Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 2 stand part.

Amendment 80, in clause 3, page 1, line 14, after “may”, insert “not”.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that any consequential provision is made only by an Act of Parliament.

Amendment 84,  page 1, line 15, at end insert—

“(1A) No such regulations shall be made without the prior agreement of the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress.”

This amendment, together with Amendment 83, is intended to partially fulfil the conditions required by ILO Convention 87 by providing that minimum service levels are reached by negotiation.

Amendment 100, page 1, line 16, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

This amendment would remove the Secretary State’s powers to amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation, through regulations.

Amendment 27,  page 1, line 16, after “may” insert “not”.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that any amendment, repeal or revocation of primary legislation is made only by an Act of Parliament.

Amendment 101, page 1, line 18, leave out from “Act” to end of line 19.

This amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s powers to bring in regulations to amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation, later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.

Amendment 22,  page 1, line 19, at end insert—

“(2A) No provision whatsoever having effect in Northern Ireland may be made under or by virtue of this Act unless and until the Northern Ireland Assembly has approved a joint decision by the First Minister and deputy First Minister that such provision should be made.”

This amendment is intended to ensure that the Bill will not be extended to cover Northern Ireland without appropriate devolved consent.

Amendment 102, page 2, line 5, leave out from “section” to end of line 7 and insert—

“must be made under the affirmative resolution procedure”.

This amendment would ensure that any regulations made under clause 3, must be made under the affirmative resolution procedure.

Amendment 28, page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

“(5) In this section “primary legislation” means an Act of Parliament.

(6) For the avoidance of doubt, this section shall not apply to—

(a) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or

(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament.”

The purpose of this amendment is to provide that, if Clause 3(2) is retained, the power of United Kingdom Ministers to amend primary legislation should not apply to Acts of the Scottish Parliament or the Senedd Cymru.

Amendment 97, page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

“(5A) For the avoidance of doubt, this section shall not apply to—

(i) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or

(ii) an Act of the Scottish Parliament.”

The purpose of this amendment is to preclude the power of United Kingdom Ministers in clause 3(2) to amend primary legislation and extends that power to Acts of the Scottish Parliament or the Senedd Cymru.

Amendment 81,  page 2, line 8, leave out from “means” to end of line 11 and insert “an Act of Parliament.”

This amendment would remove Acts of the Scottish Parliament or Senedd Cymru from the power to amend or repeal primary legislation by regulations made by statutory instrument.

Amendment 76, page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (b).

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from being able to make consequential amendments to an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru.

Clause 3 stand part.

Amendment 98, in clause 4, page 2, line 13, leave out from “England” to end of line 13 and insert—

“only.

(2) This Act does not apply to disputes which take place in—

(a) Scotland or Wales; or

(b) the United Kingdom if any of the workers who are parties to the dispute are employed by an employer to work in Scotland or Wales, as the case may be.

(3) For the avoidance of doubt, this Act shall apply only to disputes where all the workers who are parties to the dispute are employed by an employer to work in England.”

The purpose of this amendment is to exclude the application of the Act to Scotland and Wales.

Amendment 77,  page 2, line 13, leave out “and Wales”.

The purpose of this amendment is to exclude the application of the Act to Wales.

Amendment 30,  page 2, line 13, leave out “and Scotland”.

This amendment is intended to prevent the Bill applying to Scotland. See also Amendments 36, 37 and 38.

Amendment 107, page 2, line 13, leave out “and Wales and Scotland.”

This amendment would confine the extent of the Act to England.

Clause 4 stand part.

Amendment 31, in clause 5, page 2, line 15, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (2),”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 32.

Amendment 67,  page 2, line 15, leave out from “force” to end of line 15 and insert—

“in accordance with this section.

(1) Sections 4 to 6 of this Act come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) The remaining provisions of this Act come into force on a date specified by the Secretary of State, which may not be before one month after the day on which the Joint Committee on Human Rights, following the taking of written and oral evidence, has published a report as to whether in its opinion the Act’s provisions are compatible with the right to freedom of assembly and association under Article 11 nof the European Convention, as well as the right to strike as recognised in other international instruments that the United Kingdom has ratified.”

This amendment requires the publication of a report from Joint Committee on Human Rights before the Act can come into operation.

Amendment 20, page 2, line 15,  leave out “on the day on which this Act is passed” and insert—

“in accordance with section [Compliance condition for commencement]”.

Amendment 32, page 2, line 15, at end insert—

“(2) But no regulations may be made under this Act or the Schedule to this Act before the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament statements of consent to the Act from—

(a) the Scottish Parliament,

(b) Senedd Cymru, and

(c) the Greater London Assembly.”

The intention of this Amendment is to prevent the Act coming into operation until after consent to the Act has been obtained from the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru and the Greater London Assembly.

Clause 5 stand part.

Clause 6 stand part.

New clause 1—Compliance condition for commencement—

“(1) This section and sections 4 to 6 come into force on the day this Act is passed.

(2) The remainder of the Act comes into force on a day to be specified in regulations by the Secretary of State which may not be earlier than the day after the High Court has issued a certificate under this section.

(3) The Secretary of State may apply to a Judge of the High Court of Justice for a certificate that the law in this Act is compliant with—

(a) the obligations set out in Convention 87 of the International Labour Organisation;

(b) the obligations set out in the European Social Charter of 1961 which have been ratified by the United Kingdom;

(c) the obligations of the United Kingdom set out in Article 387 sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) of the UK/EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement 2021; and

(d) the obligations of the United Kingdom set out in Article 399 sub-paragraphs (2) and (5) of the UK/EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement 2021.

(4) On an application made by the Secretary of State for the certificate in subsection (3) above, after hearing the Secretary of State, the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry and such other organisations or individuals whose applications the Judge may consider should be heard, the Judge shall grant the certificate only if the court is satisfied that the law of the United Kingdom is compliant with the obligations set out in paragraph (3).”

This new clause would prevent the Act from coming into operation until a court had certified that the Act complied with the UK‘s relevant international obligations.

New clause 2—Extent (No. 2)—

“(1) This Act extends and applies to England only.

(2) This Act does not apply to disputes which take place in—

(a) Scotland or Wales; or

(b) anywhere in Great Britain, if any of the workers who are parties to the dispute are employed by an employer to work in Scotland or Wales, as the case may be.

(3) For the avoidance of doubt, this Act shall apply only to disputes where all the workers who are parties to the dispute are employed by an employer to work in England.”

The purpose of this new clause is to exclude the application of the Act to Scotland and Wales.

New clause 3—Impact assessment: duties to work with trade unions in Wales—

“The Secretary of State must, within one month of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament an assessment of the effect of this Act on industrial relations in Wales, with particular reference to the intended outcomes of the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Bill currently before Senedd Cymru.”

This new clause would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of this Act on social partnership.

New clause 4—Requirement for consent from devolved institutions—

“No regulations may be made under any provision of the 1992 Act inserted by this Act before the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament statements of consent to this Act from—

(a) the Scottish Parliament,

(b) Senedd Cymru,

(c) the Greater London Assembly, and

(d) Combined Authorities in England that have responsibility for delivering services that fall within any of the categories set out in s234B(4) of the 1992 Act.”

Amendment 36, in the schedule, page 3, line 7, after “services” insert “in England and Wales”.

This amendment is intended to prevent the Bill applying to Scotland.

Amendment 37, page 3, line 8, after “levels” insert “in England and Wales”.

This amendment is intended to prevent the Bill applying to Scotland.

Amendment 38, page 3, line 11, after “levels” insert “in England and Wales”.

This amendment is intended to prevent the Bill applying to Scotland.

Amendment 83, page 3, line 12, at end insert—

“(1A) No such regulations shall be made without the prior agreement of the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress.”

This amendment, together with Amendment 84, is intended to partially fulfil the conditions required by ILO Convention 87 by providing that minimum service levels are reached by negotiation.

Amendment 115, page 3, line 12, at end insert—

“(1A) Minimum service regulations—

(a) may be made only if the Secretary of State reasonably believes them to be necessary to protect the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; and

(b) may provide only for levels of service reasonably considered necessary to provide protection for the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.”

This new subsection would limit the levels of service which the Secretary of State could set in regulations to levels of service that the Secretary of State reasonably believes to be necessary to protect life, personal safety or health.

Amendment 116, page 3, line 12, at end insert—

“(1B) Minimum service regulations must—

(a) not provide for levels of service which are greater than those necessary to satisfy the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service; and

(b) ensure that the scope of the minimum service does not render ineffective any strike it affects.”

This new subsection would limit minimum service regulations to the levels indicated as appropriate in conclusions of the International Labour Organisation’s Committee on Freedom of Association.

Amendment 15, page 3, line 15, leave out “even” and insert “except”.

This amendment would stop the Secretary of State from being able to set minimum service levels for disputes that have already been balloted for.

Amendment 99, page 3, line 15, leave out “even if” and insert “unless”.

The amendment seeks to stop regulations under this Bill from being applied to strikes which have already been balloted for.

Amendment 59, page 3, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) A minimum service level must not be framed so that it would require more than 30% of a workforce to be served with a work notice.”

This amendment would limit the proportion of a workforce which can be required by a minimum service level so as to ensure that a majority of workers will be able to withdraw labour.

Amendment 60, page 3, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) A minimum service level must be framed to take account of the actual levels of service provided in the previous year.

(2B) After a minimum service level regulations have been issued, no work notices may be issued for any further strikes unless the employer has maintained the minimum service level on days not affected by strike for at least 3 months.”

This amendment would prevent employers from requiring a minimum service level if the employer had not previously been able to maintain such a level on days not affected by strike action.

Amendment 61, page 3, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) Minimum service levels must not exceed 20% of normal service levels achieved, except in so far as additions to the minimum service level is wholly determined for operational reasons related to health and safety requirements.”

This amendment would stipulate 20% of normal service levels as an upper threshold for minimum service levels.

Amendment 16, page 3, line 21, leave out subsection (3).

See Amendment 17.

Amendment 21, page 3, line 22, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State may not add to the list of categories in subsection (4) below.

(2B) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument subject to annulment remove any categories from subsection (4) below.

(2C) After a category has been removed from subsection (4) below, it may not be added back in to that subsection except by primary legislation.”

This amendment bars any addition to, or any reinstatement of, the 6 categories of service to which this Act applies, while facilitating the removal of any of those categories.

Amendment 17, page 3, line 23, leave out from “that” to end of line 31 and insert—

“have been approved for specification under this Act by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would ensure that minimum service level regulations apply only to services that have been approved by resolution in both Houses.

Amendment 9, page 3, line 25, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment would remove “health services” from the Bill.

Amendment 75, page 3, line 25, at end insert—

“except nurses, doctors, paramedics, ambulance support workers, veterinary services, community health services, pharmacists, mental health services, sexual health services, speech and language therapy services, dental services and transportation of medical supplies services.”

This amendment would various occupations and sub-sectors of the health sector from the regulations in the Bill.

Amendment 10, page 3, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment would remove “fire and rescue services” from the Bill.

Amendment 11, page 3, line 27, leave out paragraph (c).

This amendment would remove “education services” from the Bill.

Amendment 74, page 3, line 27, at end insert—

“except primary schools, secondary schools, further education colleges, universities, contracted school transportation, private schools and academies.”

This amendment would exempt various occupations and sub-sectors of the education sector from the regulations in the Bill.

Amendment 12, page 3, line 28, leave out paragraph (d).

This amendment would remove “transport services” from the Bill.

Amendment 73, page 3, line 28, at end insert ——

“except aviation services, airline services, airport services, airport fire services, car delivery services, road haulage services, parcel delivery services, bus services, tram services, rail infrastructure, rail engineering ferry and waterway services, seafarers, and dock services.”

This amendment would exempt various occupations and sub-sectors of the transport sector from the regulations in the Bill.

Amendment 109, page 3, line 28, at end insert—

“, except where the service is

(i) a rail service wholly or partly within Scotland,

(ii) a bus service registered with the Traffic Commissioner for Scotland,

(iii) a ferry service wholly or partly within Scotland,

(iv) any aviation service which uses a facility holding an aerodrome certificate issued the Civil Aviation Authority for all or part of its journey, or

(v) any aviation service which receives funding as part of a Public Service Obligation.”

This amendment would exempt passenger transport services in, to, and from Scotland from being subject to a work notice.

Amendment 13, page 3, line 29, leave out paragraph (e).

This amendment would remove ““decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel” from the Bill.

Amendment 14, page 3, line 31, leave out paragraph (f).

This amendment would remove “border security” from the Bill.

Amendment 106, page 3, line 31, at end insert—

“(4A) No regulations made by statutory instrument under this section shall apply to any service which relates to the provisions of—

(a) the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019;

(b) the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001;

(c) section 8 of the Railways Act 2005;

(d) section 10 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982; or

(e) any passenger ferry operating within the portion of the UK Exclusive Economic Zone lying under the jurisdiction of Scotland, or to any service defined by Scottish ministers as relating to the provision of transport services in Scotland.”

This amendment would exclude most passenger transport services in Scotland from being subject to minimum service regulations laid by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 2, page 3, line 31, at end insert—

“(5) Levels of service set by regulations under subsection (1) may not exceed the lowest actual level of service for the relevant service recorded on any day of the 12 months before the regulations are laid.

(6) Before making regulations under subsection (1) for the relevant service, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report showing that the condition in subsection (5) is met.”

