tracing of goods has been one of the major issues around the Northern Ireland protocol. When we speak to people in Brussels, they tell us not only that they are sad to see us go but that they have a solution. That solution relates not only to GB-Northern Ireland and resolving perceived difficulties through co-operation, but to repairing the trade imbalance that now exists between the EU and the UK. That means that what we can solve in GB-NI, we can also solve in EU-UK. Do the draft regulations, albeit narrow and targeted, not suggest that we are going in the wrong direction in our attempts to work better with our European Union partners, for the benefit of our trade?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Co-operation is always the best way. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to be pragmatic in finding solutions. This statutory instrument is not about resolving things that have gone wrong in the past; it is about removing things that are no longer needed and that would potentially conflict with other pieces of legislation. However, I agree with him that, in terms of co-operation, it makes sense to come to agreements that suit both sides. Both parties are involved in the negotiation, of course, and we have to tread a pretty fine line in trying to get to the right place.

The IMI SOLVIT co-ordinator is based in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

In conclusion, this statutory instrument simply makes technical amendments to reflect the current position regarding the UK’s access to the IMI. It removes provisions that are no longer operable following the end of the implementation period and it retains only those provisions that are necessary in respect of Northern Ireland, to ensure that the UK can comply with certain obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. This statutory instrument ensures that UK public authorities can continue to access the IMI, to allow them to deliver these obligations securely, effectively and efficiently, where necessary. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Andy McDonald

Friday 22nd October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). [Laughter.] At least we have a Yorkshire heritage in common, which is always a pleasure.

It is quite daunting to speak after the eloquent speeches by the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris). They both made fantastic and constructive speeches. Prior to my being in this Chamber, my life was in business, and I feel like I am in some kind of mediation. We have heard the workers’ perspective, we have heard the lawyers’ perspective, and now, perhaps, we will listen to the business perspective, which is a very important part of the conversation.

It was great to hear the hon. Member for Brent North talk about the engagement that he has had with business, and about seeing the issue from their perspective. I can see why he has made sure that the Bill does not ban fire and rehire outright. I am not sure that all his colleagues would support that position, so he has taken a brave line on that. He said right at the start of his speech that he wants to make the UK the best place to work. I absolutely agree. We also want to make it the best place to start a business, because the relationship is symbiotic. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford East, said that workers create the wealth and the chief executives and shareholders hoard it. I do not see it like that. It is a much more interdependent relationship than that.

Let me talk about a personal experience of mine. I have been in business for 30 years. I know that the situation would not have been quite the same, because my business would not have come under the legislation contained in chapter 1, but there are other elements that would have been the same. We entered the crisis of 2008 with a workforce of 200 people, so we would have come under this legislation in scale, although the legislation that covered our business would probably have been slightly different.

We were in the property sector, and we were faced with a 70% reduction in turnover that year. The first thing that happened was that all the directors of the company—all the people who ran the company—took a 50% pay cut. That was the first thing we did, before we made any redundancies whatsoever. Then, of course, we sat down and talked to our workforce about how we were going to get through this period. That was a very difficult period, because we had been in business for 26 years and a lot of those people had worked for us for over 20 years. We had to reduce our workforce from 200 people to 65. It was a desperate time. We were not trying, as was described, to coerce them into a certain situation; we were simply trying to get our business through a very difficult situation. We were under pressure from all directions.

The key thing for us at that point was pace. The bank was putting us under huge pressure. We did go through consultations. As part of the section 188 requirements—the 30-day requirement—we went through consultation with our workforce. The workforce were very supportive of what we did, and I think in many cases they felt more sorry for us than we did for them, although, as I say, the conversations were very difficult. However, if we had had to go through endless consultations and reviews, challenges through the committee and challenges through the employment tribunal, our business would have gone under. That is the reality behind that delay.

