Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsTuesday 1st April 2025
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 18-R-II(a) Manuscript Amendment for Report (Supplementary tot he Second Marshalled List) - (5 Mar 2025)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. This is turning into a debate in itself. It is very clear that the Member does not want to take an intervention right now, Mr Snell, but she may do so later.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If colleagues speak for too long, others will be disappointed, so, unofficially, let us try to keep our speeches to under 10 minutes.
Sammy Wilson
The potential is there, and it has been put in the Bill. I suspect that clause 2(7) has been included in the Bill to give that opportunity, if not now, then at some future time.
The other reason why businesses have opposed the implementation of EU regulations and the other danger of dynamic alignment is that many of the laws and regulations made in Europe that we may be aligning ourselves with only get there in the first place because powerful lobby groups lobby the European Commission to get regulations imposed. Those regulations may well suit one particular industry, or even powerful firms within that industry, but they do not necessarily benefit all of business. Some have said of the Bill, “Oh, this will give certainty to business,” but it may well give businesses additional costs.
Given what has happened in Northern Ireland and the way that our market with the rest of the UK has been disrupted, some may think that I would welcome the measures, but I do not welcome them for two reasons. First, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), many of the restrictions are on goods that are not even included in the Bill, as the schedule excludes them. Secondly, even if this problem is solved, it does not deal with the issue. We know that because Northern Ireland is subject to the EU single market regulations—300 areas of law, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) keeps reminding us on an almost weekly basis. The issue is that we have allowed the United Kingdom to be divided by the deal that was done with Europe. When the previous Government was in power, I warned that this would happen and that Northern Ireland would be the foot in the door. I believe that that will be used as one of the arguments for this legislation.
The DUP will oppose the legislation because we believe it is not in the interests of the United Kingdom and does not address the problems that are faced in Northern Ireland.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I thought it was remiss that the speech by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) did not have a literary person in it, but he managed to get C. S. Lewis into his intervention.
Adam Thompson
That is very kind, and I thank my hon. Friend very much for his intervention. If he wishes, I have a 97-slide lecture that I would be more than happy to deliver afterwards.
Adam Thompson
Do not worry, Madam Deputy Speaker—it is not one for today. I am nearly finished.
Each stage of the traceability chain has some discernible uncertainty, which generally increases as we move down that chain and instrument accuracy decreases. Estimation of uncertainty at each link in the chain is essential; it is impossible to have a traceable measurement without the inclusion of an uncertainty with that measurement. When applied in manufacturing, traceability allows us to create anything we can imagine within the confines of our chosen manufacturing process. It is the cornerstone of our modern manufacturing industry.
Through this Bill, the Government seek to update metrology regulations and the means by which those regulations are enforced. We have heard at great length different opinions about that process, but the Government are today ensuring conformity with SI, ensuring uniformity in the measurement, sale, monitoring and quantity of goods. Further, they are ensuring that the Secretary of State and other appropriate bodies have the powers they require to inspect and enforce that conformity. The Bill will ensure that UK law is updated to recognise new or updated international regulations and keep us at the cutting edge of science and regulation.
Members said earlier in the debate how the UK was at the forefront of regulation. I spent many years on standards committees working through these things. Every standards committee I ever worked on fed into the British standard, which fed into the European standard and the international standard. Those are the frameworks we are updating today to ensure that we remain at the forefront. It will mean cost savings for business and it will promote regulatory stability.
Finally, the provisions laid out in this Bill continue the work begun by the ancient Egyptians—the work that allowed us to build everything from the great pyramids to the phones in our pockets, the paper that we hold in our hands and indeed the very floor on which we stand today. Our work today will ensure that the bulbs that light this room are of an appropriate brightness, that the air that we breathe and that surrounds us is of an appropriate temperature, and that we can finally get a fairly measured full beverage of exactly 568 ml in the pub. I support this Bill wholeheartedly.
Jim Allister
The right hon. Member is absolutely right. If one wanted to realign the United Kingdom with the EU, the easiest passage would be by statutory instruments. That is why that is the chosen mechanism here.
I have one final point. This Parliament traditionally and properly makes the law on criminal offences. We set the tariffs. Sometimes we say what the minimum penalty for a criminal offence is, but we always say what the maximum penalty is. We say what the content is of the criminal offence—what are the actus reus and the mens rea. But amazingly under clauses 3(9) and 3(11) and clauses 6(9) and 6(11) of the Bill we are going to make criminal offences by statutory instrument. Surely we have lost the run of ourselves if we think it is appropriate to make criminal offences in that essentially uncontrolled manner. It deprives this House, and therefore those we represent, of the very careful scrutiny that should always go into making something a crime. That is but another of the fundamental flaws of this undeserving Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Dr Prinsley, I am told that your speech is just a few minutes long, so I hope you will honour that.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Lithium-ion batteries are essential for achieving our net zero goals, but as demand grows for products containing such batteries we need to do more to protect consumers against dangerous lithium-ion batteries. Since 2020, e-bike and e-scooter fires have—
Helen Maguire
Does the hon. Member agree that there should be a mechanism to recognise and regulate high-risk products so that we can protect consumers?
Peter Prinsley
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I would point out the particular danger of button batteries—something that is well known to ENT surgeons—which cause perforation of the oesophagus and the trachea by a chemical reaction.
In the last two years, 95% of consumers have purchased from online platforms, with approximately 23 million monthly transactions in UK. We certainly need strong accountability for these marketplaces. Without that, dangerous items will continue to resurface, putting children at risk. I urge the House to ensure that the Bill puts more pressure on the sellers of unsafe toys, forcing them to take responsibility for their actions.
Scunthorpe Steelworks
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(6 days, 23 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he has represented his constituents today and engaged with us previously. On the point of clarity, I confirm that we would rather the blast furnaces remained open. He knows that if they closed before a supply of steel were secured, that would be significant in terms of customer confidence and what will happen to the customer base.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about defence, as was said at the Business and Trade Committee yesterday, there was a reason why the Russians bombed the blast furnaces in Ukraine first: steelmaking capacity is needed not just for defence, but for building the structures required for construction. He was therefore absolutely right on that front.
This morning, I met the council and talked about both the plans for us to work together on British Steel and the wider question of what else we can do in the region and how the Government can support that. A small ministerial team has been coming together to think about those things.
On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, as he knows, the amount of money that we are talking about to develop new infrastructure is significant. Our preferred approach by far is that British Steel comes back to the table, talks with us about the offer on the table and we have that private sector investment in the future, but of course we are looking at all options.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
May I welcome the Minister’s explicit ambition to retain primary steelmaking capability on these islands? I hope the whole House will row in with that. I also welcome the £2.5 billion that the Government have earmarked for investment in the sector. Will she, however, put a rocket up the Trade Remedies Authority? We have heard very clearly from steelmakers that they need the same safeguards against diverted Chinese steel flooding into our market that will click into place in Europe in April. It is not acceptable that we have to wait until the summer for our markets to be safeguarded in the same way. The TRA needs to act, and it needs to act now.
Sarah Jones
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and his contribution through the Select Committee session we had yesterday. The TRA announced yesterday that it will widen its review of UK steel defences. It has accepted the challenge from UK Steel to do just that and is acting. The Secretary of State and others will be looking to make sure our steel defences are as strong as they need to be. Today’s news about Scunthorpe sits alongside the wider issues about tariffs and the global trade of steel. We need to make sure we are helping in that space too.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The news from Scunthorpe is deeply concerning. Jobs are at risk and our thoughts are with all those who now face uncertainty. The world is becoming more dangerous and we need to bolster our defence industry. Without the ability to produce our own primary steel, those efforts could be put in jeopardy. What impact does the Minister believe the news will have on Britain’s defence industry and what impact does she believe closure would have on our national security?