This new subsection (5) would require the Secretary of State to specify any minimum service levels made in regulations under subsection (1) of the new inserted section 234B at a level no higher than the lowest actual level of service recorded on any day in the year before the new regulations are laid. Subsection (6) requires the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament to prove that the condition in subsection (5) has been met.

Amendment 4, page 3, line 31, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State may not make any regulations under this section until after a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament assessments outlining the impacts of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 on—

(a) workforce numbers,

(b) Individual workers,

(c) employers,

(d) trade unions, and

(e) equalities.”

This amendment would require the Government to publish assessments of how the proposed legislation would impact on workforce numbers, individual workers, equalities, employers and trade unions before the Bill comes into operation.

Amendment 23, page 3, line 31, at end insert—

“(5) Regulations made under this section in relation to strikes affecting services in an area for which an elected mayor is responsible may not be made without the consent of the elected mayor for that area.”

This amendment would require the consent of the relevant elected mayor before minimum service levels could be set in relation to an area for which an elected mayor was responsible.

Amendment 39, page 3, line 31, at end insert—

“(5) Regulations under this Part may not—

(a) prohibit or enable the prohibition of participation in, or any activity in connection with, a strike or other industrial action;

(b) create an offence; or

(c) require levels of service on strike days which are higher than those ordinarily provided on non strike days.

(6) Regulations may not make provision which is contrary to the United Kingdom’s international obligations, and in particular—

(a) International Labour Organisation Convention No 87;

(b) Social Charter of the Council of Europe, Article 6(4); and

(c) EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, Article 399.

(7) For the purposes of subsection 6(a), reference shall be made to the Observations of the ILO Committee of Experts, and the Conclusions of the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association to determine the United Kingdom’s international obligations.

(8) For the purposes of subsection 6(b), reference shall be made to the Conclusions of the European Committee of Social Rights to determine the United Kingdom’s international obligations.”

This amendment is designed to restrict the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations, and in particular, to ensure that regulations should not authorise any steps which restrict the right to strike. Subsections (5)(a) and (b) are based on the restraints on the power to make regulations in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Subsection (5)(c) is new. The amendment is designed to ensure also that any regulations are compatible with international obligations.

Amendment 94, page 3, line 31, at end insert—

“(5) Regulations may not—

(a) prohibit or enable the prohibition of participation in, or any activity in connection with, a strike or other industrial action;

(b) create an offence; or

(c) require levels of service on strike days which are higher than those ordinarily provided on non-strike days.

(6) Regulations may not make provision which is contrary to the United Kingdom’s international obligations, and in particular—

(a) International Labour Organisation Convention No 87;

(b) Social Charter of the Council of Europe, Article 6(4); and

(c) EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, Article 399.

(7) To determine the United Kingdom’s international obligations for the purposes of subsection 6(a), reference shall be made to the Observations of the ILO Committee of Experts, and the Conclusions of the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association, and for the purposes of subsection 6(b), reference shall be made to the conclusions of the European Committee of Social Rights.”

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations which unduly abridge the right to strike. Section 234(5)(a) and (b) are based on the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Section 234(5)(c) is new. The amendment is intended to require any regulations to be compatible with the UK’s international obligations.

Amendment 108, page 3, line 31, at end insert—

“(5) Any services deemed to fall within a category specified in subsection (4) which are subject to the competence of—

(a) the Scottish Parliament,

(b) the Senedd,

(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly,

(d) the Greater London Authority,

(e) a combined authority constituted under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009,

(f) any other elected body named by the Secretary of State,

shall not be subject to regulations made under subsection (3).”

This amendment would remove any service provided by a devolved government or authority from being subject to a regulation made by the Secretary of State under this Act.

Amendment 40, page 3, line 31, at end insert—

“234BA Parliamentary Scrutiny

(1) Where regulations are made under section 234B—

(a) a senior Minister of the Crown shall as soon as is reasonably practicable lay the regulations before Parliament, and

(b) the regulations shall lapse at the end of the period of seven days beginning with the date of laying unless during that period each House of Parliament passes a resolution approving them.

(2) If each House of Parliament passes a resolution that the regulations shall cease to have effect, the regulations shall cease to have effect—

(a) at such time, after the passing of the resolutions, as may be specified in them, or

(b) if no time is specified in the resolutions, at the beginning of the day after that on which the resolutions are passed (or, if they are passed on different days, at the beginning of the day after that on which the second resolution is passed).

(3) If each House of Parliament passes a resolution that regulations shall have effect with a specified amendment, the regulations shall have effect as amended, with effect from—

(a) such time, after the passing of the resolutions, as may be specified in them, or

(b) if no time is specified in the resolutions, the beginning of the day after that on which the resolutions are passed (or, if they are passed on different days, the beginning of the day after that on which the second resolution is passed).

(4) Nothing in this section—

(a) shall prevent the making of new regulations, or

(b) shall affect anything done by virtue of regulations before they lapse, cease to have effect or are amended under this section.

234BB Parliamentary Scrutiny: Prorogation and Adjournment

(1) If when regulations are made under section 234B Parliament stands prorogued, His Majesty shall by proclamation under the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797 (c. 127) require Parliament to meet on a specified day.

(2) If when emergency regulations are made under section 234B the House of Commons stands adjourned, the Speaker of the House of Commons shall arrange for the House to meet on a day during that period of adjournment.

(3) If when emergency regulations are made under section 234B the House of Lords stands adjourned, the Speaker of the House of Lords shall arrange for the House to meet on a day during that period of adjournment.”

The inserted sections 234BA and 234BB are designed to enhance the power of Parliament to approve regulations. These provisions are based on the power to make regulations in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

Amendment 41, page 3, line 31, at end insert—

“234BC Consultation with Devolved Administrations

(1) Regulations which relate wholly or partly to Scotland may not be made unless a senior Minister of the Crown has consulted the Scottish Ministers.

(2) Regulations which relate wholly or partly to Wales may not be made unless a senior Minister of the Crown has consulted the National Assembly for Wales.

(3) For the purposes of (1) and (2) consultation means consultation with a view to reaching an agreement.”

The inserted Section 234BC is designed to ensure that the Minister must consult the Scottish and Welsh ministers before regulations are made. Section 234BC(1) and (2) are based on similar provisions in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

Amendment 3, page 3, line 31, at end insert—

“234BA Power to specify minimum service levels: health and safety

(1) Minimum service regulations must take into account the levels of service provided in the relevant service in periods when that service is not affected by strikes.

(2) Before making any regulations under section 234B, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an assessment of the level of service provided within the relevant specified category over the most recent period of 12 months for which data is available.

(3) The assessment under subsection (2) must include an analysis of performance in relation to health and safety standards applicable to the relevant service.

(4) The Secretary of State must give priority in making regulations under section 234B to maintaining health and safety standards during a strike which are no lower than the relevant applicable standards in the specified service.”

This amendment would require the Government to assess health and safety performance in the affected sector before making minimum service regulations.

Amendment 82, page 3, line 31, at end insert—

“234BD Consultation with Social Partners

(1) Before making regulations under section 234B the Secretary of State shall consult organisations representative of employers and trade unions.

(2) Consultation under subsection (1) shall take place with a view to reaching an agreement.

(3) Where consultation takes place without an agreement being reached, the Secretary of State shall refer the matter to arbitration for the resolution of any matters of disagreement between the Secretary of State and the organisations representative of employers and trade unions.

(4) The arbitrator appointed under subsection (3) shall be an independent person appointed by ACAS from a panel of arbitrators established by ACAS for this purpose.

(5) The decision of the arbitrator shall be binding.

(6) The Secretary of State shall not make regulations which are inconsistent with the decision of the arbitrator.”

The proposed new section 234BD is intended to require the Secretary of State’s to consult and agree minimum service levels with the social partners, failing which minimum service levels will be determined by an independent arbitrator.

Amendment 117, page 3, line 31, at end insert—

“234BA Requirement for opportunity for negotiated settlement and involvement of independent body

(1) The Secretary of State may not make minimum service regulations in respect of any strike of which a trade union gives notice to an employer under section 234A unless—

(a) the employer and the trade union have been given a reasonable opportunity to reach a negotiated agreement on minimum service levels in respect of the strike; and

(b) if the employer and the trade union have not been able to reach an agreement on minimum service levels—

(i) the employer and trade union have both been given a reasonable opportunity to make representations to a quasi-judicial body independent of the employer, trade union and Government; and

(ii) the independent body has been given a period that is reasonable in the circumstances to determine minimum service levels in respect of the strike.

(2) If the employer and trade union have reached a negotiated agreement on minimum service levels in respect of the strike referred to in subsection (1), the Secretary of State may not make minimum service regulations in respect of that strike.

(3) If the independent body referred to in subsection (1)(b)(i) and (ii) above has determined minimum service levels in respect of the strike within the reasonable period—

(a) The employer and trade union are bound by those minimum service levels;

(b) The Secretary of State may not make minimum service regulations in respect of the strike referred to in subsection (1).”

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State making minimum service regulations in respect of a strike unless the trade union and employer have had an opportunity to reach a negotiated agreement on those levels, and where an independent body has had the opportunity to determine the levels in the absence of an agreement.

Amendment 119, page 3, line 34, after second “a” insert “recognised”.

Amendment 42, page 4, line 1, at end insert—

“(1A) An employer shall also send a copy of a work notice to any person identified therein as someone required to work during the strike.”

This amendment is designed to require the employer to send a copy of the notice to each of the individuals identified in the notice.

Amendment 111, page 4, line 18, at end insert—

“(c) not relate to a service which does not relate to a competence listed in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998.”

This amendment this would exclude any devolved services in Scotland from being subject to a work notice.

Amendment 70, page 4, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert—

“(5) A work notice must not identify any more than the minimum number of persons necessary for the purpose of providing the levels of service under the minimum service regulation.”

This amendment, with Amendments 71 and 72, is intended to require employers to take reasonable steps to ensure the serving of work notices does not prevent lawful industrial action from taking place.

Amendment 69, page 4, line 21, at end insert—

“and no person shall be identified in one or more work notices where the effect would be that they would be prevented from taking part in industrial action on fifty per cent or more of the days included in the notice referred to in section 234C(1)(a)”

This amendment is intended to ensure that specific workers cannot be prevented from striking by this Bill.

Amendment 120, page 4, line 21, at end, insert—

“or have the effect of preventing any one person taking part in protected industrial action”

Amendment 93, page 4, line 21, at end insert—

“(5A) A work notice must not include a person who is an official of the trade union (within the meaning of section 119) at the time a work notice is issued.”

This amendment would exempt trade union officials from a work notice under the Act.

Amendment 64, page 4, line 24, at end insert—

“; or whether the person took part in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time; or made use of trade union services at an appropriate time.”

This amendment would ensure that the selection of persons for work notices cannot be targeted at trade union activists.

Amendment 68, page 4, line 24, at end insert—

“; or whether the person took part in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time; or made use of trade union services at an appropriate time.

(6A) An employer having regard to one or more of the matters referred to in subsection (6) in deciding whether to identify a person in a work notice shall be deemed to subject that person to a detriment for the purpose of section 146 of this Act.

(6B) Subjecting a person to a detriment in contravention of section 146 of this Act by reason of subsections (6) and (6A) shall be actionable as a breach of statutory duty.

(6C) A person deemed to have been subjected to a detriment for the purpose of section 146 by reason of reason of subsections (6) and (6A) may, as an alternative to pursuing an action for breach of statutory duty in accordance with subsection 6B, present a claim to an Employment Tribunal in accordance with that section.

(6D) If there facts from which a court or tribunal could conclude, in the absence of any other explanation, that the employer has contravened, or is likely to contravene, subsections (6) and (6A), it must find that such a contravention occurred, or is likely to occur, unless the employer shows that it did not, or is not likely, to occur.”

This amendment is intended to gives legal recourse in cases where employers may choose to target trade union members with work notices.

Amendment 85, page 4, line 25, leave out from “must” to end of line 28 and insert—

“reach agreement with the union about the number of persons to be identified and the work to be specified in the notice.”

This amendment is intended to partially fulfil the conditions required by ILO Convention 87 by providing that minimum service levels are reached by negotiation between the social partners

Amendment 103, page 4, line 25, leave out from “must” to end of line 28 and insert—

“take reasonable steps to reach agreement”.

This amendment aims to ensure that minimum service levels are reached by negotiation between employers and trade unions.

Amendment 43, page 4, line 25, leave out subsection (7) and insert —

“(7A) A work notice shall not be valid unless the employer has consulted the recognised trade union, or in the absence of a recognised trade union, a representative trade union.

(7B) Consultation under subsection (7A) shall take place with a view to reaching an agreement.

(7C) Where consultation takes place without an agreement being reached, the employer shall refer the matter to arbitration for the resolution of any matters of disagreement between the employer and the trade union.

(7D) The arbitrator appointed under subsection (7C) shall be an independent person appointed by ACAS from a panel of arbitrators established by ACAS for this purpose.”

This amendment is designed to enhance the employer’s duty to consult about work notices.

Amendment 86, page 4, leave out lines 25 to 28 and insert—

“(7A) A work notice shall not be valid unless the employer has consulted the recognised trade union, in the absence of which a representative trade union.

(7B) Consultation under subsection (7A) shall take place with a view to reaching an agreement.

(7C) In the event of a failure to agree the matters in (7A) the employer or the union may refer any or all disputed issues to an arbitrator who shall be an independent person appointed by ACAS from a panel of arbitrators established by ACAS for this purpose and the decision of the arbitrator shall be binding.”

This alternative amendment turns on a duty to consult rather than to reach agreement.

