Migration and Scotland

Debate between Neil Gray and Kevin Foster

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray]

rose—

[Kevin Foster]

I am afraid I will have to make progress, due to the time and the length of the debate. I also noticed that not many interventions were being taken on the Benches opposite.

Next year, we will be opening the graduate route to allow those who have been here at any skill level to work for two years after completing their studies. Again, we are showing that we are listening, and we are making a difference. I listened to the points made by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) about the fishing industry, and I know that this is an important issue for Members on the SNP Benches. We will look carefully at the recommendation of an immigration pilot for remote communities, and how that could potentially assist in this area. I would say, however, that I have never considered the vibrant cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh remote, and I do not think anyone else would.

Similarly, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) pointed out, we have already taken the decision to increase the seasonal agricultural workers pilot to 10,000—again following feedback about the needs of the Scottish economy. So there are many areas where we are taking on board the views that have been expressed. The best example is where I was on the day the Scottish Government produced their plans—at Glasgow University, talking specifically about the changes to tier 1 to create an uncapped global talent route that will allow universities to put together research teams based not on passports, but on the skills they need to deliver accredited projects. I heard the excitement when they saw the opportunity for Scottish interests and Scottish stakeholders to be at the heart of designing the UK’s immigration policy in a way that assists them. Similarly, we are looking further at how we can work through the tier 4 system with those organisations, particularly universities with a high compliance rate, to make sure it works even better for them.

The key is ensuring that talent across the world sees the great potential of Scotland, as the UK Government do, and that means creating an attractive environment for investment and for working there. The Scottish Government, of course, have power over vast swathes of public life in Scotland—education, healthcare, infrastructure and taxation—and they perhaps may wish to question the impact, in terms of welcoming people, of making Scotland the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom with their policy decisions. The Scottish Government have control of all the necessary levers to encourage investment, to build an educated and skilled workforce, and to secure Scotland’s economic future. With all those tools available, why do they still seek to stoke division? It is because separatism, not Scotland’s future, is their first priority. SNP Members should ask themselves whether the failings in education that Nicola Sturgeon has presided over have anything to do with Scottish companies seeking talent from elsewhere, or whether any number of overseas medical professionals will deal with the issues in the Scottish health service. This Government will create an in-response-to-demand NHS visa system that makes it easy to recruit health workers, but again, that will not necessarily tackle the core issues of the failure of domestic policy set by the Scottish National party.

As pointed out in this debate, immigration has brought a vast wealth of experience, expertise and diversity to the United Kingdom, and we have heard some great examples in this debate of where that has taken place, but that cannot be used as a stopgap or to make up for the failings of nationalist policies elsewhere. Above all, those who choose to come and make their lives in the United Kingdom should be welcomed across all four nations, not used to stoke constitutional grievances or in an attempt to set up a border at Berwick.

The United Kingdom Government have looked at the proposals, which talk of settlement. Is that settlement purely in Scotland or elsewhere? For us, the key is to look at the themes, the needs and the requirements, rather than to just look at how we can break up the United Kingdom. I am clear that there will be challenges to address across our Union, but the idea that we should do that based on the nations of the United Kingdom misses the point. The idea, for example, that Torbay’s economy is instantly comparable to London’s because it happens to be in England, or that the appropriate solution for the Scottish highlands would be to have the same visa as in Edinburgh, misses some of the key ways our economy works. Again, I am conscious that this is something that was decided more by a Government who set up a review to look for their destination of separation, rather than a genuine look at how life patterns work across our United Kingdom.

We are clear that we will listen to feedback. We have written back to the Scottish Government and we will listen to feedback from stakeholders and the Scottish Government about how a future migration system can work. We will look at what their policies would deliver and whether they would deliver success across our United Kingdom. That will be the focus of our policies and plans for taking this forward and making ourselves a nation that prioritises and embraces a bright, optimistic future for Scotland, a place whose natural beauty is second to none. But we will also reject the separatist view of a grievance-based culture of constitutional argument, as I know the House will tonight.