It takes a special something to be able to offer someone £500 million and for them to reject it, but whatever it is, I guess the Business Secretary has it. Whenever Labour negotiates, Britain loses. Whether with Mauritius, AstraZeneca or now British Steel, the Government confirm that—and so far, at least, that appears to be the case with the United States too. The Government pretend that tariffs on steel are inevitable, which, as we showed in government, is simply not the case. Therefore, will the Minister update the House on United States trade negotiations, in particular in relation to steel? Will the Minister confirm that the Business Secretary has engaged further with Jingye since it rejected him?
Tariffs are but one challenge facing the industry. Alongside the jobs tax and the unemployment Bill, the steel industry is being choked by the Government’s ideological green targets. Will the Minister tell the House what concerns British Steel has expressed about those net zero targets? As I said at the beginning, this news will be deeply concerning for steelworkers in Scunthorpe. Has the Minister or the Secretary of State spoken with them about the news and, if so, what support are they being offered?
Sarah Jones
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the trade unions—GMB, Community and Unite—which we have been working with closely. We have been discussing their plan. As I say, our preference is that British Steel accepts the deal—the incredibly generous offer of public funding—we have given it. We hope we can find a way forward that involves keeping the blast furnaces open, but we are of course looking at every other option, and we certainly have been talking to the trade unions about their suggestions.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Like the Minister, my thoughts are with the British steelworkers and their families following the closure of the Scunthorpe site.
Sarah Jones
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are not sitting on our hands, and there is a good reason why it would not be right to comment in this place on the internal negotiations between this Government and the United States. We will rightly keep a cool head in those conversations and ensure that we are ultimately doing what is right for our industry and our people, but we are in a good position in that we are engaged in deep conversations with the US and will continue to do that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the support for local people. There are various stages. The starting point is that we very much hope that we can come to a deal and negotiate with British Steel—that it will accept what we are offering and that we can move forward on those terms. In the short term, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education will be there on the ground ensuring that people are getting the immediate support they need. If the consultation continues and there is a closure, of course much more intervention to support local people would need to kick in. We are already working on all manner of contingencies to ensure that we support people as we are doing in Port Talbot, but our aim is absolutely not to get to that point.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The UK now produces less steel than our European neighbours Germany, Italy, Spain, France, Austria and Poland, and over the past 30 years, China’s share of global steel production has risen from 13% to 54%. To safeguard the future of the steel industry, we must think about diversification. Does my hon. Friend agree that supporting British small and medium-sized enterprises into the steel industry will make it more competitive and sustainable?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that conversation and all her work with the steel industry in her constituency. The steel strategy that we are putting together, which will be published in the spring with £2.5 billion to invest, will consider how to stimulate demand, use research and development and get the most out of scrap in the UK, as well as looking at trade and overcapacity, carbon leakage and the availability of sites—there is a whole raft of work going on. She is right about ensuring that there is an industry for the big and small players. That is what we are working through, and I look forward to working with her on that.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Scunthorpe neighbours my constituency, and many of my constituents who work there will be desperately worried today. This is a vital national interest—a crisis. For the past 150 years, wars have been won by states that can make virgin steel. Will the Government do anything—tariffs, or the Secretary of State going up to Scunthorpe now to negotiate directly with the company—to ensure that we keep our vital national interest going, which means blast furnaces?
St Patrick’s Day: UK Bank Holiday
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Member, who spoke to me beforehand and told me what he was going to say. As a Christian, like others in the Chamber, my thoughts and prayers are with the family. He has outlined clearly what we should be focusing upon. Maybe this St Patrick’s day debate gives us a chance to reassure the family of the promise that St Patrick’s message brings for us all in this Chamber and further afield. I thank him for that. He is a very assiduous MP, and I understand that he has some family in my constituency, in Portaferry to be precise. I thank them for their votes every election, as he tells me—I hope he does not mind me saying that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We may be deviating from the topic of the Adjournment debate.
Jim Shannon
I believe that when we look past the myths to the message of the man, few in this House would disagree that the holiday should be UK-wide, as indeed should all the national saints’ days for each nation. St Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, was born to a Christian family in Wales, in Roman Britain, in the late fourth century AD.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady needs to be sitting in the appropriate part of the Chamber to make an intervention. Mr Shannon, you should continue.
Jim Shannon
Shortly before he was 16, Patrick was captured from the villa of his father, Calpurnius, by a group of Irish raiders who took him to Ireland and forced him into slavery. Six years later, he escaped home to Britain, his religious faith strengthened during his time in slavery. The story of St Patrick is a wonderful one. It is a great story of love, of a missionary and of Christianity.
Patricia Ferguson
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and I thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker—my apologies.
The legend of St Patrick is a very famous one. We Scots like to think he was born in Kilpatrick in Scotland, but wherever he was born, the things he represents, as the hon. Member says, are things that we can all gather around. I think the fact that the celebrations around St Patrick’s day are so lively probably does have something to do with the fact that, actually, he was Scottish.
Jim Shannon
Controversial already, Madam Deputy Speaker; my goodness. I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and I will put forward the case that we should all be looking to be as one under St Patrick —Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland.
Believing he had been called by God to Christianise Ireland, St Patrick later returned to Ireland as a missionary. How wonderful it is to see the beauty of the Union at work in St Patrick’s life: a British man who fell in love with the people but, more importantly, whose love for God made him return to the bosom of those who had mistreated him, having been kept in slavery for six years. We all love the story of the little man coming good; we all fight in this House for the wee man and wee woman all the time, and that is the story of St Patrick, a former slave who absolutely changed the nation for God and for good.
Jim Shannon
We might have different aspirations—one for unity, one for independence—but none the less the hon. Gentleman and I are good friends and have been for a long time, and will continue to be. May I suggest that the next Adjournment debate should be on that very issue?
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the extension of his hand of friendship. He touched on the Economy Minister and the Deputy First Minister being in Washington, but will he extend that acknowledgment to the Health Minister, who I believe was also in Washington last week?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I hope that hand of friendship extends to the Speaker.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman always brings wise words to any debate. I talked to him on Monday in Westminster Hall, when he got up and said that he had a few comments. I was greatly impressed by his contribution—I went over to him afterwards and said that his words were very wise—and his words now were also wise.
The point I will make about the Milwaukee Irish Fest that I attended for some six years, as an Ulster Scot, is that I did not have any difficulty going there, and they had no difficulty with me going there. What I see in St Patrick is the gospel that he brought for everybody, wherever they are within these Celtic nations, be it Wales, Scotland or England. Those are the things that we very much enjoy.
I will end with these words; I am very conscious that the Minister wants to give me a fulsome response and to reinforce our request. The words of St Patrick are what I leave with everyone now. I want to make the most of the advantages of our heritage of St Patrick, but, more than that, I want the truth of his words to make changes in us all today, and that comes from the love of Christ, which is his message the whole way through. I believe we as Christians should impress and deliver that message to those who we meet in this House. I have a very simple philosophy: be nice to everybody. It is not hard to be kind and to do that in the best way that we can.
St Patrick’s words are these:
“Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me, Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me, Christ on my right, Christ on my left, Christ where I lie down, Christ where I sit down, Christ where I arise, Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me, Christ in the mouth of every one who speaks of me, Christ in every eye that sees me, Christ in every ear that hears me.”