Amendment 71, page 4, line 27, leave out “and”.

This amendment, with Amendments 70 and 72, is intended to require employers to take reasonable steps to ensure the serving of work notices does not prevent lawful industrial action from taking place.

Amendment 65, page 4, line 28, leave out “have regard to any views expressed by the union in response” and insert—

“take into account the views expressed by the trade union with a view to reaching agreement with the union.”

This amendment is intended to promote good faith engagement between the employer and trade union when consulting over work notices.

Amendment 72, page 4, line 28, after “response” insert—

“and (c) be satisfied that the requirement in subsection (5) is satisfied.”

This amendment, with Amendments 70 and 71, is intended to require employers to take reasonable steps to ensure the serving of work notices does not prevent lawful industrial action from taking place.

Amendment 87, page 4, line 28, at end insert —

“(7A) In the event of a failure to agree the matters in subsection (7), the employer or the union may refer any or all disputed issues to an arbitrator who shall be an independent person appointed by ACAS from a panel of arbitrators established by ACAS for this purpose and the decision of the arbitrator shall be binding.”

This amendment is intended to partially fulfil the conditions required by ILO Convention 87 by providing that minimum service levels are reached by negotiation between the social partners.

Amendment 112, page 4, line 28, at end insert—

“(7A) No employee of any organisation listed in Schedule 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 shall be subject to any work notice.”

This amendment would exempt any occupation or employee subject to the above Act from any regulations allowing a work notice to be issued.

Amendment 44, page 4, line 30, after “union” insert—

“and to each individual person identified in the notice”.

See Amendment 42.

Amendment 95, page 4, line 30, after “varied” insert—

“to any person identified therein as someone required to work during the strike and,”.

This amendment is intended to require the employer to send a copy of the notice to each of the individuals identified in the notice.

Amendment 88, page 4, line 33, at end insert —

“(8A) A variation shall not be valid unless the employer has consulted the recognised trade union, in the absence of which a representative trade union.

(8B) Consultation under subsection (8A) shall take place with a view to reaching an agreement.

(8C) In the event of a failure to agree the matters in subsection (8B) the employer or the union may refer any or all disputed issues to an arbitrator who shall be an independent person appointed by ACAS from a panel of arbitrators established by ACAS for this purpose and the decision of the arbitrator shall be binding.”

This alternative amendment turns on a duty to consult rather than to reach agreement.

Amendment 89, page 4, line 34, leave out paragraph (9) and insert—

“(9A) In the event of a failure to agree the matters in subsection (7A) the employer or the union may refer any or all disputed issues to an arbitrator who shall be an independent person appointed by ACAS from a panel of arbitrators established by ACAS for this purpose and the decision of the arbitrator shall be binding.”

This amendment is intended to partially fulfil the conditions required by ILO Convention 87 by providing that minimum service levels are reached by negotiation between the social partners.

Amendment 90, page 4, line 34, leave out paragraph (9) and insert—

“(9A) An employer may vary a work notice.

(9B) A variation shall not be valid unless the employer has consulted the recognised trade union, in the absence of which a representative trade union.

(9C) Consultation under subsection (9A) shall take place with a view to reaching an agreement.

(9D) In the event of a failure to agree the matters in (9A) the employer or the union may refer any or all disputed issues to an arbitrator who shall be an independent person appointed by ACAS from a panel of arbitrators established by ACAS for this purpose and the decision of the arbitrator shall be binding.”

This alternative amendment turns on a duty to consult rather than to reach agreement.

Amendment 104, page 4, line 34, leave out from “must” to end of line 37 and insert—

“take reasonable steps to reach agreement”.

This amendment aims to ensure that minimum service levels are reached by negotiation between employers and trade unions.

Amendment 96, page 4, line 34, at end insert—

“(za) send a copy of a work notice to any person identified therein as someone required to work during the strike,”.

This amendment is intended to require the employer to send a copy of the notice to each of the individuals identified in the notice.

Amendment 46, page 4, line 35, after “union” insert—

“and each individual person identified in the notice”.

See Amendment 42.

Amendment 66, page 4, line 37, leave out “have regard to any views expressed by the union in response” and insert—

“take into account the views expressed by the trade union with a view to reaching agreement with the union.”

This amendment is intended to promote good faith engagement between the employer and trade union when consulting over work notices.

Amendment 47, page 4, line 37, after “union” insert—

“and by each individual person identified in the notice”.

See Amendment 42.

Amendment 110, page 4, line 40, at end insert—

“(a) A work notice must be submitted to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, the Llywydd of the Senedd, and the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly for consideration by a sitting of each body.

(b) Where less than four-fifths of those elected representatives constituting each body vote in favour of a motion supporting the granting of a work notice, the notice shall be deemed invalid.”

This amendment would ensure that a work notice would be valid only if its provisions were submitted by an employer to the three devolved institutions and received the support of over 80% of elected members in each chamber.

Amendment 48, page 4, line 40, at end insert—

“234CA Protection of Employees

(1) A person shall not be subject to a work notice if the person in question has not been given or received the work notice.

(2) The onus will be on the employer to prove that an individual received a work notice.

(3) Failure to comply with a work notice shall not—

(a) be regarded as a breach of the contract of employment of any person identified in the work notice; or

(b) constitute grounds for dismissal or any other detrimental action.

(4) Having regard to subsection (3), failure to comply with a work notice shall be deemed to be—

(a) a trade union activity undertaken at an appropriate time for the purposes of section 146 above; and

(b) participation in industrial action for the purposes of sections 238 and 238A below.”

This inserted Section 234CA is designed to ensure that compliance with a work notice should be voluntary on the part of the employee in question. Provision is also made to protect the individual who decides not to comply from any sanction imposed by the employer.

Amendment 113, page 5, line 6, at end insert—

“(2A) No disclosure of information authorised by section 234C shall apply to any individual habitually residents or ordinarily employed in Scotland.”

This amendment would protect the personal data of people living and working in Scotland.

Amendment 49, page 5, leave out lines 9 to 22.

The purpose of this amendment is to delete inserted section 234E in order to exclude the operation of the duty of the union to take reasonable steps to ensure that all workers identified in the work notice comply with the notice.

Amendment 79, page 5, line 14, leave out from “234C” to end of line 17.

This would remove the requirement for trade unions to take reasonable steps for employees to comply with work notices, as these are not a matter between trade union and member, but between employer and employee.

Amendment 63, page 5, line 17, leave out “comply with” and insert “are aware of”.

This amendment would ensure that the trade union’s legal duty is restricted to making its members aware of the content of the work notice.

Amendment 92, page 5, line 17, at end insert—

“(1A) In paragraph (1)(b), if it is alleged that a union failed to take “reasonable steps”, a failure to take any of the following steps shall not be taken to constitute a failure to take reasonable steps—

(a) to discipline or impose any detriment for non-compliance or threatened non-compliance, or for inducing or seeking to induce non-compliance by another member with a work notice, or

(b) to threaten to discipline or impose any detriment for non-compliance or threatened non-compliance, or for inducing or seeking to induce non-compliance by another member with a work notice, or

(c) to instruct a member not to comply with a work notice, or to revoke any instruction or encouragement to take part in the strike.”

This amendment is intended to limit the requirement that a union should police its own members.

Amendment 52, page 5, line 22, at end insert—

“(3) A trade union shall be deemed fully to have complied with its obligation under subsection (1) if it informs any members identified in a work notice that they have been so identified.

(4) For the purpose of subsection (3) a trade union is required to do only whatever is reasonably practicable by whatever means it deems appropriate.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (3) a trade union will not be deemed to have failed to comply with its duty in paragraph (b) on the ground only that one or more members has or have not been informed that they are the subject of a work notice.

(6) For the avoidance of doubt, a trade union will not be required to discipline or expel a member who—

(a) refuses to comply with a requirement to work under a work notice, or

(b) encourages others not to comply with a work notice.”

This amendment is intended to restrict the trade union’s compliance duty under the Act.

Amendment 118, page 5, line 22, at end insert—

“(3) Peaceful picketing within the meaning of section 220 of the 1992 Act shall not be regarded as an act done by the union to induce a person to take part, or continue to take part, in the strike, for the purposes of subsection (1).”

The intention of this amendment is avoid picketing alone being a cause for a claim against the union under the Act on the basis that this was inducing an identified person to take part in the strike.

Amendment 91, page 5, line 22, at end insert —

“(2A) A trade union shall be deemed fully to have complied with its obligation under section (1) if it informs any of its members identified in a work notice that they have been so identified.

(2B) For the purpose of subsection (2A) a trade union is required to do only whatever is reasonably practicable by whatever means it deems appropriate.

(2C) For the purposes of subsection (2A) a trade union will not be deemed to have failed to comply with its duty in paragraph (b) on the ground only that one or more members has or have not been informed that they are the subject of a work notice.”

This amendment is intended to limit the requirement that a union should police its own members.

Amendment 50, page 5, line 23, after “consultation” insert “with Social Partners”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 51.

Amendment 8, page 5, line 23, at end insert—

“(A1) Before making regulations under section 234B the Secretary of State must receive a report into minimum services in the affected sector from the relevant House of Commons select committee.

(A2) For the purpose of subsection (A1), “relevant House of Commons select committee” means—

(a) House of Commons Home Affairs Committee for regulations affecting fire and rescue services, and border security as set out in 234B(4),

(b) House of Commons Education Committee for regulations affecting education services as set out in 234B(4),

(c) House of Commons Transport Committee for regulations affecting transport services as set out in 234B(4),

(d) House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee for regulations affecting health services as set out in 234B(4),

(e) House of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee for regulations affecting decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel as set out in 234B(4).

(A3) The Speaker of the House of Commons may determine in case of any doubt the relevant successor of any committee mentioned in subsection (A2).”

This amendment would require that each relevant Select Committee conducts and publishes inquiries on how the Act will impact on each named sector, before the Act can be brought into operation.

Amendment 51, page 5, line 24, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1A) Before making regulations under section 234B the Secretary of State shall consult organisations representative of employers and trade unions.

(1B) Consultation under subsection (1) shall take place with a view to reaching an agreement.

(1C) Where consultation takes place without an agreement being reached, the Secretary of State shall refer the matter to arbitration for the resolution of any matters of disagreement between the Secretary of State and the organisations representative of employers and trade unions.

(1D) The arbitrator appointed under subsection (3) shall be an independent person appointed by ACAS from a panel of arbitrators established by ACAS for this purpose.

(1E) The decision of the arbitrator shall be binding.

(1F) The Secretary of State shall not make regulations which are inconsistent with the decision of the arbitrator.”

Consistently with the practice in other countries, the purpose of this amendment is to remove the Secretary of State’s unilateral power to determine what minimum service levels should be. The Secretary of State would l be required to consult and agree minimum service levels with the social partners, failing which minimum service levels will be determined by an independent arbitrator.

Amendment 62, page 5, line 25, leave out lines 23 to 40 and insert—

“234F Consultation

(1) If a Minister of the Crown proposes to make regulations under this Act the Minister must—

(a) consult such organisations as appear to the Minister to be representative of interests substantially affected by the proposals;

(b) where the proposals relate to the functions of one or more statutory bodies, consult those bodies, or persons appearing to the Minister to be representative of those bodies;

(c) consult the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers, and

(d) consult such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate.

(2) If, as a result of any consultation required by subsection (1), it appears to the Minister that it is appropriate to change the whole or any part of the proposals, the Minister must undertake such further consultation with respect to the changes as the Minister considers appropriate.

(3) If, before the day on which this section comes into force, any consultation was undertaken which, had it been undertaken after that day, would to any extent have satisfied the requirements of this section, those requirements shall to that extent be taken to have been satisfied.

(4) In subsection (1)(b) ‘statutory body’ means—

(a) a body established by or under any enactment; or

(b) the holder of any office so established.

234FA Draft regulations and explanatory document laid before Parliament

(1) If, after the conclusion of the consultation required by section 234F, the Minister considers it appropriate to proceed with the making of regulations, the Minister must lay before Parliament for a period of at least 60 days —

(a) a draft of the regulation, together with

(b) an explanatory document.

(2) The explanatory document must—

(a) introduce and give reasons for the regulations;

(b) give details of—

(i) any consultation undertaken under section 234F;

(ii) any representations received as a result of the consultation;

(iii) the changes (if any) made as a result of those representations;

(c) explain why the draft regulations are consistent with the United Kingdom’s international legal obligations.

234FB Super-affirmative resolution procedure

(1) In determining whether to make regulations, the Minister must have regard to—

(a) any representations made,

(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and

(c) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft regulations,

any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft regulations,

(2) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Minister wishes to make regulations in the terms of the draft, the Minister must lay before Parliament a statement—

(a) stating whether any representations were made under subsection (1)(a); and;

(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.

(3) The Minister may after the laying of such a statement make regulations in the terms of the draft if it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(4) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft regulations may, at any time after the laying of a statement under subsection (3) and before the draft regulations are approved by that House under subsection (3), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft regulations.

(5) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection(4) in relation to a draft regulations, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft regulations in that House under subsection (3) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.

(6) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Minister wishes to make regulations consisting of a version of the draft regulations with material changes, the Minister must lay before Parliament—

(a) a revised draft of the regulations; and

(b) a statement giving details of—

(i) any representations made under subsection (1)(a); and

(ii) the revisions proposed.

(7) The Minister may after laying revised draft regulations and statement under subsection (6) make regulations in the terms of the revised draft if they are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(8) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the revised draft regulations may, at any time after the revised draft regulations are laid under subsection (6) and before they are approved by that House under subsection (7), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft regulations.