Question put.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Debate between Neil Gray and Kevin Foster

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 19th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

The Delivery Authority and Sponsor Body will be required to adhere to any legislation that has been passed in this place. Members have touched on disability issues and heritage issues. The Bill also refers to environmental considerations. We are keen to ensure that this is not a question of one interest automatically trumping another. Heritage issues will not automatically trump disability issues, and disability issues will not automatically trump environmental issues. There will be a range of choices to be made by Sponsor Body members, and they will then be held to account by Members on their decisions and how the project is taken forward. We certainly know that not taking the project forward will not improve the environmental impacts of this Parliament—in fact, quite the opposite.

I turn to amendments on which there is more disagreement, starting with amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for City of Chester. As he rightly said, I made it clear in Committee that I see blacklisting as a scourge. It is an inappropriate and shameful practice. However, we have concerns about particular aspects of the amendment, even though we appreciate the intentions behind it.

Provision is already made in legislation against blacklisting. The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 already provide mechanisms by which the Delivery Authority will be able to look into the practices of prospective suppliers in relation to blacklisting. In particular, it is also open to the Delivery Authority to exclude a provider from participating in a procurement where it can demonstrate a violation of obligations in the field of national social and labour law. That would include a breach of anti-blacklisting legislation. I could go into the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 in more detail, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman is very familiar with them.

It is a mandatory requirement for potential suppliers to declare that they have not breached any of the exclusion grounds, including labour law obligations. A completed declaration is also required of any organisations that potential suppliers may rely on to meet the selection criteria, including essential subcontractors. If a prospective supplier declares that they have been found to be in breach of the anti-blacklisting legislation by a court or tribunal, it would be reasonable for the contracting authority to ask to see details of the judgment.

The Government believe that the Bill provides mechanisms to address the concerns that the hon. Gentleman rightly raised. For example, it would be open to the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority to make specific provision within the programme delivery agreement between the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority provided for in clause 4. Such provision could require construction companies to declare their policies on corporate social responsibility for the Delivery Authority to consider. Of course, whether such provision is made in the programme delivery agreement will be for the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority to agree upon, but I am sure that members of the shadow Sponsor Board here today—including the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside—are listening carefully to the issues that he and other Members have raised.

While I understand the principle behind the amendment, the Government do not consider it necessary. We consider that the current legislative framework and the Bill’s provisions already include the necessary safeguards to ensure transparency, accountability to Parliament through the period of the parliamentary building works and ongoing scrutiny of the parliamentary building works. Parliamentary Committees will also have the opportunity to scrutinise works that are ongoing. While the Government cannot support the amendment, we believe many measures are in place that will allow us not only to tackle blacklisting but to ensure there is constant accountability to this place on the widest range of environmental, social and labour legislation, and to ensure that this project is an exemplar of them all.

I now turn to amendment 6 and the amendment from the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru—amendment 4—which are on a similar theme of looking to spread the work across this United Kingdom. In many ways, I welcome the enthusiasm of the hon. Members for Airdrie and Shotts and for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the right hon. Members for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) in wanting to make this project one that really represents the whole Union, so that for generations to come and decades for come, Scottish Members of Parliament will be able to see in this House the symbols of being part of this Union Parliament.

Where I have concerns, sadly, is in how this amendment relates to procurement law. The Delivery Authority will need to create a level playing field as per the public procurement rules. Within these parameters, it is of course open to the Delivery Authority to encourage nations and regions across the UK to participate fully in and to benefit from the works processes. For example, the Delivery Authority may take steps to ensure that companies UK-wide are aware of the bids process by taking out advertising in regional media outlets and perhaps by doing roadshows, as Heathrow airport has done. However, in developing its procurement strategy and assessing bids, it would not be lawful to factor in the geographical location of companies. Adjusting the playing field in the way the amendment prescribes would, I am advised, expose the Delivery Authority to challenge under procurement law.