If we had those thoughts in our minds every day, I believe that we would be better as a nation, better to ourselves as individuals and show the love that St Patrick showed through the gospel that he brought from Wales, to Ireland, back to England and back to us again. He is our patron saint; he always will be. Others may claim him, but they are not getting him—I say that in all kindness and love to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister). Tonight we are asking for something, and I hope that the Minister can give us a good, positive response. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for making the time to come to the Adjournment debate that I did not intervene in—my goodness.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We are waiting for a positive response from the Minister.
Employment Rights Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsWednesday 12th March 2025
(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2025 - large print - (12 Mar 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 40—Political funds: requirement to pass political resolution.
Government new clause 41—Industrial action ballots: support thresholds.
Government new clause 42—Notice of industrial action ballot and sample voting paper for employers.
Government new clause 43—Period after which industrial action ballot ceases to be effective.
Government new clause 44—Power to give notice of underpayment.
Government new clause 45—Calculation of the required sum.
Government new clause 46—Period to which notice of underpayment may relate.
Government new clause 47—Notices of underpayment: further provision.
Government new clause 48—Penalties for underpayment.
Government new clause 49—Further provision about penalties.
Government new clause 50—Suspension of penalty where criminal proceedings have been brought etc.
Government new clause 51—Appeals against notices of underpayment.
Government new clause 52—Withdrawal of notice of underpayment.
Government new clause 53—Replacement notice of underpayment.
Government new clause 54—Effect of replacement notice of underpayment.
Government new clause 55—Enforcement of requirement to pay sums due to individuals.
Government new clause 56—Enforcement of requirement to pay penalty.
Government new clause 57—Power to bring proceedings in employment tribunal.
Government new clause 58—Power to provide legal assistance.
Government new clause 59—Recovery of costs of legal assistance.
Government new clause 60—Power to recover costs of enforcement.
New clause 8—Prison officers: inducements to withhold services—
“In section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (Inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline)—
(a) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (a);
(b) omit subsection (1A);
(c) omit subsection (7).”
This new clause would repeal provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that prohibit inducing a prison officer to take (or continue to take) any industrial action.
New clause 9—Inducement of prison officers: exempted persons—
“After section 127A of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline), insert—
“Section 127B: Prison officers and trade unions: exempted persons
Section 127 (inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline) does not apply to—
(a) Any listed trade union representing prison officers, or
(b) any person acting on behalf of a listed trade union representing prison officers.””
This new clause would repeal, with respect to trade unions representing prison officers, provisions that prohibit the inducement of industrial action or indiscipline by a prison officer.
New clause 19—Right to be accompanied—
“(1) Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) person who has been reasonably certified in writing by a Professional Body as having experience of, or as having received training in, acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary or grievance hearings, or”
(3) After subsection (7) insert—
“(8) In this section, “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (9).
(9) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.””
This new clause would expand the right to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings.
New clause 28—Enforcement against companies subject to insolvency or voluntary liquidation—
“(1) A Labour Market Enforcement Strategy under section 81 must include—
(a) the Secretary of State’s assessment of—
(i) the scale and nature of non-compliance with employment tribunal awards due to insolvency or voluntary liquidation during the period of three years ending immediately before the strategy period;
(ii) the scale and nature of such non-compliance involving phoenixing during the same period; and
(iii) the likely scale and nature of such non-compliance during the strategy period;
(b) a proposal for the strategy period setting out how enforcement functions of the Secretary of State are to be exercised in relation to such non-compliance.
(2) An annual report under section 82 must include―
(a) an assessment of the effect of the applicable strategy on the scale and nature of non-compliance with employment tribunal awards, including non-compliance due to insolvency or voluntary liquidation, and
(b) an assessment of the effect of the applicable strategy on the scale and nature of non-compliance involving phoenixing.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “phoenixing” means the practice of dissolving or otherwise closing a business and establishing a new one with a similar purpose, with the effect of avoiding the enforcement of employment tribunal awards or other debts.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to include, in the Labour Market Enforcement Strategy and annual reports under this Bill, information about non-compliance with employment tribunal awards by, and enforcement against, companies ordered to pay such awards that have been subject to insolvency or voluntary liquidation, including in instances in which the directors go on to set up a similar company to avoid enforcement.
New clause 29—Trade union representatives: right not to suffer career detriment—
“(1) In Part V of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Protection from suffering detriment in employment), after section 47(1A), insert—
“(1B) This section applies where the detriment in question relates to matters of internal promotion or progression.”
(2) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended in accordance with subsections (3) to (6).
(3) In the italic title before section 137, after “Access to employment”, add “and career progression”.
(4) After section 138, insert—
“138A Career progression
(1) An employer must ensure that any employee undertaking trade union representative duties does not experience detriment in matters of internal career progression as a result of the employee’s trade union activities.
(2) Where an employee who is a trade union representative has not been appointed to a more senior role, in circumstances in which the employee met the minimum criteria for the role and demonstrated that criteria through the application, the employer must provide a written statement.
(3) The written statement under subsection (2) must include evidence to demonstrate that the decision not to appoint the employee was not affected by the employee’s trade union activities.
138B Career progression: support for trade union representatives
An employer must have in place a policy to support the career progression of employees who are trade union representatives. The policy must set out―
(a) how the employees will be supported in matters of internal progression and promotion; and
(b) how the employer will consider trade union experience in assessing applications for more senior roles.””
(5) In section 140(1), after “section 138” insert “or 138A”.
(6) In section 142(1), after “section 138” insert “or 138A”.””
This new clause would enhance protections to trade union representatives, extending them to cover detriment in matters of career progression, and would require employers to demonstrate that they have not denied promotion to trade union representatives as a result of their trade union activities. It would also require employers to have a policy in place to support the career progression of employees who are trade union representatives.
New clause 31—Removal of secondary action provisions—
“In the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, omit section 224 (secondary action).”
New clause 64—Duties of trade unions—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 219 (protection from certain tort liabilities), after subsection (4) insert—
“(5) But subsection (4) does not have effect in relation to any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute which relates wholly or mainly to proposals by an employer to vary terms and conditions of employment of two or more employees accompanied by the threat (explicit or implied) of dismissal if that variation is not agreed.””
New clause 65—Personal Liability for breach of tribunal orders—
“(1) Where, in relation to a body corporate—
(a) a financial order made by an employment tribunal or agreed by the claimant and the body corporate; or
-(b) an order of reinstatement or re-engagement made by an employment tribunal or agreed by the claimant and the body corporate
has not been fulfilled by the date specified in the order or agreement, without reasonable excuse, and that failure is proved—
(a) to have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer of the body, or
(b) to be attributable to any neglect on the part of such an officer,
that officer shall be personally liable to reimburse the claimant in whose favour the order had been made or agreed.
(2) An officer found liable for reimbursement under subsection (1) may be disqualified as a director or prevented from becoming a director.”
New clause 66—Public sector contracting: trade union recognition—
“(1) The Procurement Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(2) In Part (2) (principles and objectives), after section 14A insert—
“14B Obligations of contractors to recognise trade unions
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that any contract entered into by a—
(a) government department;
(b) executive agency of government;
(c) non departmental public body; or
(d) non Ministerial department,
is compliant with the requirements set out in subsection (2).