(9) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (8) in relation to a revised draft regulations, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the revised draft regulations in that House under subsection (7) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.

(10) In this section the “60-day period” means the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft regulations were laid before Parliament under section 234FA.”

This amendment would provide a super-affirmative procedure for Regulations under the Act.

Amendment 5, page 5, line 25, leave out

“such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”

and, at end insert —

“(a) trade unions in each affected sector,

(b) employers in each affected sector,

(c) relevant Government Departments for each affected sector, and

(d) relevant Parliamentary Select Committees for each affected sector.”

The intention of this amendment is to require that the Government consults with a range of stakeholders for each affected sector before making regulations, including relevant trade unions, employers, Government Departments and Select Committees.

Amendment 114, page 5, line 25, leave out

“such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”

and insert—

“(a) the Scottish Trade Union Congress,

(b) the Trade Union Congress,

(c) the Irish Congress of Trade Unions,

(d) all trade unions entered on the list maintained by the Certification Officer under Section 3 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992,

(e) the Scottish Parliament,

(f) Scottish Ministers,

(g) Senedd Cymru,

(h) Welsh Ministers,

(i) the Northern Ireland Assembly,

(j) the Northern Ireland Executive, and

(k) such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

This amendment would mandate consultation with all relevant trade union bodies, individual trade unions, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru, Northern Ireland Assembly, and allow the Secretary of State to consult others.

Amendment 53, page 5, line 26, at end insert—

“(1A) For the avoidance of doubt subsection (1) is without prejudice to the obligations of the Secretary of State in section 234BC (duty to consult Devolved Administrations) and section 234BD (duty to consult Social Partners).”

This amendment is linked to Amendment 41.

Amendment 24, page 5, line 26, at end insert—

“(1A) In particular, the Secretary of State must consult elected mayors of Greater London and of Combined Authorities in respect of minimum service levels for services for which they have responsibility.”

The intention of this amendment is to ensure that elected mayors with strategic responsibilities for transport, for example, are included in the consultations before minimum service levels are set.

Amendment 7, page 5, line 39, leave out

“(as well as by consultation after that time)”.

The intention of this amendment is to require that the consultation may be satisfied only by consultation completed before the passing of the Act.

Amendment 6, page 5, line 40, at end insert —

“(6) Any consultation carried out by the Government under this section must be published within six weeks of the day on which this Act is passed.”

The intention of this amendment is to require that the Government makes public any and all consultations.

Amendment 18, page 5, line 40, at end insert—

“234FA Impact assessment of this Part

(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review into the impact of this Act on each the categories listed in section 234B(4), with regard to—

(a) recruitment of new staff,

(b) retention of existing staff, and

(c) the provision of adequate staffing levels in the long-term.

(2) The Secretary of State must a lay a copy of the report under subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament no later than six months after the day on which this Act is passed.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to conduct a report into the impact of the Bill on recruiting staff, retaining staff and the provision of adequate staffing levels in the long-term.

Amendment 19, page 5, line 40, at end insert—

“234FB Impact assessment of this Part (No. 2)

(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review into the impact of this Act on—

(a) numbers of working hours lost attributable to the operation of this Act, and

(b) the total cost to the Exchequer of litigation arising from legal challenges to this Act over the first 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) The Secretary of State must a lay a copy of the report under subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament no later than 18 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to conduct an impact assessment on the working hours lost, and costs to government of legal challenges, incurred as a result of the Act.

Amendment 54, page 6, line 2, at end insert—

“‘senior Minister of the Crown’ means—

(a) the First Lord of the Treasury (the Prime Minister),

(b) any of Her Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State, and

(c) the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury.”

This provision is based on the Civil Contingencies Act 2004: see Amendment 41.

Amendment 55, page 6, line 9, leave out paragraphs 3 to 5.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that trade unions do not incur delictual or tortious liability where there is a failure to take reasonable steps to ensure workers fail to comply with work notices.

Amendment 1, page 6, line 29, leave out paragraphs 6 to 10.

This amendment would preserve existing protections from unfair dismissal, including for an employee who participates in a strike contrary to a work notice under this Bill.

Amendment 78, page 6, line 33, leave out paragraph 8.

This amendment would remove the Bill’s intention to remove protection against unfair dismissal for workers who refuse to work on strike days.

Amendment 58, page 7, line 4, at end insert—

“(ab) however, where the industrial action is a strike relating to the provision of a particular service, an employee who takes part shall be treated as having taken part in protected action if the only reason why the action is not protected in accordance with subsection (1) is that the union has failed to comply with section 234E above.”

This amendment would ensure that unfair dismissal protection for participating in industrial action is retained where the union has failed to take reasonable steps in accordance with section 234E.

That the schedule be the Schedule to the Bill.

Amendment 57, in the title, line 1, leave out

“about minimum service levels in connection with the taking by trade unions of strike action relating to certain services”

and insert—

“to make provision for workers in specified services to be subject to compulsory work notices contrary to their decision to withdraw their labour in an industrial dispute”.

The intention of this Amendment is to re-phrase the long title of the Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

It is up to each individual Member to reflect on whether they wish to declare an interest, but at least the hon. Member has given a timely reminder that those who wish to do so should, even in interventions, declare interests.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Evans, to be helpful to the House, given that a number of Members who spoke on Second Reading declared their interest, is it really necessary for them to do so again in Committee? I know that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) is new to the House, but perhaps he might re-acquaint himself with “Erskine May”.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Yes.

[Chris Stephens]

Further to that point of order, Mr Evans, is it also in order for hon. Members who have received donations from employers to register them in the debate?

[The First Deputy Chairman]

That is exactly the same point. Let us just move on please. We have got a lot to deal with today, and it is six hours of protected time.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

In answer to the point from the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), negotiations need to continue, and they need to be fair to workers, but also to the taxpayer, which I will touch on in a second.

I reject the characterisation of this Bill by the Opposition, who clearly put their relationship with their unions over the interests of this country. This is not a radical Bill. What we are doing is not even new. We are taking reasonable, proportionate and balanced steps and aligning ourselves with many of our European partners, such as France and Spain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

My right hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way. Does she accept that the only way a union can avoid the situation she has just talked about, where unfair dismissal protection is taken away from workers, is by ensuring that they become an instrument of coercion, of the state and of the employer? For 35 years in this country, legislation has provided that a trade union is prohibited by law from disciplining or expelling a member who refuses to take part in a strike. Under the Bill, the same trade union may be required to discipline or expel a member who does what their workmates and they themselves may have voted for—namely, to withdraw their labour. Jonathan Swift could not have made this up. Nothing in all Lilliput or Brobdingnag could come up with a more ludicrous situation.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Interventions, by their nature, should be short, not lengthy.

[Angela Rayner]

The Bill is an attack on our basic British freedoms, and Conservative Members should be concerned about that. It is from a Prime Minister who is desperately out of his depth, and desperately blaming the working people of Britain for his own failures. There has been no opportunity for real scrutiny, no impact assessment, and there is no justification for it. The Government’s pretence that it is about safety is offensive to every key worker. For the sake of every nurse, teacher and firefighter across the UK, I urge every member of the Committee to vote for our amendments. For the sake of freedom, fairness and feasibility, I also urge all Members to join us in voting down the Bill tonight.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I remind Members that if they were here for the openings of both speeches, then yes they can make a speech in Committee, but if they were not they cannot. If they have been here for what I would say is a decent time, then they are by all means able to make interventions.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). I am a supporter of the Bill. I think it is a good and proportionate Bill, but it is badly written. What the right hon. Lady said about Henry VIII clauses is absolutely spot on. Indeed, should the socialists ever be in government in the future I hope they will remember what she said, because skeleton Bills and Henry VIII clauses are bad parliamentary and constitutional practice.

It seems to me that it is hard to describe the right hon. Lady as having been wrong for tabling amendment 101— I will not vote for her, but I say none the less that she is far from being described as wrong. Clause 3 suggests:

“Regulations under this section may amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under primary legislation passed…later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.”

On what basis can any Government claim to have the power to amend legislation that has not yet been passed? The only argument for doing so, which no Government would wish to advance, is incompetence. The only way to pass a subsequent Act without amending it before it is passed is if we have not noticed what it was saying in the first place, and I cannot understand why a Government would wish to put such a measure in a Bill. Indeed, I am puzzled as to how clause 3 managed to get through the intergovernmental procedures that take place before legislation is presented to the House. I do not understand how the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee managed to approve a Bill with such a wide-ranging Henry VIII clause and which fails to set out in detail what powers the Government actually want.

I will support the Bill because its aim is worthy, but the means of achieving that aim are not properly constitutional. Henry VIII powers, it has been established, should be used exceptionally or when there is no other alternative. During the passage of the Coronavirus Act 2020 it was perfectly reasonable to have Henry VIII powers. Why? Because the Act was brought forward extremely quickly, there was little time to revise it and there was not an enormous amount of time to work out precisely what revisions to existing statute law may be needed. Emergency legislation falls into that category. But this is not emergency legislation; this is a Bill that we in the Conservative party have been cogitating about since at least our last manifesto, if not back to about 2016. I have supported it all the way through. I wanted the Bill to come forward. I think it is the right thing to be doing, but there is no excuse for failing to do it properly.

Britishvolt

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

I will come on to that point later in my speech, but my hon. Friend makes a very valid and strong point.

On the issue of competitive energy sources, the UK’s industrial energy pricing is far from competitive and drives investment away, while our green energy infrastructure is nowhere near able to guarantee a supply of energy via the national grid. In December 2022, the UK cost per megawatt-hour was £580, while in Germany it was £225, in Italy £259, in France £238, and in Sweden £206. If we are ever going to reach our targets and support the automotive industry, that disparity must be addressed without any further delay.

That is just a drop in the ocean of the wider strategic issues that have been allowed to develop in the industry. We have hundreds of thousands of workers producing parts for vehicles that will not be required, with no clear plan on how those workers will transition and be reskilled in a rapidly changing industry. That is part of the wider issue of a chronic skills shortage that needs to be addressed by having the proper training available for our young people leaving schools and paying them a proper living wage to do well-paid skilled jobs. We are being rapidly overtaken by European competitors who have support from the European Commission and the member states themselves, and we are also being stymied by the strength of the US and, in particular, China, which has a near dominance in the supply of cells, cathodes and anodes, as well as the base materials for their manufacture.

CATL in Germany has received grant and loans from the state of €750 million, or 22.8% of the total build costs; Northvolt in Sweden has had €505 million, or 17.1%; and in North America General Motors has had $2.5 billion, or 36.2%, Stellantis has had $l billion, or 35.7%, Tesla has had $1.3 billion and Ford has had $884 million—the list is nearly endless. Compare that with Britishvolt, which was promised just £100 million by the Government, and guess what percentage that was of build costs—only 2.3%. That is absolutely disgraceful. Moreover, the £100 million was heavily caveated, to the point where the company never had a penny of Government support. How can this country—how can we, as a manufacturing nation—expect to be competitive while Governments across Europe and beyond are offering real incentives for the manufacture of batteries, far greater than those offered by our Government? We have to pull our socks up. We have to get on to the pitch. We have to start playing the game, for the sake of this nation.

In the autumn, when Britishvolt was facing financial difficulties, it asked for £30 million of the £100 million grant that had been agreed by the Government. The company asked for this to be released early because it had cashflow problems, arguing that the money would help keep it afloat and attract the private investment that it needed to reach the other milestones set by the Government. The Government have repeatedly made the point that they need to act responsibly with taxpayers’ money. I agree with that, and I am sure no one disagrees with it, but it seems to me that £30 million for a company that says the money will allow it to stay in business and create 8,000 jobs in a region that has been held back for so long, keeping it afloat, is a worthwhile investment. That £30 million is a mere drop in the ocean of the money lost so carelessly during the pandemic, which went into the coffers of those with close ties to senior members of the Government, but when it might be spent on benefiting held-back towns in the north-east, it is held under very tight wraps.

By this point, the Government’s attitude towards the company seems to have cooled considerably since the previous January, when they were singing its praises from every rooftop they could find. The pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have been harsh reminders of the need for national self-reliance, particularly in key strategic industries. Simply assembling the batteries in the UK is not enough; as we enter a new phase of globalisation, we must take control of our own destiny—and of battery manufacturing—if we want our car industry to survive. We still do not have a single fully functioning gigafactory, although, as was mentioned earlier, predictions suggest that we will need anywhere between eight and 10 by 2040.

All this has real consequences at an individual human level. Towns and villages across south-east Northumberland and in the north-east as a whole, including my constituency, have been held back for decades. Once thriving industrial communities, they have had their economic and social fabric swept from under them with nothing to replace it. More than a decade of brutal austerity has hollowed out our public services and civic spaces and left us battling high levels of unemployment, low pay, poverty, crime, and addiction problems. The jobs that were promised to come with the gigafactory had the potential to be the first step in changing the fortunes of our region. The income from the new well-paid local jobs would have supported thousands of families across our communities, and might well have helped to kick-start a new era of manufacturing in industrial work that could have reignited the economy in the towns and villages close by.

There was a good deal of reluctant optimism about announcements of new developments in transport and infrastructure, alongside the announcements about the factory and the possibility of money from the Government’s new towns fund and levelling-up fund, but bit by bit, drip by drip, that has ebbed away. Only last week a bid from Ashington, in my constituency, for levelling-up money to transform the crumbling town centre was rejected, while Richmond, in the Prime Minister’s Yorkshire constituency, received a cosy £19 million. That is pretty offensive to people in held-back communities.

