Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think that the polling is very clear. We have heard precious little about what the public think of this. We heard a lot about the impact on public sector workers, but the public themselves are with us on this legislation.

The Government have already announced their intention to consult on the application of minimum service levels for rail, ambulance and fire services. I welcome Members’ questions and suggestions on how minimum service levels will operate in specific services, and I note in particular the helpful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and for West Dorset (Chris Loder). I look forward to the contribution of key stakeholders and experts during the consultation process. The Government will also engage with the devolved Administrations during the consultation process. The Government have been clear, however, that we may choose not to use the regulation-making powers in the Bill if adequate voluntary arrangements, where necessary, are already in place between employers in a relevant sector.

This legislation also equips employers to manage instances where a worker takes strike action despite being named to work on a strike day. It is at the discretion of employers as to what action, if any, is taken, and we hope that employers are fair and reasonable. The claim that it is a policy of this Government to sack workers is an unfair exaggeration.

I want to touch on the international examples, mentioned in the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris). The concept of minimum service levels is not new. They are used all over the world, including in the USA, Canada and a number of European countries including Spain and Italy. We all want to see an end to these strikes.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

1. What recent assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the increase in the energy price guarantee in April 2023 on households.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

4. What recent assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the increase in the energy price guarantee in April 2023 on households.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Grant Shapps)]

Future energy prices remain highly uncertain and are expected to remain elevated throughout next year. The energy price guarantee from April ’23 is currently expected to equate to £500 of support for households in 2023-24.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

As I hope the Secretary of State will know, recent analysis published by The Herald has shown that the typical dual fuel bill for people in Scotland will be £3,300—£800 more than the current £2,500 price cap. Given the Chancellor’s plans to increase the price cap further, what levels does the Secretary of State expect average energy bills to reach in Scotland next year?

[Grant Shapps]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, a comprehensive range of different support is in place, including the energy price guarantee, which on average looks to guarantee £2,500. It is not specific to each household, of course, and it depends on how much energy is actually used—it is a cap—but there is additional help including the £400 non-repayable support through the energy bills support scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

11. Whether his Department plans to take steps to support (a) domestic and (b) non-domestic energy customers after March 2023.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

15. Whether his Department plans to take steps to support (a) domestic and (b) non-domestic energy customers after March 2023.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

I am proud of the support the Government have provided to energy customers. His Majesty’s Government launched a Treasury-led review into how we support energy bills beyond April next year. The review will result in a new approach that ensures there is enough support for those in need while costing the taxpayer less than planned. The cost has come down significantly because of the fall in gas prices in recent weeks. Any support for non-domestic energy customers will be targeted at those most affected. This new approach will better incentivise energy efficiency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

It is good to see the Ministers still in their place for a wee while. Just six days ago, Martin Sartorius, the principal economist at the CBI, said:

“The prospect of household energy bills rising sharply again in April 2023 emphasises the need for Government to set out the details of any future targeted support sooner rather than later”.

The Secretary of State has repeatedly refused to clarify when households will receive clarity. Can I assume that he is also happy to leave businesses in the dark?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman cannot find a stick without picking up the wrong end. It has to be said that this Government acted with the speed of light.

“There was a young lady named Bright

Whose speed was far faster than light;

She set out one day

In a relative way

And returned on the previous night.”

We have returned on the previous night with a package that will receive Royal Assent today. The package has been worked out and thought through, with its budget provided, within a few weeks. We have some time between now and 1 April to establish what the scheme will be in future.

Shale Gas Extraction

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There is a war in Ukraine. We need security of supply.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I wonder if the Secretary of State could advise the House: what discussions will take place between his Department and the Scotland Office on enabling fracking in Scotland?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I regularly have conversations with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and will be delighted to attend if I can.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

The Government hate a monopoly, so can the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and tell my constituents who are former employees of Together Energy why his Government are using the energy crisis to create an energy monopoly by the big players, as opposed to small and medium-sized providers?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

As I have maintained on a number of occasions, the hon. Gentleman’s party is a jobs destroyer in the energy sector, refusing to countenance any investment in the North sea, and in alliance with the Greens, who want to destroy jobs in the sector.