(2) A contract under subsection (1) must─
(a) recognise an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining, and
(b) take steps to ensure that any sub-contractor to the contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract recognises an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “recognises”, “independent trade union” and “collective bargaining” have the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
(4) An independent trade union may make a complaint against a contracting authority, which is a party to a public contract, that it or a contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract is in breach of the term in subsection (2).
(5) The complaint may be made to the Central Arbitration Committee.
(6) If the Central Arbitration Committee finds the complaint to be well founded, it shall grant a declaration to that effect.
(7) Where the Central Arbitration Committee makes a declaration in accordance with subsection (6), it shall order that the respondent contracting authority shall take whatever steps appear to the Central Arbitration Committee as necessary to ensure that the contracting authority and every contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract comply with the implied term in subsection (2).
(8) The steps that may be taken under subsection (7) include termination of the contract, which shall not be regarded as a breach of contract by the contracting authority concerned if a principal reason for the termination is compliance with an order of the Central Arbitration Committee under (7).
(9) An appeal lies on a point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal by either party to proceedings brought under subsection (5).””
New clause 67—Sectoral collective bargaining: 80 per cent coverage—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an action plan to achieve, within five years, that the principal terms and conditions of employment of at least 80 percent of workers in the United Kingdom are determined by collective agreement.
(2) The action plan under subsection (1) must be informed by consultation with organisations representing employers and trade unions.”
New clause 68—Sectoral collective bargaining: other sectors—
“(1) Regulations under this Act may include regulations for collective bargaining in other sectors of the economy.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1)—
(a) may only be made following consultation with representatives of workers and employers in those sectors; and
(b) may provide that agreements reached by such collective bargaining shall apply to the workers and employers in the relevant sector save to the extent that a previous or subsequent collective agreement has provided a more favourable term or condition.”
New clause 69—Statement of trade union rights—
“Every employee, worker and self-employed person has the right—
(a) to join an independent trade union of his choice, subject only to its rules;
(b) to take part in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time, subject only to its rules.”
New clause 70—Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces—
“In part 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (trade unions), before Chapter 5A, insert—
“Chapter 5ZA
RIGHT OF TRADE UNIONS TO ACCESS WORKPLACES
70ZA Right of access
(1) A designated official of an independent trade union shall have a right to enter premises occupied by an employer in order to access a workplace or workplaces, subject to the conditions set out below.
(2) An employer shall not—
(a) refuse entry to a designated trade union official seeking to exercise his or her right of access under sub-section (1), or
(b) otherwise obstruct such an official in the exercise of his or her right of access under sub-section (1).
(3) A “designated trade union official” means a person nominated by the trade union to exercise the right of access on its behalf.
70ZB Access purposes
(1) The right of access may be exercised for the access purposes.
(2) The access purposes are to—
(a) meet, represent, recruit or organize workers (whether or not they are members of a trade union); and
(b) facilitate collective bargaining.
70ZC Notice to employer
(1) The right of access may be exercised only after the designated official of an independent trade union has given notice of an intention to do so to the employer whose premises it is proposed to enter for the purposes of access to a workplace or workplaces.
(2) The notice must be—
(a) in writing; and
(b) given at least 24 hours before it is intended to exercise the right of access;
(3) The notice required to be given under subsection (2) shall—
(a) specify the purpose for which entry is sought; and
(b) identify the workers or categories of workers the designated official intends to meet, represent, recruit or organize.
(4) The right of access may be exercised without giving notice where there are exceptional circumstances such as to justify access without prior notice.
(5) Whether circumstances are exceptional shall be determined by having regard to the relevant provisions of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS.
70ZD Access conditions
(1) The right of access is subject to the following conditions.
(2) The right of access may be exercised—
(a) only at a reasonable time, and
(b) subject to reasonable conditions imposed by the employer.
(3) What is reasonable for the purposes of subsection (2) shall be determined by having regard to the relevant provisions of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS.
70ZE Dwellings
(1) The right of access does not apply to any part of premises which are used exclusively as a dwelling.
(2) Where sub-section (1) applies and only where sub-section (1) applies, the employer shall provide a reasonable, suitable, and alternative venue to enable the right of access to be exercised.
(3) What is reasonable and suitable for the purposes of subsection (2) shall be determined by having regard to the relevant provisions of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS.
70ZF Enforcement of right of access
(1) Where an employer refuses or obstructs access contrary to section 70ZA, a complaint may be made to the CAC by the trade union of which the designated official is a representative.
(2) Where the CAC finds the complaint to be well-founded it shall make a declaration to that effect and may make an order requiring the employer to comply with section 70ZA, subject to such conditions as the CAC may determine.
(3) If the CAC makes a declaration under subsection (2) the trade union may, within the period of three months beginning with the date on which the declaration is made, make an application to the Employment Appeal Tribunal for a penalty notice to be issued.
(4) Where such an application is made, the Employment Appeal Tribunal shall issue a written penalty notice to the employer requiring the employer to pay a penalty to the trade union in respect of each refusal or obstruction of access unless satisfied, on hearing representations from the employer, that the refusal or obstruction of access resulted from a reason beyond the employer’s control or that the employer has some other reasonable excuse.
(5) If the CAC makes an order under subsection (2) the order shall be recorded in the High Court and on being recorded may be enforced as if it were an order of the High Court.
70ZG Penalty notice
(1) A penalty notice issued under section 70ZF(4) shall specify—
(a) the amount of the penalty which is payable;
(b) the date before which the penalty must be paid; and
(c) the failure and period to which the penalty relates.
(2) A penalty set by the Employment Appeal Tribunal under section 70ZF(4) may not exceed a prescribed amount.
(3) Matters to be taken into account by the Employment Appeal Tribunal when setting the amount of the penalty shall include—
(a) the gravity of each refusal or obstruction of access;
(b) the period of time over which each refusal or obstruction of access occurred;
(c) the number of occasions on which each refusal or obstruction of access occurred;
(d) the reason for each refusal or obstruction of access;
(e) the number of workers affected by each refusal or obstruction of access; and
(f) the number of workers employed by the undertaking.
(4) The Employment Appeal Tribunal shall also take into account any previous refusal or obstruction of access to a designated official of the independent trade union to which the application relates.
(5) If the specified date in a penalty notice for payment of the penalty has passed and—
(a) the period during which an appeal may be made has expired without an appeal having been made; or
(b) such an appeal has been made and determined, the trade union may recover from the employer, as a civil debt due to it, any amount payable under the penalty notice which remains outstanding.
(6) The making of an appeal suspends the effect of a penalty notice pending the outcome of the appeal.
70ZH Other provisions relating to trade union access
(1) Sections 70ZA-70ZG are in addition and without prejudice to any other provisions relating to trade union access to workers.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, the latter include but are not confined to—
(a) Section 188(5A) of this Act
(b) Sections 198A and 198B of this Act;
(c) Schedule A1, paragraphs 26 and 118 of this Act;
(d) ACAS Code of Practice on time off for trade union duties and activities issued under section 199 of this Act, for the time being in force; and
(e) Any collective agreement which makes more favourable provision.””
New clause 82—Fair Work Agency: review of resourcing—
(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the resources available to the Fair Work Agency.
(2) The review must be published and laid before Parliament within six months of this section coming into force.”
This new clause asks the Secretary of State to review the resources available to the Fair Work Agency to ensure that enforcement of provisions in the Act are effective.
New clause 88—Rules as to political fund—
(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) of section 84 (Contributions to political fund from members of the union), after subsection (1), insert—
“(1A) An opt-in notice under subsection (1) must include the member of the trade union’s consent to annual renewal of the contribution to the political fund (a “renewal opt-in”).