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Member is making some excellent points. I do not think that anybody in the House is suggesting that the sort of practices that he engaged in, as a good and responsible employer, are the issues at play here. The issue that concerns us is employers that are making very significant profits using the cover of covid to deploy these dreadful tactics, not the sort of good practices that he is describing. He is making reasonable points about periods of consultation. If he finds that those are too onerous, we can address and debate those issues in Committee. We need to hear evidence directly from people, including his considerable experience.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I should have clarified this. I am not a lawyer, but I can read, and subsection (1) of proposed new section 187A covers not just fire and rehire but, as set out in clause 1,

“reasons other than conduct or capability”,

which could cover a situation where someone was making redundancies simply to cut their coat according to their cloth. Is it possible to amend in Committee a Bill that is potentially so flawed? I defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, who said that guidelines and sanctions would be the better approach. It is only fair that we look at that. As legislators, it is important that we tread carefully when we legislate at all. Bill Shankly, a great Liverpool manager, said to his players before he sent them out on to the pitch that, “The score is 0-0, don’t let it get any worse.” Before we move down a path of legislation, we legislators have to think about whether there are unintended consequences—we must not make things worse, particularly for business, which is looking for stability, frameworks and certainty. I will also come to the retrospective nature of the Bill, which I am uncomfortable with.

I am of course totally opposed to fire and rehire where a profitable business that does not need to restructure is taking advantage of a particular situation. Opposition Members are trying to cover those situations, and who would not want to do that? Such conduct is absolutely wrong and a stain on business, and every Minister I have heard at the Dispatch Box has criticised it.

There is only one thing worse than fire and rehire, and that is fire and not rehire. That would be a concern if the Bill went through, instead of companies taking the opportunity to restructure in a way that keeps their business going and gets it through a difficult time. If the provisions were not in the Bill, companies would just make redundancies or dismiss staff in other ways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but in my view it is better to have no legislation than poor legislation. It is important that we look at the Bill and decide whether it should go into Committee.

As I was trying to say in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Brent North, it is about capacity. We would be giving the Central Arbitration Committee huge responsibility, not only for taking on lots more cases but for making lots more determinations about information.

[Andy McDonald]

That’s its job.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, but it would require a huge scaling up of the role and there are no money resolutions attached to the Bill. [Interruption.] If I or any other person does not want to see this Bill passed, we have a perfect right to stand in this Chamber and express that opinion. That is exactly what I am doing. As I say, it is better to have no legislation than poor legislation.

The capacity of employment tribunals is another big issue. The ACAS document says that employment tribunals are under enormous strain today. The Bill would likely significantly increase the workload of employment tribunals. Additionally, it would require them to make all kinds of interpretations. The ACAS document observes that tribunals are not economists. Tribunals would consider the situation between businesses and workers and would have to make decisions that, in my view, they may not be capable of making. This might introduce undesired complexity, for example. There are all kinds of questions, not just about capacity but about the competence of employment tribunals.

I am also concerned about duplication, as it seems to me that there are provisions in the Bill about situations covered by redundancy.

Levelling-up Agenda: Tees Valley

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Andy McDonald

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) for securing the debate, and Mr Speaker for granting me permission to speak on behalf of my constituency of Middlesbrough.

Ten years of Tory austerity have been utterly devastating for our people, and for none more so than for the people in my town of Middlesbrough and for our communities across the Tees Valley. That the Government are now talking about a levelling up agenda is the result of the inequalities that have taken hold across the regions over recent years because of their policies. The prolonged period of underfunding and not providing communities with the powers to help themselves has left us in a state where the disparity in funding levels across the UK is stark.

Let us look at transport. Last year, London got £903 per head and the north-east £486. The Government do not have the interests of the whole nation at heart. The Middlesbrough to King’s Cross rail service has been put back and back and back. The latest estimated time of arrival is December 2021, and further delays would not surprise me.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

I will give way once, because I have little time.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Let us try not to be too party political about this. Does the hon. Member not recognise that under-investment in the north, which we all suffer from, has happened under Governments of all persuasions, for decades, and this is the first Government who are doing something tangible about it?