Bedlington in my constituency got about £8 million to build new cycling lanes, although the bid was somewhat ironically designed with getting workers to the new Britishvolt factory in mind. Although every penny given to Bedlington is welcome, many are already questioning whether new cycle lanes are all that levelling up will amount to, given how starved the town has been, like many in my constituency, of crucial infrastructure funding for so long. The levelling-up fund has proved itself to be time-consuming, expensive, divisive and unable to meet the needs of held-back towns in the north-east. The south-east has received nearly twice as much as the north-east from the fund, and none of this touches the sides of the cuts to local councils since 2010 and the introduction of austerity.

The best use of levelling-up money for south-east Northumberland would have been getting behind the Britishvolt gigafactory. The people of Northumberland and the north-east have, sadly, once again been let down by those working far away in the halls of Whitehall and Downing Street. Three Prime Ministers in a matter of weeks and a merry-go-round of Ministers in different positions, based on nothing but blind loyalty, rather than competence and know-how, has been a disaster for any plans the Government may have had to level up my constituency and the region. As usual, we are the ones dealing with the consequences of the internal political drama unfolding in the ranks of the Conservative party.

We need long-term thinking and a proper plan for our broader industrial sector, and we need to overcome the major obstacles our automotive industry is up against, if we are to truly level up, or gauge up, our communities in the north-east, not just a few packets of money—not just the crumbs off the table. It cannot just be that who is best at submitting a bid will get the money and other areas that are sadly lacking will again get left further and further behind—my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) talked about that.

This morning, the news broke in the press that Recharge Industries, an Australian-based company, had put in an offer to buy Britishvolt, which is very encouraging, as were other reports in the press this morning that 12 other companies have shown an interest. Let us hope that something can happen, because we cannot have another false dawn. We cannot have another Britishvolt, where we have a project of this magnitude, with the land, the planning and everything else in place, only for the Government to go cold and step back from assisting our regions.

A couple of issues are really interesting. The administrator, Ernst & Young, has a legal obligation to accept the highest offer. It has no legal obligation to accept what might be the best offer for the people in our communities or to say, “I will take that offer because it is going to create tens of thousands or hundreds of jobs.” It has an obligation to seek what is best for the current shareholders. We have to look at that and hope that the administrators bear in mind when making this ultimate decision that this is not only about the shareholders, many of whom will probably not live in our region, or even in this country, and are looking for as much money as possible—the people in our region count and they should not be forgotten. We have to put as much pressure as we can on the administrators.

I am going to ask the Minister a number of quick questions. We have to make sure that the Government step up to the plate on this. I have explained this and I will not repeat myself, but the Government were shouting about Britishvolt from the rooftops one minute and then they were refusing any finances to it the next moment—that is well documented. They said that one of the milestones was private investment, but the company thought that was wrong way around. Those private companies were willing to invest on the basis that the Government would support it morally and financially. If the company had UK Government support, that would hold sway. The British Government basically abdicated responsibility, and jumped off the ship like a rat. That caused investors to be extremely unhappy, and probably put them off in the short and the medium term.

We are where we are with Britishvolt at Cambois. Will the Minister commit to do whatever it takes to get behind whoever acquires the site to build a gigafactory, including offering a proper package of financial support, in line with what other states across Europe offer? I have explained the massive difference in support that European countries get from their Governments. Can the Minister outline the Government’s plans to ensure that the site in Cambois is developed as quickly as possible? There cannot be any more delays. We hope that the Government will get in intense discussions to support any successful bidder for the plant.

Would the Minister tell us why money was not forthcoming to Britishvolt when it requested the £30 million early, which it argues would have gone a long way to reach its milestones and to get the gigafactory developed? Can the Minister clarify what due diligence was done on the company when it decided to offer it a £100-million grant in the first place? Why did the Government eventually go cold on their support? Can the Minister clarify what the Government are doing to reach the target of building eight to 10 gigafactories by 2040? How do they plan to stay competitive with other companies across Europe and globally, given the strategic barriers that I have outlined?

I have spoken for quite some time, but the issue is critical for Members, individuals and families in south-east Northumberland and the wider afield constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), for Hemsworth and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). We feel left behind. We feel that the Government have not supported us, despite the initial euphoria that this was to be the best possible opportunity to transform our area. I say to the Minister that, seriously, we need to get on to that playing field. We need to support the automotive industry. That includes electrical vehicle battery plants. We are way behind if we are to have 80 by 2040. Let’s get cracking. Let’s get the site developed in Cambois. Let’s get the Government support to the preferred bidder and make sure that the bidder wants a gigafactory, not something much less, so we can transform the economy of our great region.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Mr Ian Levy has sought permission from the mover of the motion and from the Minister to make a short contribution, and I have been informed.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating my moving on to new clause 20, which talks to some of those issues in great detail, and a very good amendment it is, too. We have talked about whether the fee of £100 is arbitrary, a finger in the wind. But it is a figure that we can put in the Bill to say, “Let’s start here”. It gives Companies House the resource with which it can do work.

It was pointed out by some of those who gave evidence to the Bill Committee that, if we are seeking to clamp down on those hundreds of companies being set up every day at £12 a pop, we need to replace that money with legitimate money; £100 would go some way to dealing with that gap and that discrepancy. We need to ensure that that money goes to increasing the staff at Companies House, and the capacity, ability and expertise of the people Companies House hires, because much of this is becoming incredibly technical. It is important that it has the resource to do that. All the agencies involved need that money, but Companies House, as the front door to a lot of this stuff, needs to be properly resourced to be able to do that.

I note that the Minister talked about not wanting to put in legislation the sum of money that that fee would require, but that is not quite how other parts of the system work. I have sat on Statutory Instrument Committees that set the value of passport fees. I understand that the House sets the value of visa fees. Therefore, within the immigration system, the House decides what that fee is and sets that fee. Yet it is not deciding to do so for companies.

I do not know whether the Minister intends the matter of setting a fee —at £100, or whatever it might be—to come before an SI Committee at some point, but that is not what the Bill says he is going to do. It is important to recognise that, in one area of government, the Government are setting a fee and deciding how much people should pay for things and that other parts of the system should have cost recovery. The visa fee goes way above cost recovery; the passport fee perhaps less so. We are talking about £75.50 for a passport, compared with £12 to register a company and £1,538 for a visa. Those things are not quite the same. The company fee could bear being significantly higher than the £12 it is at the moment, and there is a place in legislation where we could set that because that is what the Government do in other areas of legislation.

New clause 22 tabled by the Official Opposition—entitled “Person convicted under the Minimum Wage Act not to be appointed as director”—is laudable in its aims because the people flouting the rules should not get to be company directors. Being a company director is a privilege, not a right. For those people who have been convicted of not complying with the legislation, it is perfectly reasonable that they could be disqualified for a serious breach of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. It is reasonable to disqualify them.

On the issue of trust and company service providers, there is more that the Bill should and must do. It is unfortunate that the consultation on the Office for Professional Body AML Supervision is still ongoing, I understand, or certainly not concluded, because that should form part of this Bill. It has been widely acknowledged that OPBAS is not effective and is not working as the Government intended, but the Government do not yet know what they are going to do, how they will fix OPBAS, whether it will require further legislation in this House, whether it will involve stripping OPBAS of its AML supervision responsibilities and duties and, if it does, where those responsibilities will lie.

Our suggestion in new clause 35 is to make Companies House the AML supervisor in its own right. I have asked various questions on why the Government do not believe that Companies House should be an anti-money laundering supervisor. It seems to us on the SNP Benches that, if Companies House is the front door for every company registered in the United Kingdom, it should be liable for anti-money laundering regulations. If we are asking banks and other institutions to look at that, why not the Government agency responsible for the registration of every company on these islands?

That would give Companies House more duties and stop the flow of guff companies, terrible information and people who seek to defraud our constituents at the front door. It seems bizarre to me that the Government would not want to shut the front door firmly in the face of the crooks and the people who want to do that. There is also more that could be done, as mentioned in some of the Labour amendments, on the duty and powers of Companies House. We think Companies House should have powers, and not only powers, but duties—it should have to do those things.

I do not see why there is ambiguity in this legislation. If the Government are saying Companies House should do it, they should make Companies House do it, rather than leaving it up to interpretation or somebody’s decision further down the line. They should make Companies House do it. We all know that, if we are not forced to do a thing, we might not do a thing. We might not do the dishes, or the laundry, but if we are forced to, we certainly will. There is more that can be done to shut the door and tighten the regulations.

Through our amendments, we also seek to tighten the integrity of the register. That includes new clause 36 and our amendment 109. They reflect Labour’s amendment 103 and some of the other amendments that speak to the importance of identification numbers and the integrity of the register itself.

Much of the evidence we heard in the Bill Committee, as well as at various APPG events and other online events, indicates that the register as it stands is full of absolute guff. It has had—[Interruption.] The Minister waves the legislation, but the difficulty is that he is not intending to fix all that guff. He is allowing that guff to live on the register forever, because there is not enough in the Bill about the retrospective action Companies House has to take, looking through all the hundreds and thousands of companies that, over many years, have been allowed to filter on to the register unheeded.

Graham Barrow’s Twitter account is full every single day of companies being registered with information that is absolute rubbish. We must have a means of putting a duty and an obligation on Companies House to go back through the register, to clear it out and to say, “There’s no point having that stuff on there, because it is in effect meaningless and it’s gumming up the system for those who want to use the register in legitimate ways.”

We must be able to keep a check on Companies House: that is why new clause 36 says that it should seek to ensure that registrations contain accurate, up-to-date information and that it comes back to update Parliament on its progress updating that register. We cannot expect these things to happen overnight, because it is a big register and there is an awful lot on it, but we must ensure that it is accurate. If it is not, there are very real consequences for our constituents, as Graham Barrow pointed out. People have found themselves being defrauded when their names, their addresses or both have been used inaccurately. Those people have been chased or pursued by criminals and all kinds of things have happened to them because of fraudulent information on the Companies House register.

Someone may not even find out that their name has been used fraudulently. If they have a name such as James Smith, they may never find out. There are only three Alison Thewlisses on the register, but they are all me. There should be one identification—I should not be on the register as three people—and that is why we seek a unique identifier to track people throughout their lives. If someone’s name has been registered and used without their knowledge, with an address that is not theirs—a mailbox perhaps—they may not find out about it but may end up being liable for the actions of the fraudsters, so a lot more can be done on that.

We are also seeking through amendment 111 to limit the number of directorships that people can have. People may have multiple directorships, but is the director of 300 companies really able to do that job properly? Probably not. Those are probably not real companies and that person is probably not acting as a proper director. Again, on the Companies House register, many people are registered for hundreds of companies. As a red flag in the system, that should stand out to Companies House, which should be able to ask, “Is this person a real director?” and do more investigation. Our amendment would encourage that.

I am quite pleased to see that Government amendments 30 and 32 would give Scottish Ministers the power to present a petition to wind up Scottish limited partnerships, which have been comprehensively abused for several years now. That has been a real problem, and giving Scottish Ministers the power to do something about it is important. Although they are called “Scottish limited partnerships”, they have in practice very little to do with the Scottish Government, who can do little about them at the moment, so that is an important power. I am grateful to Michael Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland, who I hope is correct in his belief that that is a practical and useful measure. Will the Minister outline whether he has had any further discussions with Scottish Ministers, and how he thinks the power would work in practice?

I am prepared to leave my remarks at that—I appreciate that other Members want to get in and discuss other things—but I will leave the Minister with a quote from a Bill Committee evidence session on 25 October. Bill Browder, who has been a great champion of corporate transparency and standing against corruption internationally, told the Committee:

“You can write as many great laws as you want—there is some good stuff in this law, and good stuff in the previous laws—but if no one is going to enforce it, then you are never going to change the risk-reward and people are going to carry on doing stuff. All this will continue, and I will sit here 10 years from now making the same allegations about how this is a centre of money laundering.”––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2022; c. 69, Q144.]

Nobody wants to be sitting here in 10 years—well, certainly not those of us on the SNP Benches—seeing money laundering going on unabated. We want the Government to take the opportunity that the Bill presents to close loopholes. To get that right, and get it right now, they should take the advice and knowledge that Members from across the House, and external organisations, have brought to the Bill. If the Government make the amendments and fix the Bill, they will have cross-party support for it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Dame Andrea Leadsom, I remind everybody that a number of cases are still before the courts, and we do not know all the cases that there are. Even though the sub judice rule does not apply when we are legislating, Mr Speaker has urged caution for those live cases. If Members could do us a favour and look up cases that they intend to mention, that would be really useful.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). I agree with much of what she said, particularly about this House wishing her mum a very happy 70th birthday.

I also pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). I find it amazing that he has only recently become a Minister, as he has been such a stalwart and incredibly diligent in promoting better performance by the banking and business sectors. It is great to see him in his rightful place at the Dispatch Box.

I rise to speak to new clause 20, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), and to the two amendments I tabled that, very annoyingly, have not been selected, which are to do with phoenixing. I agree in general terms with the thrust of the debate: for reform of Companies House to be effective, it needs to be required to do new things. It is not enough to facilitate things; it needs to be given new duties and therefore the resources to be able to fulfil those duties. I can tell the House that in the brief time I spent as the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, I had discussions with the excellent team of civil servants who are looking at company law reform, corporate governance and the Insolvency Service, and it is true to say, I am afraid, that they were not invited to go and talk to Ministers terribly often. They were definitely a bit of a Cinderella out there in BEIS, and this incredibly important area needs much more focus.