(1B) The renewal opt-in must be sent by the member of the trade union─ (a) within six months of the initial opt-in and every six months thereafter, or (b) each time payment is due, at least 28 days before payment is taken, whichever is longer.
(1C) If the member of the trade union does not provide a renewal opt-in, the trade union must provide a date by which the member must notify the trade union of their consent to continued contribution towards the political fund, which must be no earlier than 28 days before the next payment to the political fund is due.
(1D) If the member has not—
(a)opted into an arrangement under subsection (1A) or (1B), or
(b) given notification of their consent to continued contributions by the date specified under subsection (1C),
their payments to the political fund must cease before the renewal date.””
This new clause will ensure that trade union members are asked whether they wish their contribution to the political fund to renew automatically and would require that, if the member does not wish to renew their contribution, the union must provide a date by which the member has to confirm they wish to continue to contribute.
New clause 89—Certification Officer: growth duty—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 254 (The Certification Officer), after subsection (2), insert—
“(2A) In discharging the functions of the Certification Office, the Certification Officer must, so far as reasonably possible, act in such a way as to advance the following objectives—
(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom; and
(b) economic growth of the United Kingdom in the medium to long term.””
This new clause would require the Certification Officer to advance the objectives of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.
New clause 90—Regulations under Part 4—
“When making regulations under Part 4 of this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives—
(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom; and
(b) the economic growth of the United Kingdom in the medium to long term.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State, when making regulations under Part 4 of the Bill, to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.
New clause 98—Pressure to impose union recognition requirement—
“In the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, omit section 225 (Pressure to impose union recognition requirement).”
This new clause would remove section 225 from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 on pressure to impose union recognition requirement.
New clause 99—Electronic balloting—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a statutory instrument containing an order under section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004.
(2) That order must specify that—
(a) permissible means may, in the case of any description of ballot or election, include (or consist of) electronic voting; and
(b) any ballot or election including (or consisting of) electronic voting must be conducted pursuant to section 230 (Conduct of ballot) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
(3) The Secretary of State must not make an order under this section until a consultation with the Trades Union Congress and the Certification Officer has been conducted.
(4) An order under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make an order for electronic voting in a ballot or election pursuant to section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004 within six months of the passing of this Act, and following consultation with the TUC.
New clause 100—Notice to employers of industrial action: amendment—
“In section 234A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, omit subsections (3) to (9) and insert—-
“(3) For the purposes of this section a relevant notice is one in writing which—
(a) identifies—
(i) the day or the first of the days on which, at the time of the service of the relevant notice, the union proposes to call industrial action; and
(ii) the categories of employee the union intends to call on to take industrial action; and
(b) must be provided to the employer as early as practicable after the ballot result is known and the decision to take industrial action in furtherance of it has been taken.
(4) If the industrial action relates to an event which has already taken place, no relevant notice shall be required.””
This new clause replaces the provisions in section 234A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to define a relevant notice for industrial action, when one must be provided and when one is not required.
New clause 103—Public sector contracting: trade union recognition—
“(1) The Procurement Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(2) In Part (2) (principles and objectives), after section 14A insert—
“14B Obligations of contractors to recognise trade unions
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that any contract entered into after the coming into force of this Act by a—
(a) government department;
(b) executive agency of government;
(c) non departmental public body; or
(d) non Ministerial department,
is compliant with the requirements set out in subsection (2).
(2) A contract under subsection (1) must require the contractor to such a contracting authority to—
(a) recognise an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining, and
(b) take steps to ensure that any sub-contractor to the contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract recognises an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “recognises”, “independent trade union” and “collective bargaining” have the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
(4) An independent trade union may make a complaint against a contracting authority, which is a party to a public contract, that it or a contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract is in breach of the term in subsection (2).
(5) The complaint may be made to the Central Arbitration Committee.
(6) If the Central Arbitration Committee finds the complaint to be well founded, it shall grant a declaration to that effect.
(7) Where the Central Arbitration Committee makes a declaration in accordance with subsection (6), it shall order that the respondent contracting authority shall take whatever steps appear to the Central Arbitration Committee as necessary to ensure that the contracting authority and every contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract comply with the implied term in subsection (2).
(8) The steps that may be taken under subsection (7) include termination of the contract, which shall not be regarded as a breach of contract by the contracting authority concerned if a principal reason for the termination is compliance with an order of the Central Arbitration Committee under subsection (7).
(9) An appeal lies on a point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal by either party to proceedings brought under subsection (5).””
This new clause is designed to ensure that all public contractors comply with the duty to recognise a trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining and that such contractors take steps to ensure that any sub-contractors do the same. The terms “contracting authority” and “public contract” are defined in section 2 and 3 of the Procurement Act.
New clause 106—Collective bargaining—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 209, after “industrial relations” insert—
“and in particular to encourage the extension of collective bargaining and the development and, where necessary, reform of collective bargaining machinery.””
This would add duties around collective bargaining to the general duty of ACAS.
New clause 107—Whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) For section 179, substitute—
“179 Whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract
(1) A collective agreement shall be conclusively presumed to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract unless the agreement—
(a) is in writing, and
(b) contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties do not intend that the agreement shall be a legally enforceable contract.
(2) A collective agreement which satisfies those conditions shall be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract.
(3) If a collective agreement is in writing and contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties intend that one or more parts of the agreement specified in that provision, but not the whole of the agreement, shall not be a legally enforceable contract, then—
(a) the specified part or parts shall be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract, and
(b) the remainder of the agreement shall be conclusively presumed to have been intended by the parties to be such a contract.
(4) A part of a collective agreement which by virtue of subsection (3)(a) is not a legally enforceable contract may be referred to for the purpose of interpreting a part of the agreement which is such a contract.””
This new clause replaces Section 179 on whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
New clause 108—Industrial action: workers’ rights—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 219, insert—
“219A Right to strike
Every worker shall have the right to take industrial action, whether or not in breach of any contract, subject to the provisions of this Part.”
(3) Omit section 223 (Action taken because of dismissal for taking unofficial action).”
This new clause would establish a clearer right to strike and remove provisions from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that make strike action unlawful on the grounds that it turns out (retrospectively) that the action the worker took was unofficial.
New clause 109—Industrial action and ballots—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit—
(a) section 224 (Secondary action)
(b) 225 (Pressure to impose union recognition requirement)
(c) 226A (Notice of ballot and sample voting paper for employers)
(d) 228 (Separate workplace ballots), and
(e) 228A (Separate workplaces: single and aggregate ballots).
(3) In section 234 (Period after which ballot ceases to be effective), omit subsections (1) to (5) and substitute:
“(1) Industrial action that is regarded as having the support of a ballot shall cease to be so regarded when─
(a) the dispute which gave rise to it ceases, or
(b) the union has taken no steps to pursue the dispute for a period of six months.”
(4) In subsection (1) of section 244, (Meaning of “trade dispute" in Part V)—
(a) omit “a dispute between workers and their employer” and substitute “a dispute between workers and one or more employers”.
(b) omit “which relates wholly or mainly to” and substitute “connected with”.
(5) In subsection (5) of section 244, omit “a worker employed by that employer” and substitute “a worker employed by an employer”.”