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

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Friday 22nd October 2021 Commons Chamber

Debate resumed.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the feeling on this side of the House about fire and rehire, I wonder whether you can inform those Members who find this a profoundly disagreeable position whether the House authorities, or contractors providing services on behalf of the House, are utilising the policy of fire and rehire for the delivery of services within the Palace of Westminster.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very reasonable point of order. He has asked a question to which I cannot give him a direct answer, because I do not know the answer, but I would say to him that it is of course not a matter for the Chair. It is, however, a matter for the House authorities. When I say it is not a matter for the Chair, I do not mean to imply that it is a matter about which the Chair is unconcerned. I will therefore endeavour to find out the answer to his question and let him know as soon as I possibly can.

Help to Grow: Digital

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 20th September 2021 General Committees

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir George. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment; it is always an honour to take up such a position in any Government.

I join the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central in saying that we, too, will not oppose the motion, but will support it. I would like to echo much of what has been said about some of the challenges that small and medium-sized businesses have faced in the last 18 months.

I wish to address my comments specifically to cyber-security and the issues faced by small and medium-businesses in respect of online and other platforms. The hon. Lady mentioned businesses that suddenly went online after three weeks, but do not have expertise to deal with the cyber-security issues that they will face. As a member of the Defence Committee, I am keenly aware that cyber-security is a state issue of national security. That is not just a military expression; it is about a whole-state approach. That must include small and medium-sized businesses, to ensure that they have both the strength and resilience to sell online in an effective manner.

Will the Minister advise Members whether his Department has had or will have a discussion with the National Cyber Security Centre about how it can inform how the grants are utilised? If there is not a specific grant, are there any new grants to ensure strength and resilience for small and medium-sized businesses working online?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

Having a run a few myself, as colleagues here have, I am all for them. I simply make the point that we are the fastest growing economy in the G7, so we must be doing something right. The hon. Lady is right to highlight, as this measure does, the importance of SMEs.

This is a targeted measure. We are not trying to boil the ocean; we are trying to target specific funding at businesses for which all the evidence shows that the uptake of digital technologies such as those I have described will have maximum impact in terms of productivity and competitiveness. A number of us have started companies. Very often in the first three, six, nine or 12 months we find that digital technology is not necessarily the biggest barrier to getting going. It is important, but we are doing here is focusing where all the evidence from the business community suggests that support for digital uptake will have the biggest.

I will take the questions in turn. First, this is designed specifically for businesses, so charities are not eligible, but I am delighted to say that all social enterprises—businesses that recycle their profits back into good causes—are eligible, which sends an important message.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Will a social enterprise that is also a registered charity be eligible, because most social enterprises, at least in my constituency, are registered charities?

[George Freeman]

Many social enterprises are not charities, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good point, because many charities also have an operating arm as a company. I will come back to him on that point.

Secondly, on take-up, I am happy to say that there have been a series of meetings, roundtables and engagement projects over the spring and summer. I do not have the exact figures, but hundreds of companies have already registered to take up when this opens shortly.

Thirdly, the hon. Lady mentioned the importance of this being across the whole UK, and I could not agree more. This project is not just for the golden triangle, golden and important though it is; it is absolutely about reaching companies across the Union, in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and all the regions of this country. On her point about monitoring, one of the key assessments will be to ensure that we are reaching all across the country, so take-up will be monitored in that way.

Fourthly, the hon. Lady asked about procurement. I can assure her that Her Majesty’s Treasury, which is not quick to hand out taxpayers’ money, has been through this with a fine-toothed comb and is satisfied that the procurement process has been done properly. She asked about marketing, and I am delighted to confirm that the marketing budget for this is currently £7.5 million, which is a substantial sum, with £1.5 million in the first year to ensure that we are reaching out and raising awareness among those companies. With Her Majesty’s Opposition onboard, perhaps I can take this opportunity to encourage her and others to highlight the link on the gov.uk website, and to encourage businesses and social enterprises to apply.

Fifthly, on value for money, the Treasury and the business sector calculate that this £260-odd million, if we can get it out to these companies over the next three years, can produce a £7 billion boost to productivity. I think that speaks to the importance of digital productivity and competitiveness in our small business sector. Yes, I am incredibly proud that we are ranked eighth in the world for innovation, but we are 31st on digitalisation in the small business sector, and the level of digitalisation in that particular segment of companies is where Denmark was 10 years ago. That gives a sense of how important this is. I am sure that many of us know businesses in our constituencies that are very successful and doing well, with five to 50 or 100 employees, but that still use paper invoices and some very basic management systems. This is a very targeted scheme that is designed to help those businesses adopt digital technology.