[Neil Gray]

I thank the Minister—well, I think I thank the Minister, who has just said he is not going to support my amendment—but this will not of course fall foul of procurement law, will it? There is no prescription here, and no quotas are set out. All the amendment does is to reiterate some of the comments that have been made by this Minister and previous Ministers and Leaders of the House that this will indeed be a UK-wide project with discernible benefits across the UK. Why on earth can a very wide-ranging amendment such as this not be enacted to guarantee the words of the Minister, unlike in the case of the Olympics, where that did not happen?

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his overall constructive intervention. The problem is where the amendment says

“in terms of contracts for works”,

which implies a change to how the Sponsor Body would assess procurement, and where it says

“and in any other way”,

which is an unusually wide statement to put in a piece of primary legislation and could in effect give the Delivery Authority and the Sponsor Body in particular very wide range to do things that may not have been the intention of this House. Unfortunately, while I appreciate the intention of amendment 4, it is not one that the Government can recommend the House to accept or support.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Neil Gray and Kevin Foster

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th June 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I remember that, when we published the Joint Committee report, there was some concern about the ambiguity of the Government’s position regarding restoration and renewal. It seems now that, with the former Leader of the House driving the project forward, the Government’s position has been more supportive. However, can the Minister understand the criticism being levelled at the Government? Not accepting a Treasury Minister on the Sponsor Body might well be seen as the Government once again trying to distance themselves and not being foursquare in support of the project?

[Kevin Foster]

It is safe to say that the Government fully support the project and will facilitate the will of the House to take it forward, hence the introduction of the Bill and the role played by the Leader of the House.

If we look at the structure of the Public Accounts Committee, technically a Treasury Minister is a member and gives a speech once a year which is a 10-minute statement of support for the audit process. If that Minister took part in the actual inquiries and the debates of the Public Accounts Committee, I do not think that would enhance its work, and I speak as a former member of that Committee. It could inevitably inject a party political element to its work. The Public Accounts Committee is very strong because it is seen as a resolutely cross-party body.

I do not think the Government’s position shows a lack of commitment. It shows our desire to have the Sponsor Body, the client, working towards instructions Parliament has given it. The Treasury will play a role in engaging, defending the taxpayers’ interests and providing comments, so that it can give a view when the House decides on the estimates process. It would be rather strange to say that Members would think it better for a Treasury Minister to be part of the body that they were commenting on, rather than being enabled on behalf of the Treasury to comment on the Sponsor Body’s work. Again, Members from the governing party will be on the body, and we can see the commitments we have made. The Government see clearly that there is a need to take forward restoration and renewal, and I think that Opposition Front Benchers take exactly the same view. Carrying on patching this place up is not an alternative, because each year the bills are getting bigger and bigger and the taxpayer is having to pay more and more to achieve a worse outcome. No Government would wish to endorse or support that.

I understand the reason for amendment 4, but the Government feel that it would be better were the Treasury to engage with the Sponsor Body through the clear relationship and link set out in the Bill. Treasury Ministers will be open to questions in the House about the Government’s work and commitment throughout the life of the project, rather than having to give a caveat, along the lines of, “Today I am answering as an HM Treasury Minister, but tomorrow I will be answering as a Sponsor Body member.” That would not sound or look right to me; it would create a conflicted role, or a position in which the Treasury Minister was almost an honorary member of the Sponsor Body, rather than taking part in its work in detail.

The Government’s strong preference is for the amendment not to be made. That does not in any way diminish the commitment and the strong links that the Treasury and Parliament will need to have with the Sponsor Body as it takes the project forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I welcome the spirit of the speech and the hon. Lady’s approach. From my perspective, we believe the Comptroller and Auditor General has a range of powers over this, and it is worth noting that the role he would play is specifically referred to in schedule 2 at the bottom of page 21, where, again, it says that the Comptroller and Auditor General “must” send a copy of the statement of accounts—it does not say “may”.