This new clause would remove provisions that ban all forms of secondary action; make changes to the definition of “trade dispute”; enable industrial action to be taken to achieve recognition for collective bargaining; remove obligation on a TU to provide a ballot paper to the employer; give TUs more freedom to choose which constituencies they will ballot; and remove an obligation on the union in a long running dispute to re-run the ballot every six months.
New clause 110—Review into the impact on small businesses—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a review on the impact of Part 4 (Trade Unions and Industrial Action, etc) of this Act on small and medium-sized enterprises.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must have regard to—
(a) administrative costs;
(b) legal costs; and
(c) tax changes affecting small and medium-sized enterprises taking effect from the 2025-26 financial year.
(3) For the purposes of this section, small and medium-sized enterprises are businesses employing 250 or fewer employees.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a review on the impact of Part 4 of this Bill, on Trade Unions and Industrial Action, on SMEs within 3 months of the passage of this Act.
New clause 111—Legal aid in employment tribunals—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the options for expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the impact employers' compliance with measures contained within this Act; and
(b) the impact on employees’ personal finances.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals within 3 months of the passage of this Act.
New clause 112—Review of single enforcement body—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a review on the impact of a single enforcement body as provided for under Part 5.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must assess the impact of the single enforcement body with the impact between 2019 and 2025 of the following four enforcement bodies—
(a) Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA)
(b) Employment Agencies Standards Inspectorate (EAS)
(c) His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC)
(d) Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
(3) The review under subsection (1) must have regard to—
(a) business compliance costs
(b) Employers’ compliance with employment law
(c) the number of employees seeking support in relation to employment disputes.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of a single enforcement body compared with separate enforcement bodies within 3 months of the passage of this Act.
Amendment 270, page 61, line 14 leave out clause 50.
New clause 70 is intended to replace clause 50.
Government amendments 162 to 164.
Amendment 282, clause 50, page 61, line 31, after “workplace” insert, or
“(b) the right to use to any digital communications tools used by workers in the workplace.”
This amendment aims to ensure that access for unions to workplaces includes digital means of communication with workers.
Government amendments 165 to 185.
Amendment 271, clause 51, page 69, line 18, at end insert—
“(2A) In paragraph 22 (collective bargaining: recognition)—
(a) leave out sub-paragraph (1)(b) and insert—
“the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf’.”
(b) leave out subparagraphs (3), (4) and (5).
(2B) In paragraph 25 (collective bargaining: recognition)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (3)(a) leave out “20 working days” and substitute “10 working days”, and
(b) leave out sub-paragraph (3)(b).
(c) after sub-paragraph (4)(a) insert “(aa) by secure electronic voting,”
(d) in sub-paragraph (4)(c) leave out “and b” and substitute “to (c)”
(e) after sub-paragraph (4)(c) insert—
“(d) only amongst those who are employed in the proposed bargaining unit and were so employed at the time the application was made”.
(2C) In paragraph 26 after sub-paragraph (4) insert—
“(3A) In the event that the union (or unions) consider that such access has been unreasonably refused, it (or they) may apply to the CAC for a declaration and order that access be granted and in the event that such a declaration or order is made and the union (or unions) consider that such a declaration or order has been breached it (or they) may apply to the High Court for relief.”
(2D) In paragraph 26 after sub-paragraph (4B) insert—
“(4BA) The sixth duty is to refrain from any act or omission, direct or indirect, likely to encourage a union member or members to resign from union membership or likely to discourage a person from joining a union or any particular union.
(4BB) It shall be unlawful to compel a worker or workers by threat of detriment or dismissal to attend any meeting in which the employer, its servants or agents expresses the view directly or indirectly that—
(a) membership of a union or any union; or
(b) recognition for the purposes of collective bargaining of a union or any union by the employer,
is undesirable.”
(2E) In paragraph 27B(2) leave out “must be made on or before the first working day after” and substitute “must be made within 20 working days after”.
(2F) In paragraph 29 (collective bargaining: recognition) leave out sub-paragraph (3)(b).
(2G) In paragraph 35(1) leave out “a collective agreement under which a union (or unions) are recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining” and substitute “a collective agreement under which an independent union (or independent unions) are recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining”.
(2H) In paragraph 35(1) after “in the rules” insert “‘in relation to all pay, hours and holidays”.
(2I) In paragraph 39(2)(a) leave out “years” and substitute “months”.
(2J) In paragraph 40(2)(a) leave out “years” and substitute “months”.
(2K) In paragraph 41(2)(a) leave out “years” and substitute “months”.
This amendment makes changes to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 regarding union recognition and balloting.
Amendment 291, page 71, line 1, leave out clause 52.
Amendment 292, clause 52, page 71, line 6, at end insert—
“(2A) In subsection (1) of section 82 (Rules as to political fund), after paragraph (d) insert—
“(e) that trade union members who have not opted out of the political fund must signal, in writing, their agreement to continue contributing to the fund at the end of a period of 12 months after last opting into the fund, and
(f) that trade union members must be given an annual notice about their right to opt out of the political fund.
(1B) A notice under subsection (1)(f) must include a form that enables the member to opt out of the fund.””
This amendment would require trade unions to notify their members every year of their right to opt out of the political fund, and to obtain an annual opt-in to the political fund from their members.
Government amendments 186 to 191.
Amendment 293, page 73, line 6, leave out clause 54.
Amendment 294, page 74, line 14, leave out clause 55.
Amendment 296, clause 55, page 75, line 3, after “employee”, insert—
“, and
(c) in relation to a public sector employer, the performance condition is met.
(3A) The performance condition is met if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the public sector employer is meeting any performance standards set out in a relevant enactment.”
This amendment prevents facility time for equality representatives from being provided unless the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory targets for performance.
Amendment 295, page 78, line 5, leave out clause 56.
Amendment 299, page 78, line 30, leave out clause 58.
Government amendments 192 to 199.
Amendment 315, page 79, line 28, leave out clause 60.
This amendment would leave out Clause 60 on electronic balloting for industrial action. NC99 is intended to replace clause 60.
Government amendments 200 to 201.
Amendment 297, clause 61, page 80, line 6, leave out “seventh” and insert “fourteenth”.
This amendment would increase, from seven to 14 days, the notice period that trade unions are required to adhere to when notifying employers that they plan to take industrial action.
Government amendment 202.
Amendment 348, page 80, line 9, at end insert—
“(3) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is also amended as follows.
(4) In section 231 (Information as to result of ballot), omit from “shall” to after “told” and insert—
“display, reasonably prominently on its website, on a webpage reasonably easy to find and which is freely accessible to the general public—”
(5) Omit section 231A.”
This amendment would change the requirements for notification about the results of a union ballot.
Amendment 346, clause 62, page 80, line 19, at end insert—
“(3) In section 220 (Peaceful picketing)—
(a) in subsection (1), after “attend”, insert “a place of work”;
(b) omit subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b); and
(c) omit subsections (2) to (4).”
This amendment, along with amendment 348, would remove the restriction confining pickets to a worker’s place of work.
Amendment 300, clause 63, page 83, line 9, at end insert—
“236E Actions short of a strike: exemption
(1) The right of a worker not to be subjected to detriment under section 236A does not apply in cases where the worker is involved in one or more of the following activities—
(a) intimidation at picket lines;
(b) protests organised by trade unions in furtherance of a dispute—
(i) at the premises of a company;
(ii) at the private residences of senior managers; or
(iii) at the premises of other organisations that are connected with the dispute;
(c) harassment or bullying of non-striking workers, or those who are covering for striking workers;
(d) victimisation or harassment of senior managers; or
(e) action aimed at damaging property or disrupting business contingency planning.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that the circumstances under subsection (1), in which the right of a worker not to be subjected to detriment do not apply, are set out in a code of practice.”