[Andy McDonald]

I would like to think that was true. I hear that trotted out ad nauseam from the Government Benches: “When you criticise me or hold me to account, you’re being party political.” That is our job. The Conservatives have had 10 years in Government and have done nothing but give us false promises and hard hats. We are not into it. Of course, there was nothing about Northern Powerhouse Rail in the Chancellor’s statement and there is nothing at all on the horizon for the much-needed electrification of the line from Northallerton through to Middlesbrough and beyond.

Sadly, the social, economic and health crises brought about by covid-19 have only exacerbated the existing inequalities. It is no surprise that Middlesbrough, as one of the poorest parts of the country, with 40% of children growing up below the poverty line and where four out of five workers have to leave home to go about their work, was also one of the areas of the UK worst hit by the virus.

There are, however, things that can be done to address some of the impacts of years of neglect and the ravages of covid. Many of us are old enough to remember Margaret Thatcher in ’79 cancelling the transfer of the Government’s property service agencies from London to Middlesbrough—3,000 jobs cut at a stroke. Over recent years of Tory rule, high-quality Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs jobs have been ripped out of Middlesbrough and Stockton, among them experienced civil servants who were tax inspectors and whose debt recovery performance was the best in the country. I pleaded with the Government not to rob us of those high-quality jobs, but did they listen?

That is why I am hugely disappointed that the Chancellor has not come forward today with a decision regarding the campus for the north. Over the past year I have repeatedly urged him to bring forward plans to establish that campus and bring with it 22,000 Government jobs for our communities, making the case for Middlesbrough and the Tees Valley to be chosen as a site for the new campus. Again—lots of press releases, but no action.

My hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North and for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) and I recently met senior representatives of BP and Net Zero Teesside. For many years, we have been pressing the case for carbon capture, use and storage on Teesside, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friends’ work. We very much welcomed the discussion about further work on the plans, which have been a long time in development. However, the funding behind the Government’s 10-point plan for the green industrial revolution does not come anywhere near addressing the immediate climate and employment crisis.

There is no engagement or consultation with trade unions when we secure very welcome major capital expenditure projects, totally consistent with the ambitions of the green industrial revolution. That cannot continue. I have begged the Government to listen to Frances O’Grady of the TUC and her call for a national recovery council, with Government, businesses and unions working together. We want good jobs and good industrial relations from the off. We want union engagement at the start of the process, not desperate attempts at retrofitting. On Teesside, as across the entire country, if there is to be any substance to the constant drip feed of rehashed announcements and hollow promises, it has to mean something for Teesside workers, with a clear path to delivery.

There is an opportunity here to create new, well-paid unionised jobs. There is insufficient focus on jobs and ensuring that we have the skills to secure those jobs. Sadly, Tory Governments do all that they can to undermine the strength and bargaining power of trade unions that are fighting to protect jobs. President-elect Joe Biden said the other day:

“I want you to know I’m a union guy”,

and that under his presidency unions will have increased power. He said:

“It’s not antibusiness. It’s about economic growth, creating good paying jobs.”

I do not know why the Tory Government cannot comprehend that.

The benchmark of the promise to level up will be my Middlesbrough constituents having those good jobs and being able to enjoy the benefits of economic growth with their families. As for the promise to boost skills, are the Government serious? They have just cancelled the union learning fund on the basis that it is not fair because all receiving workplaces are union workplaces. They should encourage workers, as I am doing today, to join a trade union. That is the way to secure better terms and conditions, safer workplaces, a better work-life balance and better pay and spending power to put demand back in the economy and taxes in the Treasury. Scrapping the union learning fund is levelling down, not levelling up, and it is a kick in the teeth for working people.

Sadly, far too many people in Middlesbrough and across the Tees Valley will not be looking forward to 2021 and levelling up, but they will be looking at the pork barrel Tory politics delivering for their friends, their party and their donors. It was ever thus, but it does not have to be like that. We can build back better if there is the political will, but my Middlesbrough constituents see very little evidence of it.