At this stage, including the amendment is not necessarily the approach I would suggest we adopt in this Committee, but certainly, once the Sponsor Body is up and running and has agreed on engagement with Parliament, it is almost unimaginable that, as a project having a large amount of public funds spent on it, it would not look for strong engagement from the Comptroller and Auditor General, and look, bluntly, to how its own existence came about. A strong Public Accounts Committee report was exactly what persuaded the House to support the decant option, against the arguments of several hon. Members who were not too fond of that option, but who understood the logic. Certainly what persuaded me to vote in a free vote for the full decant option was reading the Public Accounts Committee’s conclusions, which were based on the NAO’s work on which option would represent the best value for money. Making the amendment to the schedule at this stage might not be the most appropriate thing, but I am more than happy for us to take it away and reflect on the structure.

When it comes to agreeing the relationship between the Sponsor Body and Parliament, it is almost inevitable that we will need to consider closely the relationship with the Comptroller and Auditor General, especially in terms of when the estimates come forward. It would be hard to imagine that many Members of the House would not look to the quality of the assessment done by the Comptroller and Auditor General and then the conclusions the Public Accounts Committee has drawn in relation to his or her work.

[Neil Gray]

I note that the Minister referred earlier to a slightly different area, which was how the project could be beneficial across the United Kingdom. Perhaps this would be an opportunity for the Minister to reflect briefly on amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I could not have put it better myself. We heard passionate speeches about ensuring that this is a Parliament for all; not only for Members with particular needs, but for those who want to come and be part of the democratic debate that happens here. We can be candid that the vast majority of our facilities are from another era, with regard to disability issues, and not just visible disabilities. The example was given of someone with a wheelchair trying to come through the doors of Portcullis House, or of a child with autism.

One of the most pleasurable experiences I have had here in the past few months—we have all had some perhaps not so pleasant experiences in this place over the past few months—was bringing a group from Combe Pafford School in my constituency, all of whom have autism, and thinking about how we could appropriately have a question and answer session and how we could see around the building. I must mention the look on one staff member’s face as we went on to the Terrace and I had to give the briefing that climbing on the wall was probably not the thing to do, given that on the other side is a straight trip to the Thames. However, the joy on those kids’ faces as they saw where I could hang my sword, where the Chamber is, where decisions are taken and when they got literally to stand where the Prime Minister stand when answering Prime Minister’s questions was an absolute joy to behold. Hopefully we will see more of that in the new building, as well as more accessibility.

I have been very clear that, although this might be a Royal Palace, there will not be Crown immunity from the standard rules on ensuring disabled access; there will be a requirement to consider the legal need to make reasonable adjustments. There will of course be challenges in a grade I listed building, where virtually every corner has history where something significant happened. We will have to balance that against what costs may be attached but also, like anywhere else, what reasonably should happen. We should aim not just to meet legal minimums, but to create an exemplar for accessibility, as was touched on.

[Neil Gray]

I am heartened to some extent by what the Minister is saying about his expectations for the accessibility of Parliament, but I am concerned, following discussions at various levels, that there will need to be compromises between heritage and accessibility. Surely if our Parliament is not accessible by all, it will struggle to be representative. How far does the Minister expect that the project needs to go to ensure that it complies and can be a fully representative Parliament building?

[Kevin Foster]

The details will come from the Sponsor Body, but I would expect, when public business is being transacted, that someone with a disability should reasonably be able to observe proceedings, hear them and be part of them. They should be able to get to the room concerned, and not by being taken up in a service elevator, which—let us be blunt— is one of the pretty basic arrangements we have had to make to allow some access into the current building.

However, as with other heritage projects, that must be balanced with the fact that, for example, those steps in the Great Hall of Westminster are where Charles I was sentenced to death—they are historic in their own right. There are parts of this building that would be incredibly difficult to alter, but we will not put ourselves on a special pedestal. We will have to make reasonable adjustments, based on the law that exists. I think that getting the maximum level of accessibility possible, while working within the inherent constraints of a grade I listed building, some of which dates back to the middle ages, is something that all hon. Members are passionate about.