This amendment would disapply the right not to suffer detriment as a result of industrial action in certain circumstances.
Government amendments 203 to 226 and 236 to 239.
Government new schedule 2—Trade union recognition.
Government amendments 247, 249, 251 to 261.
New clause 77—Employment Law: Scotland Act—
“(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows—
(2) In Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, omit section H1 (Employment and industrial relations).”
This new clause would remove matters related to employment from the list of the reserved matters that remain the responsibility of the UK Parliament alone and would enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate on those matters.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Chair of the Select Committee’s intervention. We accept that there are gaps between the modern slavery network enforcement processes and current employment rights enforcement. We are working with the Home Office and the GLAA to improve that. These are things we can continue to work on as we develop the scope and remit of the Fair Work Agency.
As well as reforming and strengthening the powers, the Government are moving amendments to expand the remit of the Fair Work Agency to ensure effective enforcement of statutory sick pay and holiday pay. Today’s amendments will bring Northern Ireland SSP legislation into the scope of the Fair Work Agency, and will introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the Northern Ireland Executive before bringing any further devolved legislation in scope. Further amendments will bring within the agency’s scope the duty in the working time regulations for employers to retain records relating to holiday pay and annual leave for six years. It is the Government’s intention for the Fair Work Agency to take on enforcement of new protections relating to zero-hours contracts. That is subject to a consultation on the detail, and to the outcome of the spending review.
New clause 60 gives the Fair Work Agency the power to recover the cost of taking enforcement action from businesses that are found to be non-compliant with the law. That is in recognition of the “polluter pays” principle. It is similar to how other regulators operate, such as the Health and Safety Executive. We will consider carefully and discuss the matter with businesses as appropriate before exercising that power, but it is an important principle that where there is wrong, the person in the wrong makes some contribution towards the cost to the taxpayers of enforcing the law.
To sum up—I know many people are eager to speak in the debate—the Bill will ensure that workplace rights are fit for a modern economy, empower working people and contribute to economic growth. I urge hon. Members to support the Bill and the amendments that we are moving today, which show that we are pro-business, pro-worker, pro-family and pro-growth.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Ahead of getting into the detail of the many amendments before us, which the Minister rattled through in just 10 minutes, let me say that overnight we learned that the Government are moving the responsibilities of one quango to another. They are moving the responsibilities of the Payment Systems Regulator to the Financial Conduct Authority, putting one quango into another. Conveniently, they already share a building. The Prime Minister has hailed that as “the latest step” in the Government’s attempt to “kick-start economic growth”, though the amendments we are discussing do the very opposite.
The Chancellor said:
“The regulatory system has become burdensome to the point of choking off innovation, investment and growth”,
but that is precisely what the Bill does. I do not know how the Government can say that with a straight face when, as we stand here today, blocking regulatory burdens cost every business in the land—small, medium or large—£5 billion.
Gareth Snell
We can find out, Madam Deputy Speaker; I believe it is. Can you advise whether Conservative Members who received money from businesses affected by this legislation should make a declaration in the same way that we trade unionists do?
Madam Deputy Speaker
This is going to end up in a back and forth on things that are not a matter for the Chair. Declarations are the responsibility of individual Members to make appropriately through the right processes.
Sir Ashley Fox
Does the shadow Minister agree that the only jobs that will be created by these Bills are for people employed by trade unions?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before Mr Smith responds to that intervention, I must add that we have just shy of 40 people hoping to contribute to this debate, and I want to get them all in.
Greg Smith
As ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take your advice and will speed up. [Interruption.] The Minister urges me to carry on, but of course I would not ignore your advice—never say never again.
I make no comment on the value that those activities will add to public sector employers and their productivity. What I will say is that we have already seen this Government being happy to hand over large pay increases to trade unions with no guarantee of anything in return. That is why we have tabled amendments 293, 295 and 296, in an attempt to ensure that the taxpayer gets something out of this latest concession to the trade unions.
On amendment 297, trade unions can create significant disruption in the economy, whether by stopping work from taking place or preventing people from getting to work, school, hospital appointments or many other activities. We must strike a fair balance between the ability of trade unions to strike and the public whom we all serve.
Our amendment 297 will mean that vital public services such as the NHS can better plan and prepare for strikes. It simply seeks to keep the status quo of two weeks’ notice. Without adequate warning, constituents of Members from across the House are more likely to miss hospital appointments, not be able to travel to see loved ones or get to work, or suffer greater disruption when schools close due to strikes. That is part of the reason why, in the consultation on thresholds, 58% of those who responded supported retaining the 14-day period as it currently is, with 7% preferring a longer period. Two thirds of respondents therefore wanted the period to stay the same or be longer. Labour promised that it would work with business on this Bill, but its response to that consultation is just another example of the Government having their fingers in their ears and simply not listening. The reduction to 10 days is against the wishes of business and will do harm to all our constituents. That is why we have tabled amendment 297 to retain the notice period of 14 days.
On amendment 299, strikes should only take place when there is a clear mandate for them, but clause 58 will mean that strikes can happen with low thresholds by removing the 50% turnout requirement and the 40% support requirement. Combined with Government amendments to extend the mandate for strikes from six months to 12 months, this Bill allows unions to unleash waves of low-support, rolling strikes. Those costs will come on top of the national insurance jobs tax and changes to business rates—mistakes that the Government are already making—making it more difficult to run a business. That is why we have tabled amendment 299, which will remove clause 58.
There is much in this Bill to speak to, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will not test your patience or the patience of the House further by going into those things. I look forward to a thorough debate that will further point out—not least through Conservative Members’ contributions—why the amendments to this Bill that the Government have tabled this afternoon will harm our economy, destroy jobs, and just give more power to the trade unions.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Jerome Mayhew
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. As we all know, Members are required to draw attention to any potential conflicts of interest prior to speaking, in order to avoid any impression of, among other things, paid advocacy. Given that clause 52 will lead directly to increased payment of money from unions to Labour Members of Parliament, I ask for guidance on the proper declaration of interests. Most Labour Members due to speak this afternoon have received thousands of pounds from the unions—totted up, I make it £283,974.86. In addition to a general reference to their entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in this instance, where there is a direct link, should they not also set out the actual amount of money they have received?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Obviously, further clarity on this issue is required, as it was raised earlier. It is the responsibility of individual Members to ensure that they declare their interests properly. The procedure for raising a complaint of this sort is by writing to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The guide to the rules sets out the rules relating to the declaration of interests in debates. This is not otherwise a matter for the Chair. I hope that brings some further clarity to the issue.
I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
Liam Byrne
The hon. Member will no doubt have heard the remarks made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the weekend. I suspect that the hon. Member, like every Member of this House, will see some pretty radical steps taken in the comprehensive spending review to improve the efficiency of the civil service. Of course, the civil service grew very significantly in the years after covid, and now it has to be reinvented for new times. I am confident that those productivity gains will come.
My second point was to draw the House’s attention to some of the evidence taken by our Select Committee. That evidence is contained in our report, which I commend to all hon. Members. What struck me about the evidence we heard from the most productive firms in the country, such as Jaguar Land Rover, Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems, was that those are world-beating companies—some of the most productive companies in our country—and what characterises the workplace arrangements of all of those companies is that they have very long-standing, robust and deep partnerships with good trade unions. Those trade unions help make decisions, help de-conflict things and help businesses thrive and succeed. That is why stronger collective rights are important.