Online Sale of Goods (Safety) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Friday 20th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The Minister has indicated that he would like to speak early in the debate. Of course, that does not prevent other Members from coming in afterwards, should he finish before 2.30 pm.

Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 20th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is correct.

My hon. Friend also talked about my personal tipping. Do I tip? Yes. By standard, if there is no service charge, I would usually tip 10%, or sometimes more, based on performance. Sometimes I will tip nothing, if I do not feel that the service has been at that level. Do I tip if I do not pay for the meal? I normally pay for the meal as well actually, but I have offered to on occasion. I think that covers all his questions, but if he has any more, we can deal with them by separate means.

To respond to the shadow Minister, I again refer to my earlier comments about an employment Bill. The key thing is that we are getting on with key legislation that we think is important. It is not just this legislation; there are other pieces of legislation addressing flexible working, carer’s leave and other issues. She talked about enforcement, which is hugely important. Legislation without implementation is pointless. One of the most effective parts of our regulatory system in the UK, in my view, is employment tribunals. There is no pan-employment regulator in the UK, which, when we think about it, is quite a surprise—there are some in some sectors. There are 30 million people employed in this country, and employment tribunals do a fantastic job, at a fraction of the cost of other regulators. It is ex-post regulation, and I think a more effective means of doing that is through employment tribunals, which are principally a mechanism for enforcement.

The hon. Member talked about zero-hours contracts. A very small proportion of people in this country are on zero-hours contracts—2% to 3%. Many of them are on a zero-hours contract for good reasons and want to be on one, but she raised an important point. This is something we are looking at and determined to tackle. There are some abuses of the system, and we are keen to bring forward new regulations to make sure we tackle that area.

In conclusion, bringing forward the new rules will protect more than 2 million workers from bad bosses and give them an avenue to seek remedies. Businesses will be assured they are not being undercut by companies where bosses keep tips for themselves and consumers will have increased confidence that their tips go to the workers they are intended for. The new rules are backed by Government evidence and analysis. The Government are therefore pleased to reiterate their support for this private Member’s Bill. It has been wonderful to see the support for it in the House during today’s debate.

If I may, I would like to list the civil servants involved, and there are a number of them: Flora Strange, Lucy Allatt, Yasna Reynolds, Mary Smeeth, Tony Gordon, Joe Giles, Simi Bhamra, Bex Lowe, Richard Lewis, Abigail Bridger, Rachel Senior—I can see the Whip moving closer to me; oh no, it’s not, it is the next Minister. I will conclude very shortly!—Anthony Morris, Cora Sweet, Nadine Othman, Laura Matthews, Clara Thiel, Patrick Day and Harry Ravi. Finally, I very much look forward to working with my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn and stakeholders to support the passage of these measures as the Bill moves to the House of Lords. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If the Minister was ever to invite us all out for dinner one night, I think we would like to see his tipping style in action, wouldn’t we? Fascinating.

[Virginia Crosbie]

With the leave of the House, I would like to thank all hon. Members for their contributions today. In particular, I emphasise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) and thank him for his kind words. He also taught us a new word, “snollygoster”. We heard about workers’ rights and he emphasised us working together as a House.

The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) talked about the importance of the Bill for university towns such as Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) mentioned a campaign to make sure people know about the measures and how we have amended the Employment Rights Act 1996. My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) waxed lyrical about Christmas tips and how he plans to visit all his pubs. We had a fantastic romp through all the fantastic places to visit and eat in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby).

My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) highlighted how important it is that the Bill will help businesses to look after their staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) grew up in the Lake Vyrnwy Hotel, a wonderful, wonderful hotel. He paid tribute in particular to Kate Nicholls. From my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy), we had the great image of a scene from “Reservoir Dogs” and the culture of tipping in the US. My dog sends her best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who talked about impact assessments and small businesses. Lastly, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) shared her experiences of not being able to drink her tips and the significance of the support of unions and UKHospitality.

I would like to end by thanking the Minister for signalling the Government’s continued support for the Bill. I hope hon. Members in all parts of the House can agree that this is an essential piece of legislation, which will help to promote fairness and transparency to ensure that workers receive the tips they earn. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Congratulations, Virginia Crosbie and Dean Russell.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is interesting to hear some Members go on about how retained EU law has a special status in UK law. It is only special because the UK says it is; for everyone else, it is just “the law”. Yes, it has been inherited from our time in the EU, but that was the point of incorporating it in the first place, and now it governs and regulates thousands of aspects of our daily lives, and, as we have heard from a number of Members, protects a great many of our hard-won rights and freedoms.

It is a contradiction to say that this Bill, particularly or uniquely, somehow asserts or reasserts parliamentary sovereignty. Every Bill passed in this House asserts parliamentary sovereignty, even for those of us who believe in popular sovereignty. That is the point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said at the start of the debate a long time ago, there is not a single law, regulation or rule in the corpus of retained EU law that the Government, through this House, could not repeal, replace or reform at any time of their choosing through primary legislation.

In her opening speech, the Minister herself reeled off all the great Brexit Bills and Acts that Parliament has already passed. That proves the point that we do not need the powers in this Bill, and we certainly do not need the sunset clauses and cliff edges that it establishes. The Bill reveals contempt for parliamentary sovereignty—a massive power grab from this House and the devolved institutions, and unprecedented power placed in the hands of Ministers and the Whitehall mandarins who have simply stepped in to replace the Brussels bureaucrats so hated by the ERG and their Brexiteer friends.

If the Government genuinely believed in parliamentary sovereignty and the devolution settlement, they would accept the amendments tabled. They would pay particular attention to amendment 36, as everyone has remarked and several of their Back Benchers have signed. Many constituents in Glasgow North—in which, incidentally, 78% voted to remain in the European Union; I make no apology for standing up for their views—have told me that they believe the amendment will offer at least some degree of protection from the bonfire of rights and freedoms that this Bill represents.

The Government could admit that the game is up and that there is no prospect of seriously reviewing the thousands of regulations that make up EU retained law by the end of this year. They could accept SNP amendment 33 to drop the sunset clause altogether. At the very least, they could accept amendments 28 to 31, which would protect the powers of Scotland’s Parliament and Government to legislate in areas that were already supposed to be devolved under the terms of the Scotland Act. They say there is no power grab, but they have grabbed powers that should have come from Brussels directly to the Scottish Parliament.

But the Government will do none of those things. They will press ahead with the fantasy that this Bill is necessary in the first place, and that its aims are achievable within the timescale set out. It is perhaps ironic that in “Star Trek” there was an evil race called the Borg who would come to assimilate entire planets and civilisations into their collective consciousness. That is how the Brexiteers viewed the European Union. Now, it is the Government who want EU retained law to be renamed “assimilated law” on the statute book. Nothing else will change and the effect of the laws will be the same, but references to the hated European Union will have been purged. What a huge achievement.

Unlike the Borg or the UK Government, it is the EU laws that have protected and enhanced our liberties, freedoms and basic health and safety in these islands over the past 40 years. This Bill, and the Government’s refusal to accept any amendments this evening, expose the Government’s true agenda. By scrapping retained EU law, they want to create a race to the bottom, a buyer-beware, survival-of-the-fittest economy that pays minimal regard to democratic oversight and even less to the welfare of the poorest and most vulnerable. That was the Brexiteers’ agenda all along: stuff the consequences playing out in society and the economy all around us.

Once again, with a rather heavy dose of irony, it will fall to the unelected House of Lords to stand up for democracy and against the worst excesses of this Tory Government. The Government will come back after the Lords have dealt with this Bill with their tail between their legs, admitting that what they proposed was never viable in the first place. For people in Scotland, there is another option—a route out of this Tory madness and back into the partnership, community and mutual respect of the European Union. That is the popular sovereignty that comes with independence.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on his reference to “Star Trek” on Report. At least he referred to the amendments as well.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Through this pernicious piece of legislation the Government seek to give themselves the power to scrap a whole host of legal protections that we currently enjoy, including hard-won employment rights and environmental protections. Through the Bill, a sunset provision will be placed on retained EU law, causing the vast majority of it to expire at the end of 2023. It could apply to more than 2,400 pieces of legislation. Indeed, reports suggest that the figure could be as high as 4,000.

The laws in question cover areas including environmental protection, food safety, civil aviation codes, health and safety in the workplace, employment law, parental leave, intellectual property, product safety, biosecurity, private pension protections, vehicle standards and noise pollution. The very idea that the Government should give themselves the power to discard such a large amount of legislation is shocking indeed. Decisions about UK law should be made in Parliament, not by Ministers. I therefore support amendment 36, which would require the Government to publish an exhaustive list of every piece of legislation being revoked under the sunset clause in the Bill and which would give the House of Commons the ultimate say on which legislation is affected. This would take power out of the hands of Ministers and provide transparency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of amendments 21 and 36. Losing environmental protections was a major concern for all of us who opposed Brexit. The majority of my Bath constituents and I feared that Brexit would prove a colossal mistake. At the time, our fears were branded as scaremongering, yet this Conservative Government are clearly prepared to let environmental protections fall on the bonfire of regulations. The sheer volume of retained EU law instruments means that there is now a huge danger that many will fall automatically if they are not amended or identified in time.

This is reckless lawmaking, legislating with hammer blows instead of following the evidence. The December deadline is totally unnecessary. It is clearly unrealistic to replace all this legislation by the end of the year. There are currently only three full-time equivalent staff working on retained EU law in DEFRA. How can the Government expect them to cope with this enormous workload, and what is the rush? I have heard many Conservative Members today saying, “We don’t want to be subjected to laws made in the EU.” May I gently remind them that these laws were our laws? They became our laws by which we lived our lives for decades. Pulling them from under our feet without a transparent process to replace them is the most undemocratic proposal I can think of.

Amendment 21 would exempt certain environmental protections from the sunset clause. Nature provides a better chance of mitigating the worst impacts of climate change. Protecting ecosystems that regulate the climate or contain critical carbon stores must be prioritised alongside cutting emissions. This is not just about the EU; it is about a Government not caring about net zero. It is crucial that these protections are not allowed to fall needlessly to prove an ideological point. Amendment 21 would at least protect legislation such as the National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018. These regulations require the Secretary of State to prepare an annual inventory of emissions and air pollutants, which are killers. It is about our health. The Government are frustrating every step towards a healthier planet and healthier people.

Amendment 36 would require the Government to publish a list of every piece of legislation that is being revoked under the sunset clause and to allow parliamentary oversight of that process. If the Conservatives believe in parliamentary democracy, what could possibly be preventing them from supporting this amendment?

There is huge public interest in our environmental laws. I have received hundreds of emails about this Bill from my Bath constituents, but I feel my constituents are being ignored. Amendment 36 would also provide much-needed clarity on the legislation that will be affected. Many clauses in this Bill will make settled areas of law uncertain and contested. How can we meet our net zero targets if we do not even know what environmental legislation will be standing this time next year?

There will be no coming back and no next time if we miss our net zero targets. For that reason alone, it is important to support amendment 36. Shamefully, our Government are satisfied to leave environmental protections to chance. They are intent on getting Brexit done without any idea of the cost to current and future generations.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We have two more Back-Bench contributions, and then we will move on to the wind-ups. I advise Members who have taken part in the debate to make their way to the Chamber.

[Geraint Davies]

This is the second shameful bit of legislation the House has seen this week, the first being the Bill that will sack nurses for striking to feed their family.

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill risks a bonfire of fundamental rights and protections, both at work and for the environment, that have evolved over our 47 years in the EU. I say that because the Bill will get civil servants to look at all the thousands of laws, rules, rights and protections by the end of the year and to decide either to abolish them, to change them—not specifically to improve them, because this Bill is deregulatory —or to continue them. If the civil servants do not have time, the laws, rules, rights and protections will end by default.

Various protections and rights are likely to fall out of bed because civil servants do not have enough time to look at them. Of course, 100,000 civil servants are now going on strike, and 80% of these laws are in DEFRA, which has only three people looking at retained EU law. There are currently enough problems in DEFRA, including the sewage being pumped out along our coasts and rivers where we used to have so-called EU blue beaches. There are air quality problems, with 63,000 people dying prematurely each year at a cost of £20 billion. Of course, the EU wants to get to the World Health Organisation target of 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030, but we will leave it until 2040. The Minister’s assurance that we will do as well or better than the EU is farcical.

One in four people in Britain is in food poverty, and we do not have enough people to pick the fruit or butcher the meat. We cannot export to the EU, and half of businesses are now no longer exporting to the EU. Millions of crabs, lobsters and prawns are dying from pollution off the north-east coast. People in DEFRA have enough to do without being distracted by looking through every bit of legislation and deciding whether to change, continue or abolish it, which is frankly ridiculous. They have enough on their plate—sadly not north-east crab.

The abolition of rights by default is a major risk that will come back to haunt us all, whether on rights at work, environmental rights or other rights. The other key issue, obviously, is the loss of democratic control. We were told that we would take back control, but this Bill gives all the power to Ministers and civil servants. They will look at 47 years of legislation and decide which bits to cherry-pick, which bits to forget and which bits to inadvertently drop. That is not democratic. This is not democratic and it is not what people voted for. Furthermore, it is going to be snatching from the devolutionary settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We saw the instincts of the Government only yesterday, as we did on the sacking of strikers, the stopping of protests and the introduction of photo ID. Those things all show the sort of Government we have and whether we can trust them with this issue—obviously, we cannot.