I would not describe it as compromising; it is about ensuring that we can balance the needs in this building, so that heritage does not always trump disability and disability works within heritage. As the hon. Member for City of Chester will know, there are some amazing heritage buildings that have found some amazing solutions to provide access to heritage that was not possible before, without compromising its protection. Again, I think we all hope that this project will be the exemplar.

In paragraph 26 of schedule 1, the Sponsor Body is required to produce a report, and I would expect the report to cover matters such as how it is taking forward questions of disability as part of meeting its legal and moral duties. In terms of getting the expertise that hon. Members particularly wished to refer to, the Sponsor Body can establish committees and sub-committees in undertaking its work. Once the Bill has become an Act and the Sponsor Body has been established, it would be a sensible decision for it to look at establishing a committee on disability. Finally, if the Sponsor Body chooses, it can also look to enhance that work with those with outside interests. Although I fully appreciate and support the sentiments that the hon. Member for City of Chester has expressed, I do not think that introducing the new clause would not be appropriate, given what is already in the Bill.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Neil Gray and Kevin Foster

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th June 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We have outlined the position and, as I said, although we are not prepared to accept the amendment today, I am happy to have further conversations before Report. What is on the front page of the Bill is obvious, and few would doubt that that gives a clear indication of our intentions.

I turn to amendment 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. It is clear that we want the project to be delivered across the entire United Kingdom, with all companies and those who can bring skills and talents to the project able to do so. The clause establishes a Sponsor Body for the purpose of having overall responsibility for the parliamentary building works and sets out the duties placed on the body and a number of factors that it needs to have regard to in exercising its functions.

It is important to remember that the clause, as well as the Bill as a whole, establishes the necessary governance arrangements and accountability to oversee and deliver the parliamentary building works. While we wish to see such delivery, we ultimately believe that it is for the Sponsor Body to look at how best to achieve that, again with representation from Members who represent seats across the United Kingdom. I can look for example, at how we are doing other projects. There was a reference to Heathrow holding roadshows around the United Kingdom; I wish to see the Sponsor Body doing such engagements.

I guess that every Member of this House will be only too keen to let the Sponsor Body, and particularly its parliamentary members, know about opportunities for development of skills and creation of new crafts. We will have to balance that against some challenges. There is only a limited number of suppliers of certain heritage products; in some cases, there may be only one or two. I was given the example of bronze windows, which only two suppliers make today. I suggest that, at this stage, accepting the amendment would not be appropriate, but the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority will need a strong regard to the desire that the project reflects the entire United Kingdom when contracts are being let. The Bill is about setting up the framework and the legal body that will look to deliver the contracts; it is not about agreeing those contracts and the programmes of work, which will be voted on by the House at a separate time.

[Neil Gray]

Is this not exactly the point at which we should be ensuring that this is a UK-wide project? I say, as a current member of the shadow Sponsor Body, that if this issue is left until further down the line, other cost or time pressures may be applied to the project, and the Sponsor Body may, for whatever reason, see this as being superfluous. Unless we do this right now at the outset, we may lose that element of opportunity.

[Kevin Foster]

While I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, I do not agree. I have every confidence that the Sponsor Body will look for good value, and that will mean contracting with companies across the whole United Kingdom. We see this in the experience of other projects and major events. Of course, we can have confidence that the hon. Gentleman will be a strong voice in pushing the Sponsor Body, as he has been on the shadow body, to look at working across the United Kingdom. I suggest it is not appropriate to put such a requirement into the Bill at this stage.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Debate between Neil Gray and Kevin Foster

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that passionate advert for the skills of residents in Ogmore. I have also heard from the Rhondda, from Bury St Edmunds, from Aldridge-Brownhills, from Bournemouth, from South Northamptonshire and everywhere else. The hon. Gentleman is right: one reason why I am keen to get on with this and get the Delivery Authority set up is that, as we saw with the Olympics in 2012, there will be benefits throughout the country. In 2012, businesses in his constituency and in mine benefited, either through the supply or through direct contracts. The right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside made the point well that this project might be happening in London, but it should not be a London-centric project. I will certainly be keen to see us extending skills.