Finally, turning to the very sensible point made by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire, from north of the border, I completely agree that this is, as he called it, “a state issue”, which is why we are absolutely determined to ensure that it goes across the whole UK, in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England. His point about cyber-security was well made. It was one of the issues considered in the assessment of how the scheme would work, and the system for making sure that only authorised procurers are part of the scheme. However, I will raise his point with the National Security Council, because one of the ways that cyber-security can be threatened is by getting into the software in small businesses at the bottom of the supply chain. It is a very good point, but I am delighted to know that the project also has support north of the border.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The Rolls-Royce consortium has proposed a significant public-private joint innovation programme worth more than £500 million to design a first-of-its-kind SMR. The consortium expects a working model to be up and running in the early 2030s, that the SMR programme would create high-value export opportunities and, at its peak, 40,000 jobs, and that each SMR would be capable of producing enough clean electricity to power 750,000 homes.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

In the last Parliament, the Defence Committee and Science and Technology Committee received evidence clearly indicating that there are threats from unmanned aerial vehicles in relation to nuclear reactors. If the Minister supports these small-scale nuclear reactors, will he advise the House on what discussions his Department is having with the Ministry of Defence about their impact on the security of national infrastructure?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s pertinent question. He is absolutely right; we do have discussions with the Ministry of Defence. The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth and I are visiting Hinkley Point tomorrow, but the hon. Member raises an important issue that the nuclear constabulary is taking very seriously.

Community and Sub-Post Offices

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I will come on to detail some of that shortly, if I get a minute between interventions.

The recent survey by the National Federation of SubPostmasters makes for stark reading both for Post Office Ltd and the Government. It found that 77% of sub-postmasters believe that their remuneration rates for business banking are unfair, while only 9% thought them fair, and 67% thought the rates for personal banking were unfair. If that is felt in such huge numbers, I am confident that there is a serious problem emerging that must be addressed quickly. If the number of banking transactions were to continue to increase, 76% of sub-postmasters would be concerned that the level of profit from these transactions would be inappropriate, but 50% of them also had concerns about the volume of cash they had to hand, and a further 42% were concerned about the impact on customer queuing time.

I have visited post offices in my constituency, and unfortunately a picture has emerged that matches the one painted by the federation. When I spoke with those at Ferguslie Park post office, they agreed that the fees they received were not adequate, especially for the amount of transactions that they carry out. That post office plays an important role in administering and advising on benefit payments and has had little success in making sales on the likes of life insurance, savings accounts, mortgages and home insurance. It is therefore especially important that the post office has a secure financial future.

The federation is also concerned about post office closure rates. In July 2018, nearly 1,000 post offices in the sub-postmaster network were listed as temporarily closed—8% of the entire network.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. In Hardgate in my constituency, the Post Office has been unable to replace the closed post office, which serves Hardgate, Duntocher and Faifley. Does he agree that it is up to the Government to force the Post Office to re-establish Crown post offices, where the Post Office cannot meet that need?

[Gavin Newlands]

I totally agree. The first thing that has to be done, though, is to increase the rates that make post offices viable in the modern age. I hope the Minister will take that step.

In 2018, sub-postmasters were far more likely to state their intention to close in the coming year than small businesses in general, with 22% intending to close or downsize their operation. Those with such plans overwhelmingly came from deprived areas. Sub-postmasters also face increasingly difficult working conditions, with often 40-plus hours being dedicated just to the post office side of their business and 27% of them working longer hours in 2018 than 2017. They average fewer than 10 days’ holiday each year, and one third took no time off whatsoever. They also face less take-home pay, with 61% taking home less in 2018 than 2017, 76% making less than the national minimum wage for hours worked and 19% of them or their partners taking on extra work to supplement their income.

Since network transformation, many post offices designated as local post offices, such as Kirklandneuk in my constituency, have had some services removed, such as Parcelforce services and passport services, which may otherwise cross-subsidise the lack of remuneration for banking services. Clearly that would be less of an issue were they simply paid a fair rate from the banks.

Draft Nuclear Safeguards (Fissionable Material and Relevent International Agreements) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 General Committees

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

It is nice to see you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. I will not keep the Committee long. From the Government’s approach, especially given this legislation was announced in the Queen’s Speech, I recognise the importance that everyone gives the issue of leaving Euratom. I am sure the Minister appreciates that, from my perspective, that is not a good step. Nevertheless, it is a step that has to be made.

I recognise that the Government included specific stake- holder group workshops for the devolved Administrations. As that process continues in the implementation, whether the legislation is agreed tomorrow or we leave the European Union without an agreement, I hope the Minister will commit to continuing that discussion and engagement.