Finally, this Bill is an attempt to have divergence for the sake of it. I am proud to be the trade rapporteur for the Council of Europe, charged with embedding democracy, human rights, the rule of law and sustainable development into international trade agreements. That requires our coming together over a set of rules to protect our fundamental values and our environmental future, but this Bill does the opposite. As has been pointed out, it will have the impact of reducing the amount of trade that stimulates our economy. Altogether, this is a farcical rush to wave a banner of “Taking back control”, but underneath is the pirate ship with a flag of, “Let’s take control from you, do what we want and destroy your rights and protections.” Therefore, this will make the economic crisis even worse than it is already. What we want is not a weaker, poorer, dirtier Britain, which is what this Bill and others will bring about. We want a stronger, fairer, greener future, which will happen only with a Labour Government.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I know that Christmas was a few weeks ago, but here is a late present: I am not putting the clock on you, Mr Rodda, so if your speech is over six minutes, so be it.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am a lucky man.

I wish to speak about a number of amendments. First, I strongly support amendment 36, which calls on the Government to publish a list of the laws affected by the Bill. I also offer my support to amendments 18 and 19, which give more time for proper debate and protect workers’ rights; amendments 21 and 22, on the environment; and a number of others mentioned by the Opposition Front-Bench team.

This is clearly an important Bill. It covers a large number of laws across a wide range of policy areas, including protections for workers’ rights, the environment and the consumer. As the Minister said, the Bill deals with laws covering some 300 different policy areas across government. I followed her speech carefully and with great interest, and noted that she was not able to say how many pieces of law the Bill affects. That is highly important for the debate today; the Government plan to remove all this EU law, even though they do not fully understand the full list of laws, by the end of this year. They are proposing enormous changes, yet they do not even know the full scale of the change involved. As we have heard, the Law Society describe the Government’s approach as having a

“devastating impact on legal certainty”.

To make matters worse, the Government plan to give themselves sweeping powers to push through these changes. Ministers will be given the power to use the negative statutory instrument procedure to address such important and controversial issues, with the result that workers’ rights, environmental protections and consumer rights could all be changed with barely any scrutiny. Even at this late stage, I ask the Government to reconsider that reckless approach. I hope the Minister will have time to respond to the concerns raised. I hope she will listen and take the views from across the House back to her ministerial colleagues.

I also hope the Minister will take on board the deep concerns felt by people across the country. Like other Members, I have received a large number of emails on this important issue. I have been contacted by a range of organisations as diverse as the TUC, the National Trust, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, The Rivers Trust, the British Safety Council, the Angling Trust, Unison and the Institute of Directors. That is a formidable list of civil society organisations, so I hope that she will consider the interesting points they make about this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I very much appreciate my belated Christmas present, but I realise that time is pressing on. To conclude, the Bill is clearly deeply flawed, and I ask the Minister again to listen to the points made by Members from across the House and take them back to her colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda]

I am conscious of time and, given that I have allowed one intervention, I should now conclude.

Again, I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me some extra time and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for making the worthy point about asbestos. I hope that the Minister will take that point back, and, indeed, the wide range of other points made today by Members from across the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you. I call the Minister to wind up.

[Ms Ghani]

I thank everybody for their contributions, which have been measured and passionate. Many important points have been raised and I shall do my best to respond to as many as I can.

We have had quite a long list of speakers: the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Stirling (Alyn Smith); the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn); the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), and for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous); the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford); the hon. Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Arfon (Hywel Williams), for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), for Reading East (Matt Rodda), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), and for Bath (Wera Hobhouse).

We also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash), for Watford (Dean Russell), and for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker); my right hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), and for Clwyd West (Mr Jones); my hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil (Mr Fysh), for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici), and for Waveney (Peter Aldous). I will try my best to respond to as many issues raised as I can.

Obviously, I am here to support the Government’s amendments, and I will go through in detail the amendments tabled by the Opposition. They fundamentally misunderstand that this is an enabling Bill, or they are deliberately trying to delay, deny or dilute what we are trying to achieve, which is, basically, delivering the Brexit that we promised the public: the promise that we would free ourselves from EU law and make UK law sovereign. Laws and regulations that manage our lives should be rooted here in this country and that is a law that should be supreme. Fundamentally, that is what we are trying to achieve.

Much has been said about the dashboard. I should be clear: at the moment, the figure we have identified and verified for EU law is 3,200 and we expect it to be 4,000. So it is what we were expecting and the dashboard will be updated. As I said earlier, officials have been working for more than 18 months and they will continue to work with officials across all Departments and with officials in devolved authorities.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Anna Firth]

No, I won’t because of the time.

That right has been a key part of our labour laws since 1906. If I can introduce just a moment of levity into this debate, one could say that collective action actually started in 1381 with the peasants’ revolt, which started in Essex.

However, it is undeniable that strikes are incredibly disruptive. In October last year, we lost 417,000 working days due to strike action, and 2022 is set to have the highest number of days lost to strike action since 1990. Whether it is our trains, ambulances, hospitals or postal service, the strikes disproportionately affect the poorer people in my constituency. Two million people journeys were made from two stations in my constituency of Southend West. These are people who cannot work from home, who cannot afford taxis to get to and from work, who are not allowed the indulgence of hotels that—let’s face it—those of us who work in this place are able to claim. And this affects children. People travelling to our brilliant grammar schools in Southend generally do so by train from different parts of Essex. Our children’s education has suffered enough due to covid. There must be minimum levels to ensure that our children get the education they deserve when they are in school.

On fairness and equality, by ensuring that we have minimum safety levels in our public services, we are ensuring that a service funded by taxpayers equally, serves every taxpayer equally. How could anybody object to that?

This should not be a controversial opinion. Police officers and members of the armed forces are already prevented from taking strike action. Too often, we have to rely on the armed forces, who cannot take strike action because theirs is an essential service. Life and limb are involved. Yet we rely on them—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call Barry Gardiner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

That is quite simply because they are introducing a party political measure that is designed to provoke this House.

I call on all Conservative Members, if they care about the Union at all, to vote against this wrecking ball of a Bill, which will only provide succour to those voices seeking to destroy our constitutional settlement and our United Kingdom. Under the Bill, the employer has the unilateral right to identify in a work notice the individual workers required to operate the MSL. A worker who refuses to comply after having been requisitioned in this way will lose unfair dismissal protection.

The Government are thus authorising employers to do what not even a court in this country can do. Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992:

“No court shall…compel an employee to do any work or attend at any place for the doing of any work.”

However, once the union is notified of the identity of the workers to be requisitioned, the Bill requires the union to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that all its members identified in the work notice comply with it. It is ironic that, under the Bill, the same trade union may be required to discipline or expel—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am terribly sorry that I had not given notice, but we are going down to three minutes to get as many people in as we possibly can.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I should first declare that I am a member of the British Medical Association. As an NHS consultant paediatrician and a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, I take a great interest in the Bill and particularly in its impact on health. During my career, I have worked—indeed, I continue to work—with many fabulous NHS staff. However, as many hon. Members have rightly pointed out, the pay rise of over 19% demanded by the Royal College of Nursing is simply unaffordable.

The pay rises being demanded would also continue to drive up inflation at a time when the Government are working night and day to keep it down. Because of the way in which NHS staff are paid, we cannot give one group a pay rise without giving it to others in the same pay band. Although different unions give the impression that they are negotiating separately—the ambulance staff, the nursing staff, the middle and junior managers—in reality, they are all on the same banding scheme. A rise for one is a rise for all, with each 1% rise costing £700 million.

It is clear that the Opposition seem to have misrepresented the Government’s policy as an attempt to take away the right to strike, when that is so clearly not the purpose of this legislation. When it comes to the NHS, it is not right that those who are in desperate need of medical care cannot get an ambulance or receive care because of strike action. These are measures designed to protect lives and ensure that people who face an imminent threat to life or limb have quick access to care and treatment. How could anybody not want such care to be received? That is why minimum service levels are individually negotiated by the various ambulance services, but that leads to inconsistency across the country. A pre-agreed national minimum level will help to improve patient safety.

Another reason we need minimum service levels is that legislation on striking services does not require people to say whether or not they are striking. That has recently meant a situation in which people organising ward rotas have not known who is turning up to work, which makes it very difficult to plan even minimum services for shifts. That is all very well when you are dealing with parcel deliveries, but when you need a certain number of people to care for acutely sick people, it is vital to be able to plan. A minimum service level allows that.

Furthermore, the Opposition are suggesting that the Government want to sack people for striking. That, again, is a gross distortion. Striking is a collective decision; that is why it is voted on. The Government’s measures apply to those who, having agreed to be part of a minimum service level, then do not turn up to work. That would be a dereliction of duty under any circumstances, and in practice we all know that it is not going to happen, because NHS staff would simply never do that.

It has been clear for some time that Opposition Members are not brave enough either to say how much they would offer the unions or to criticise the strikes, even when they so clearly threaten the lives of their constituents. It is perhaps no coincidence that the unions behind the recent ambulance strikes are some of the Labour party’s biggest donors. In the meantime, the Government, my Back-Bench colleagues and I will continue to serve our country and our constituents. The first duty—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mhairi Black]

Absolutely—and that leads me neatly to my next point.

I have previously spoken about the dangers of sleepwalking into fascism if we are not careful. I did not say it lightly then and I do not say it lightly now, but history is undeniable. The slide into authoritarian and anti-democratic politics has always been underpinned by anti-trade union rhetoric. Over the years, we have listened to countless right-wing politicians and Governments claiming that Brexit would in no way affect workers’ rights, yet here we are.

The reason trade unions organise industrial action is that it works. It has always been the only language that those who hold power understand. The only reason any worker has any rights at all is the existence of trade unions, and the ability of workers to organise collectively in defence of their jobs and their livelihoods. People who bleat about the disruption that strike action causes are missing the point entirely. If your day is disrupted by someone not turning up to their job, it just goes to show how crucial that person’s job is, and why their pay and conditions should reflect that.

There is another myth that I have heard. In fact, people do not undertake strike action lightly. Strikers lose money. Strike action indicates a crisis. Our nurses, doctors, teachers, cleaners and supermarket workers are the very people who have kept the world turning through a global pandemic, a cost of living crisis and 13 years of Tory austerity, but this Government choose to ignore and demoralise them at every turn. This Government would rather blame striking workers than acknowledge the fact that the root causes of strike action lie directly at their door. We have the lowest pensions and sick pay in Europe, we still do not have a living wage and we are living in economic chaos, with inequality getting worse.

The only people who are putting the health and safety of the public at risk are the members of this Government —a Government run for Twitter; a Government of clicks and culture wars, with no serious answers. Ultimately, trade unions work, and that is exactly why the Tories are going after them.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Clive Efford.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I withdrew, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I was not present for the opening speeches.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Christine Jardine will be delighted to hear that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If Members can shave a few seconds off their speeches, it would help to get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

Indeed, I do. Across the public sector we see people who, in recent years, saved us from the trials of the pandemic. These are people who should be venerated, not demonised. They should be paid, not punished.

The international comparisons made in this debate are so spurious when we look at them. Not a single country in Europe has legislation like this. The minimum standards everywhere else are negotiated. There is no other country in which a person can be sacked for going on strike if their employer says they cannot, as proposed in this Bill.

The proposals in relation to Scotland and the devolved Administrations are the most pernicious. Is it because the Government are jealous or frustrated at the fact that the Government in Scotland take a different view—that, rather than demonise trade unions, they will sit down with them, respect them and try, within the constraints, to get a negotiated deal? Are the UK Government so furious with the Scottish Government for doing that that they now see the need to export, across the border, a conflict in our industrial relations? That is what is coming, and it is a slap in the face to everyone who supports devolution. This Bill proposes that, in devolved services such as transport, health and education, the parameters for operation will not be set by the elected Parliament in Edinburgh but by this place, even if the parameters do not fit the circumstances. People in Scotland will reject these proposals, as they reject the other attempts to erode the limited power they have. And they will call for complete control of industrial relations in Scotland—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Not everyone is going to get in. If Members take interventions, more people will not get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Have we not been told so often throughout the course of this Parliament that one reason we do not have an employment Bill is that there is no parliamentary time? Yet when we see on television the likes of Mick Lynch and Dave Ward, who the Government seem to think have a big button to cause chaos, all of a sudden a Bill comes forward that gives huge amounts of power to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Frankly, looking at clause 3 of the Bill, I would rather put Robert Mugabe in charge of the Electoral Commission than allow the Tories the opportunity to be in charge of workers’ rights.

It is already incredibly hard for workers to exercise their most basic, fundamental human right to withdraw their labour. The thresholds are already very high, and the people I stand alongside on picket lines, whether at Royal Mail or Glasgow Central station, do not want to be on strike. They are doing it knowing they will lose a day’s pay. The attitude of the Government and, in particular, this Secretary of State towards unions is about creating a wedge issue, trying to generate a huge division and pit worker against worker. The reality is that we in this country—or in these countries—already have a very large public service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) said, huge numbers of people, in our families and in our neighbourhoods, are taking industrial action.

In reality, this legislation is not necessary. It is not national security legislation. It does not have to be rushed through in a day. The tawdry programme motion would ram the Bill through in the space of five hours even though we would be radically altering people’s terms and conditions and their ability to work. That raises bigger questions about the direction of travel that this Government have taken.