[Neil Gray]

The Minister speaks of his commitment to this not being a London-centric project. I am sure he will have already heard our proposals for a nations and regions capital fund, and I am sure that capital funding would be welcome in Devon and the south-west. Does he agree in principle with the idea of such a fund?

[Kevin Foster]

Of course, as the Bill progresses, the Government will be interested to hear all proposals that come forward. Let us consider the work that is already going on. For example, the cast-iron tiles on the Elizabeth Tower are being produced in the Sheffield area, and the tiles for the encaustic tile conservation project have been manufactured at a factory in Shropshire. There will be plenty of opportunities for businesses throughout these four nations that make up this United Kingdom to be part of a project that all nations will be able to look to over the coming decades.

Let me turn to the detail of the views expressed today. I shall start with the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), who opened the debate for the Opposition. I thank him for his constructive approach. He was an excellent stand-in for the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), whose name appears on the Bill in a sign of the consensus we have been able to achieve. I recognise some of his points about opportunities for skills and education arising from the work. It is about making sure that businesses know how to put themselves forward. There are plenty of models—for example, Heathrow airport is currently working on trying to spread its supply chain throughout the United Kingdom. I hope the Delivery Authority will be able to learn from that, although we need to get the thing set up, via the Bill, before it can.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) was an excellent Chair of the prelegislative scrutiny Committee. I pay tribute to the work that she and her Committee did to enable us to bring forward the Bill. She was right to highlight the fact that disability access in this building is from another era. The facilities reflect different attitudes to those with disabilities—not just in the visible examples, such as staircases that are hard or impossible for anyone with mobility issues to climb, but in those hidden aspects that make this building not the place for accessibility that it should be. Let us be blunt: we stand in the Chamber and argue that businesses and public services should be accessible, but we need to make sure that the building in which we do that arguing sets the bar, rather than just meeting a minimum standard.

As the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said, it is interesting to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). To anyone who raises the potential for spending on this project, I say that the alternative is not to spend nothing. The alternative is to carry on with a make-do-and-mend process, which is not making do and which is not going to mend the place. Public money will still end up being spent in great amounts on this building, achieving worse outcomes. I would certainly reflect on the contrast between some of those remarks and the role that the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) has played as part of the commission. Again, this is a choice about how we deal with the pressing issues of this building. There is no question of them not being dealt with at all.

Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights

Debate between Neil Gray and Kevin Foster

Monday 7th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray]

Absolutely, and I will come on to those points later in my speech.

The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 predates EU rules, but EU standards have led to the introduction of broad duties on employers to evaluate, avoid and reduce workplace risks. According to the TUC, the number of worker fatalities in the UK has declined significantly since EU directives were implemented. The Scottish National party continues to argue for better work conditions and fairer working environments. The protections for workers in insecure employment, including part-time workers, agency workers and those on fixed-term contracts, are enhanced by the EU.

[Kevin Foster]

The hon. Gentleman said that workers should be filled with dread, but should they not feel encouragement, as in so many areas this Parliament has legislated for standards that are higher than the EU minimum, not lower? There is no reason to believe that that will not continue, not least when people want to put election manifestos forward at election time.

[Neil Gray]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the recently passed Trade Union Act 2016 and hope that he will consider his comments in those terms.

In these challenging times, we have seen moves to zero-hours contracts across many industries, and conditions where workers are vulnerable to exploitation and being trapped in a cycle of low pay. EU TUPE rights introduced important protections for workers affected by contracting out, company buy-outs and even the privatisation of public services. Without those rights, employees in permanent, secure jobs could be placed into more uncertain contracts or have their terms and conditions reduced.

The UK must continue to comply with EU employment law in full, including new rights adopted within the EU, meaning that future Governments cannot remove rights at work. UK workers should not be denied any of the rights enjoyed by working people across Europe. New rights are already under discussion within the EU, such as protections for posted workers, improved rights for working parents and the European pillar of social rights, so UK workers could be excluded from these protections post-Brexit. The TUC has said that

“workers should benefit from the highest level of protection in the EU. It should not be possible for future governments to take the opportunity to compete with other countries on the basis of a race to the bottom on rights at work.”

It is female workers who stand to lose the most from Brexit. Alongside the European working time directive, we also now have protections over maternity leave and equal pay, and better protection from sexual harassment and from pregnancy or maternity discrimination. Women in the UK secured the right to equal pay for work of equal value thanks to the EU, and although there is still a long way to go to close the gender pay gap, the protections from the EU push the agenda forward, rather than backward. We have no idea of what is to come post-Brexit. Pregnant women and new mothers have been protected by day one rights and unfair dismissal rights, and by protection from discrimination. The right to paid time off to attend antenatal appointments is also now secure for pregnant women, keeping them in work. The parental leave directive allows parents to take up to 18 weeks’ unpaid leave to care for a child and protects workers who need to deal with family or domestic emergencies. A staggering 8.3 million working parents qualify for these rights in the UK.

Perhaps one opportunity I can see from Brexit is to discuss where the powers and responsibilities currently held at EU level will reside when the UK leaves. Obviously, we would expect the areas of devolved responsibility, such as agriculture and fisheries, to be automatically devolved, along with their substantial budgets, but I would like this to go further. Last year, during the Scotland Bill debates, we were told that we could not devolve employment law, but it makes perfect sense to do it post-Brexit. It is not just the rights currently enjoyed by workers that we can see being eroded; current and future events are likely to have a detrimental impact on working conditions and the quality of life of working families.

We have a perfect storm approaching for working families. We see the report from the Resolution Foundation today on the devastating impact of the benefit cap, but we also have cuts to universal credit work allowances coming down the line, a potentially devastating spike in inflation predicted to arrive next year, a massive drop in the pound and the potential threat to employment law post-Brexit. Employers and employees alike are demanding information, details and plans from this Government to provide security where there is currently significant insecurity and uncertainty.

This evening we are going to hear, as we have indeed already heard, Tory after Tory trump up—that pun was intended—that somehow they speak for workers in these isles and that somehow because it was Conservative Governments that brought in factories Acts in the 19th century, that absolves them of their most recent disastrous history. So let me remind the House that it was a Conservative Prime Minister who destroyed the lives and livelihoods of mineworkers with generations of unemployment; that it was a Conservative Chancellor who said at that Dispatch Box in 1991 that unemployment was a price “worth paying” for bringing down inflation; and it was those Government Members sitting opposite now who forced through the worst legislative attack on workers’ rights in living memory, in the form of the Trade Union Bill. So forgive me if my party and the people of Scotland do not trust any Tory government with workers’ rights.

Concentrix

Debate between Neil Gray and Kevin Foster

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black). I welcome the debate, and the opportunity that it gives us to talk about the issues involved in the Concentrix contract, although it is worth noting that it is a month since our exchanges in the House about the Government’s intention to cancel it.

I believe that our goal should be to ensure that the people who pay for the benefits system through their taxes can be confident that fraud and error are kept to a minimum. However, that went badly wrong in this instance, and examples in my constituency reveal some of the places where it went wrong. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South gave us the interesting example of a “philandering shop” in Scotland. In my constituency, someone had supposedly moved in with a bloke living down the road. They rang Concentrix to try to deal with the matter and get some answers, but found that it was quicker to walk to my office with the phone—while still on hold—and sit there for about 20 minutes while we made them a cup of tea and enjoyed the “hold” music that they were listening to. To prove that this had happened, I took a photo of the phone as it went through the hour on hold in my office.