As colleagues have said, the Government already want to remove people’s ability to protest and the ability of the Scottish Parliament, which is democratically elected, to vote. Tonight, they are seeking to block legislation that has been passed by two thirds of that Parliament, which has legislative competence. This Government are going in the wrong direction. Frankly, to respond to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), this makes the case for us. It is why we and the people of Scotland do not want to be a part of this absolutely crumbling democracy that has no legitimacy in Scotland.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am really grateful to those of you who have kept your remarks to well under three minutes; it is good.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I proudly draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It should be recorded in this House that, in our country’s history of progress, it was the trade unions that ended child labour, it was the trade unions that made workplaces safer, and it was the trade unions that gained us holidays, maternity and paternity pay, paid sick leave, equal pay legislation, pensions, workplace anti-discrimination laws, and even the weekend. The Government would do well to remember that trade unions have made an immensely positive contribution to society. A strong trade union movement is the cornerstone of any healthy, functioning democracy and a more equal, fair and prosperous society. The good news is that trade union membership is on the rise, with a net increase of 200,000 members over the past three years and online inquiries to the TUC surging by 700% this summer. Organised labour is back and it is going absolutely nowhere.

Shocking leaked emails from this Government show that Ministers are deliberating on an outright ban on trade union membership and strike action, and even introducing further restrictions on the democratic right to withdraw labour. Why might that be? Striking workers in various sectors—from bus drivers to BT engineers—have won for themselves double-digit pay rises, as well as better conditions and an end to outsourcing, while public support for strike action is at an all-time high. Many trade union leaders are more popular than any Government Minister right now, in 2023.

The Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill says that it could mean that more action is taken more frequently, as a way to pressure employers. In rail, the Bill seems particularly short-sighted and even at odds with what many train operating companies want. What happens when, as Mick Whelan from ASLEF asked, 100% of passengers try to get on 40% minimum service level trains? Ultimately, the Bill will do nothing to help resolve disputes or support good industrial relations; in fact, it will do absolutely the opposite.

Last week, the Secretary of State told me that ILO common practice authorises minimum service levels, but he neglected to mention that the ILO imposes restraints on the circumstances in which such powers can be used, the antithesis of the blank cheque that the Bill will give him and other Ministers. This Government’s attempts to draw comparisons with minimum service levels in Europe wholly ignore the broader context of industrial relations across the continent, where there are far higher levels of collective bargaining agreements. In fact, I would say that these proposals are more akin to the practice in countries such as Singapore and Turkey, where strikes can be undermined at the whim of the Government. It is totally disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

The Bill will give Ministers extraordinary powers. Firefighters, nurses, teachers and the same key workers the Government have praised will find themselves liable to be prohibited from striking. It is unnecessary. We should not be back to the days of the Tolpuddle martyrs.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

It is half an hour before the wind-ups start and there are more than 10 Members wishing to speak, so do the maths. Please come within the three minutes in order to get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud former employee of the University and College Union. I am also a proud member of Unite.

This Bill exposes this Tory Government’s contempt and disregard for working people, whose difficulties have been caused by them. Its purpose is to dismantle the trade union movement and workers’ rights, and it entrusts yet greater powers to the Government. It is authoritarian and an affront to democracy. The Bill does not establish minimum service levels for strikes. Those will follow in regulations, deprived of the proper scrutiny afforded to primary legislation. It does not ensure the safety of the public in times of industrial action—unions in relevant sectors already do that. So what is it for? As Mick Lynch of the RMT has said, this law is “a form of conscription” that would allow employers to choose how many striking employees they wanted to force to work.

The Conservatives have spent 12 years creating a low-pay Britain. Now that trade unions are effectively organising to lift people’s pay, the Tory party is concerned that it has lost control, and wishes to restore it. The Bill allows employers to sack individuals for participating in legitimate industrial action. It enables employers to sue trade unions for not forcing workers to cross the picket line, placing unions at risk of incurring significant costs that could cause the demise of trade unions. It will give enormous powers to the Secretary of State and to employers.

The Bill is also drafted without necessary detail or substance. There has been no consultation and no impact assessment. It is an imposition to weaken and even dismantle the trade union movement.

The UK Government are introducing a Bill that will overrule the powers and policies of the devolved Governments as the Welsh Government introduces a social partnership Bill. As Welsh Government’s Counsel General, Mick Antoniw, said:

“It is a fundamental attack on freedoms, and as Welsh Government we will give it no credence or support”.

Having sat in the Chamber and listened to all contributions intently, I must take issue with the myths propagated about, and vilification of, our key workers and trade unionists. All people want is fair, decent pay, terms and conditions and to protect our vital public services. Surely all of us in the Chamber should support that. I will oppose the Bill this evening.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I ask those who took part in the debate please to come to the Chamber for the wind-ups, which will begin no later than 9.40 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

No, we still have another two and a bit minutes to run, so I am using my discretion not to accept that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

In response to questions regarding the consistency of this legislation with the UK’s—

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has said that it will cost the Government £28 billion to settle the dispute with our public service workers. The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that it will actually cost the public a significantly lower figure, £14 billion, to meet the public sector demands. Is there a way in which we can get the Minister to correct the record on the Floor of the House?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the content of any speeches, be they ministerial or Back-Bench contributions, but it is well evidenced that if any Member finds out that they have unwittingly misled the House, they must correct the record at the earliest possible opportunity.

Points of Order

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very much aware of the hardships being caused by a lack of power and utilities in Ukraine. We have three Ukrainians who live in our home and still work online with Ukraine. They have been explaining that it is very difficult to work with people in Ukraine because half the time their equipment is down and they cannot get access to the workplaces and data. So I know the problems are very acute. I also know that the UK led the global community when we were asked previously and we provided generators; we were the first country in the world to do so in significant numbers. I believe that almost 1,000 generators were supplied to Ukraine at the time.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) will be interested to know that I was speaking to the Ukrainian ambassador just last night about this issue, and I regularly speak to Oleksandr Kubrakov who is, in part, in charge of energy and infrastructure in Ukraine. I will be taking those conversations forward. My right hon. Friend was absolutely right to raise this issue. The way that Putin is now prosecuting this war, going after civilian infrastructure, is illegal and indefensible.

On the Lawn Tennis Association, which is not quite in my area, that fine is, of course, absolutely outrageous.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I shall also add my words to that. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is an experienced Member, and I am sure that he will use Question Time, Adjournment debates and the statements that we will inevitably have in future to put on the record his disgust and his feelings of unity with the people of Ukraine.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have repeatedly raised the anguish that my constituents, the parents of Chloe Rutherford and Liam Curry, are going through. Chloe and Liam were murdered in the Manchester Arena terror attack. Archaic law in relation to terror attacks prevents my constituents, and all other grieving parents, from registering their precious children’s deaths. Instead, the registration will be done by a registrar—a complete stranger to the family.

I first raised this matter in March with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. Since then, I and the parents have had ministerial meetings. I have constantly raised their distress in this Chamber, held an Adjournment debate, submitted two early-day motions and sent countless letters and emails. Time and again, the then Home Office Minister responsible promised that a decision on changing the legislation was imminent. The final inquiry report into the attack is due in January. That is when the children’s deaths will have to be registered.

Since the beginning of September, Home Office Ministers and the two Secretaries of State for Justice have completely ignored my correspondence—that is until this afternoon when they asked me not to raise this point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, why do my constituents have to suffer because this Government are not fit to govern and cannot get their act together? Please can you advise me how on earth we are supposed to get an answer from those on the Treasury Bench before January?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for indicating that she was going to raise this matter. I am sure that all Members will wish to express their sympathies for her constituents. She has clearly pursued this important issue with tenacity. Indeed, I have been in the Chair and heard her raise this issue before. Everybody here understands why she wants this matter resolved. Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard her comments. Let me say that again: Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard her comments, and I hope that they will be able to respond to her speedily.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Local authorities and Sheffield City Council have declared a major incident in my constituency. In Stannington, in my constituency, 6,000 litres and counting of water have been pumped out of a gas main, and there is still a lot of water left in that gas main. That has impacted 2,000 properties, hundreds of which are still without gas since Friday. Some streets have been left with repeated power cuts, with no way to heat their homes effectively or to cook food. The Council Leader has said that the area is at risk of a humanitarian crisis. Tomorrow, snow is predicted, which will hamper efforts to get people back online. Residents need more support now. Hundreds of vulnerable residents have been identified, and the ground effort by Cadent, Yorkshire Water and the council has been huge, and I thank them for that.

However, I wrote to the Secretaries of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and to the Chancellor on Tuesday and I am yet to receive a full response. I am very conscious that the council needs not just money, but resources. Parts are needed to repair boilers and meters need to be replaced. This is a huge effort. Water is flowing out of people’s ovens, out of their fires and out of their boilers, which should be sealed, and getting past the water meter. This is an unprecedented incident and “novel”, as it has been described to me, which really needs some support and action to make sure that we have the right infrastructure on the ground. I do not think that it can be left to the local authorities to organise that.

Have you, Mr Deputy Speaker, had notice of any statements from any of the three Secretaries of State whose portfolios cover this matter? How can I best get action to make sure that we have a co-ordinated effort from this place to support my community, which is obviously really suffering?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point of order. It sounds absolutely appalling and she is right to raise it today as a point of order. I have had no indication that any Minister is to make a statement further to the ones that we have already had. If that changes, clearly, the House will be notified in the usual manner. The Treasury Bench has heard what has been said, and I ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make sure that these points get passed to the Departments that the hon. Member has mentioned.

Bill Presented

Pre-Payment Meters (Temporary Prohibition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Wera Hobhouse, supported by Richard Foord, Mr Alistair Carmichael and Wendy Chamberlain, presented a Bill to prohibit the installation of new pre-payment meters for domestic energy customers before 31 March 2023; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 February 2023, and to be printed (Bill 212).

Post Office: GLO Compensation Scheme

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

The simple answer is yes, and that is the purpose of Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry. I should remind the House that it could lead to individuals’ taking specific responsibility on the basis of his recommendations, and to the legal process that might consequently unfold.

As I said to the GLO group earlier today, anyone who has observed this from afar, watching and listening to coverage from Nick Wallis and others over the years, must feel their blood boil at the sheer injustice of a computer programme being placed ahead of people’s lives. I think that makes all of us shudder. I am only pleased that in this particular case, because of a group of people who undertook the most proactive work to try to get to the truth, we are now able to ensure that their compensation matches everyone else’s.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Oh, I am sorry, Darren. I forgot; it is Marion Fellows first.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

I do not mind being forgotten, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am glad to be called. I hope this is not being added to my two minutes.

I want to thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement. I particularly want to thank the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, and especially Alan Bates, who I have had the pleasure of speaking to at the all-party parliamentary group on post offices. I also stand here to say thank you so much to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and to Lord Arbuthnot. Who would have thought I would be thanking a Lord in the other place?

I stand here in the shoes of giants. I take advice from everyone as chair of the APPG, but one thing I am sure of is that there are people right across this Chamber who will be watching the progress of this new scheme carefully. We welcome it—it is long overdue—but people will be watching to make sure that it runs properly. I want to thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) and also the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who invited me along to a meeting on this subject. It is important that people are watching, it is important that the scheme works and it is very important indeed that those who have suffered, and those who are left behind, are adequately recompensed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grant Shapps]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend the assurance that, under my tenure, there will be no stone left unturned when it comes to this. I want to pay tribute to her for her work on bringing justice to this important cause; I know that she has had had a number of constituency cases in Telford. I can absolutely reassure her that, whether it is in the Post Office or anywhere else, we will make sure that no stone is left unturned.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Take two: I call Darren Jones.

[Darren Jones]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I welcome the announcements made today, which were recommended in my Committee’s interim report on compensation and by many others, and I welcome the appointments of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and Lord Arbuthnot in the other place. In respect of the benefit disregards, can the Secretary of state confirm when the statutory instrument will be tabled? It will not take long to do, and it should be done quickly. Can he also confirm that while we are waiting for the benefit disregards to come into force, the victims who suffer loss as a consequence of that will be given additional compensation to cover the deductions from their benefits and pension payments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Grant Shapps]

That is absolutely the intention of this Government and Ministers. I hope that the lessons that will be drawn, both from what has happened so far and from Sir Wyn Williams’ inquiry when he reports, will be taken to apply not just to the Post Office, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or Governments, but the whole of society. As I mentioned a few moments ago, the dangers are inherent in the idea that just because the computer says yes or says no, that is a definitive, unchallengeable position. As we saw in this case, not only was it not, but it destroyed lives and families along the way, as well as livelihoods.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I am sure the heart of the entire House goes out to the people who have had to face such trauma, and their families.

Newport Wafer Fab

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I should point out that we are very keen to see inward investment—a point that also ties in with the question that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) asked. We are one of the most open countries in the world, as I mentioned, and we are unashamedly pro-business, but we want to make sure that, where necessary, national security is considered. There was a point at which that was not part of the process; I am pleased that it is now. I think that the National Security and Investment Act 2021 is performing well in that regard and that we are getting the right balance between encouraging investment, particularly in non-sensitive areas, and applying the Act where required. The Act is not about China; it looks at every acquisition in its own right.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and responding to questions for more than half an hour.

Bill Presented

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation Etc) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris, supported by the Prime Minister, Oliver Dowden, Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary David T. C. Davies and Mr Steve Baker, presented a Bill to make provision to extend the period following the Northern Ireland Assembly election of 5 May 2022 during which Ministers may be appointed and after which the Secretary of State must propose a date for another election; about the exercise of functions in the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers; to confer powers on the Secretary of State to determine salaries and other benefits for Members of the Assembly in respect of periods in which the Assembly is not functioning; and to confer powers on the Secretary of State to set the regional rate in Northern Ireland.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 195) with explanatory notes (Bill 195-EN).