To be fair to Concentrix, it did only take four minutes to tell my constituent “Actually, you should ring HMRC”, but that was the only part of the customer service that was particularly speedy. The only other remarkable thing is that, given the level of concern and the number of issues that have been raised by Members and others, Concentrix was itself surprised to be told that the contract would not be renewed.

[Neil Gray]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our constituents deserve an apology for the way in which this matter has been handled not just by Concentrix, but by his party’s Government and HMRC?

Tax Credits

Debate between Neil Gray and Kevin Foster

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray]

Absolutely—£100 million on the bedroom tax and a further £40 million ensuring that the council tax cuts did not affect low-income households in Scotland in the way they did in England. I hope that, after today, Labour will return to where it was earlier this week when it stood side by side with the SNP in opposing Tory cuts.

The SNP will oppose these ideological, regressive and utterly punitive tax credit cuts with every opportunity open to us—and we do so again today—because we realise the damage caused to family incomes, levels of poverty and child poverty in these isles and to social cohesion in every community in Scotland. The Scottish Government analysis, discussed today at First Minister’s Question Time in the Scottish Parliament, shows that 250,000 households in Scotland will lose, on average, £1,500 from April. Thereafter, when the all the changes are fully implemented, that could rise to an average of £3,000 per household. These changes are fundamentally regressive: they disproportionately target those in low-income households and punish them on account of this Government’s ideological obsession with austerity.

For our part, the SNP stood on a manifesto that was fundamentally anti-austerity and that plotted a more responsible path for bringing down the deficit. We argued for a 0.5% increase in spending per year for this Parliament, which would have released £140 billion in total to invest in capital projects and other measures to narrow income inequalities. Our plan would have brought the budget deficit down to 2% by the end of this Parliament, while protecting public services at the same time—a far more measured and reasonable way to balance the books. Our plan was backed by an IMF report from June this year, which highlighted that reducing income inequality not only leads to reduced poverty, but boosts growth. By extension, the policy of cutting tax credits and thereby increasing income inequality will drive more of our citizens into poverty. It is, in fact, going to harm growth.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil Gray]

I am pushed for time and I know that colleagues want to enter the debate, too.

As well as being socially destructive, this policy is, as an extension of IMF thinking, economically incompetent. No mention was made of these wholescale cuts to tax credits in the Conservative manifesto. There were just two references to tax credits, but neither referred to anything like the proposals in front of us now. I reiterate that the changes were the central plank of this Chancellor’s first Budget since the election. He has based all his sums on the back of these cuts. One would have thought that they would merit at least a passing reference or a hint at what was coming down the line.

The Chancellor’s summer Budget was a prime example of obfuscation, suggesting that these cuts to tax credits would be compensated for by the rise in the minimum wage. That was absolute nonsense. The reality is that the full rise in the minimum wage will not come into effect until 2020—four years after the tax credit cuts start. Even when the full rise comes into effect, it will still not mitigate the tax credit cuts. Why did the Government decide to undermine and sabotage the real living wage campaign by labelling their minimum wage rise as such?

I wish to conclude by addressing some of the language used in previous debates. Many of us have rightly been focusing our time on pointing out that these cuts will impact on working households, and lambasting the fact that many working households will be dragged into poverty by these tax credit cuts. I suppose I have been as guilty as others, as we attempt to show the Government that their rhetoric on making work pay is a complete sham when considered in the light of the tax credit cuts. There should be no distinction between working or non-working households that are in poverty or living on low incomes. We cannot continue to allow ourselves to be dragged into the Tory mantra of the deserving and undeserving poor. Nobody deserves to live in poverty—nobody. So referring to “hard-working families” or “the working poor” is unhelpful. We do not know the circumstances whereby people are unable to work, and we should not judge them in the way some do routinely in terms of “there by the grace of God go I”. None of us knows when we may find ourselves out of work. We should be working to address poverty wherever it is manifested and wherever it is likely to be worsened—as it will be by this Chancellor’s tax credit cuts.