We also took evidence from companies where, I am afraid to say, there was not that harmony, such as Amazon. It has had to call ambulances to its warehouses 1,400 times in just five years. We on the Committee received whistleblower evidence from workers who were literally having to urinate into bottles because they did not dare take time out from their tasks to go to the bathroom and back. We heard all kinds of whistleblower complaints about injuries being sustained, and pay is rising much more slowly than sales.
When we had executives from that company in front of us, they could not—or would not—tell the Committee why strike action had been taken by workers in their firm. If a company executive cannot explain to a Select Committee of this House why so many of their workers are on strike, that is not a story of harmony or a recipe for success. That is why the measures that the Minister has brought forward in this Bill to improve the opportunities for trade unions to organise—in a way that was recommended by the former Member for Harlow, actually—are a good thing.
The Minister has gone some way in recognising recommendations made by our Committee, such as improving the window in which complaints can be heard beyond 24 hours, bringing in template access agreements and strengthening the role of the Central Arbitration Committee in dispute resolution. There is just one further step that I suggest, which is the subject of amendment 282. We suggest that access rights for trade unions should include digital access rights, because in the modern workplace, of which Amazon is a case in point, there simply is not an opportunity for workers to get information about the opportunities to join a trade union and make a fair choice one way or the other in the way that there could be in the modern economy.
My final point is about enforcement. The first factory Act passed by this House was the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802. It was celebrated in parliamentary history as an Act that failed because there was no enforcement attached to it. Enforcement of this Bill is essential if it is to succeed, but labour market enforcement today is much too weak. Just 21 employers have been prosecuted for minimum wage enforcement since 2007, despite the fact that we all know that abuses of this sort are taking place in our constituencies.
Spending on labour market enforcement has been flat since 2014, and we are well off the International Labour Organisation target of one labour market inspector for every 10,000 workers. New clause 82 in my name would require the Secretary of State to set out a road map for reaching that ILO target, for ensuring there is greater use of penalties where appropriate, and for much stronger partnerships between the Home Office, the police and the Fair Work Agency. We cannot have a situation in this country where the best of British firms are being undercut by the worst labour market practice.
In conclusion, I welcome this Bill. Some of the amendments that have been tabled would improve it, but ultimately we have to remember that if we want to create a genuinely pro-business, pro-worker economy, the measures in this Bill are long overdue.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I rise to speak to parts 4 and 5 of the Bill, and specifically to new clause 19, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), and new clauses 110, 111 and 112, which stand in my name. I wish to put on record my thanks to my two Liberal Democrat colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay and for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson), for their work in the Public Bill Committee, alongside many other Members of the House.
Overall, throughout its passage, we Liberal Democrats have indicated our support for many aspects of the Employment Rights Bill, such as those we debated yesterday, including boosting statutory sick pay, strengthening parental pay and leave, and giving people on zero-hours and low-hours contracts more certainty. However, a lot of crucial detail has been left to secondary legislation, to lots of new Government amendments and to continuing consultations, which makes it impossible to explicitly endorse the Bill as a whole at this stage. Even with 264 amendments in Committee and 457 Government amendments on Report, major issues are still yet to be determined, especially in part 4. Even after all those amendments, the Government say that they intend to
“consult further on modernising the trade union landscape following Royal Assent”
of this Bill, including on admissibility requirements, a code of practice and secondary legislation. It is therefore clear that part 4, which we are debating today, is still far from finalised.
We Liberal Democrats believe that employee participation in the workplace is vital, but we also believe that it should go hand in hand with wider employee ownership. That is so important for diffusing economic power, promoting enterprise, increasing job satisfaction, improving service to customers and getting long-term economic stability and growth. The Government’s proposals on trade unions are aimed at strengthening employee rights in what can often be a combative and confrontational working environment, and we Liberal Democrats see this Bill as a missed opportunity to improve employee engagement and ownership to provide collaborative working environments and long-term growth, whether by reforming company purpose rules or putting a duty on employers to encourage employee ownership in large listed companies. However, given what we have before us, we have tabled a few amendments.
First, new clause 19 is about the right to be accompanied, and it does what it says on the tin. It would expand the right for staff to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings. That is a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy, and I hope it is not too controversial, as it simply rectifies an anomaly. The current law allows only trade union representatives or colleagues to accompany an employee, and that leaves many without proper support. Some sectors, such as the medical profession, already allow accompaniment by non-union companions, yet that is not reflected in law. Our targeted amendment would fix that anomaly, and I urge the Government to accept it.
New clause 110 simply requests that the Government conduct a review on the impact on small business. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have expressed concern about the cumulative impact of all the Government’s work in this area and the impact it will have on small businesses in particular. Just the other day, the Federation of Small Businesses told me that it spends thousands and thousands of hours giving advice to small businesses on employment matters, and these new obligations will create a huge amount of extra law for them to understand, interpret and apply.
Small businesses do not have the same resources as big business. They often have no legal department, no compliance team and perhaps no human resources specialist. Because small businesses are often rooted in their community, they are conscious of their reputation. They know their employees and they want to get things right. That means it will take extra time, effort and cost for them to navigate and comply with this part of the Bill, and that is before we get to everything else that the Government are seeking to introduce.
Small businesses are telling me that, taking the measures of the employment Bill together with the changes to national insurance and business rates and everything else, they feel overwhelmed. All that new clause 110 does is ask the Government to conduct an impact assessment. We know that small businesses are passionate about their employees. Small businesses are often the ones to give people their first job. They are often the companies that give people a second chance. They provide part-time, flexible working and opportunities to return to work, so I encourage the Government to look at the impact of part 4 on small businesses.
New clause 111 is about introducing legal aid in employment tribunals. When legal aid was first introduced, the intention was for it to become the NHS of the justice system, but we know that today legal aid is far from that. Our amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on options for expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals. We already know that many employees cannot afford legal representation, and that creates an imbalance of power when facing well-resourced employers. The amendment simply asks the Government to look at the options that might be available in that regard.
New clause 112 asks for a review of the single enforcement body. We Liberal Democrats positively support the Government’s efforts to create a single point of contact, rather than four. A similar measure was in our manifesto, where we called for a powerful new worker protection enforcement authority. As a matter of good practice, when putting different organisations together, it is important to make sure that no gaps are created in that protection. The review we ask for is not just a formality, but an important safeguard to ensure that employment rights enforcement is effective, fair and fit for purpose.
There is much in the Bill that we Liberal Democrats welcome, but there are many parts of it that we simply cannot support because it is not yet clear what the Government’s intentions are. We urge the Government, in the strongest possible terms, to look at the impact on small business, as it is an area about which we are deeply concerned.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. More than 30 Members wish to speak. I do not want to set a time limit, but if Members can police themselves and keep their speeches to just shy of eight minutes, everyone will definitely get in.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I wish to develop some of the detailed and eloquent arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), and to speak in particular about the amendments relating to part 4 of the Bill and the trade union movement.
Before he leaves, let me thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) for his very measured comments. I enjoyed his referral back to the industrial relations of the 1950s, although I should point out that we have moved on a little since then; I will say more about that shortly. I also thought that he simplified the Opposition’s position. We are not here to bash the unions. We support a progressive, modern trade union movement in which the balance is struck correctly between employer and employees. Unions should not and do not run businesses, but they are an important part of our industrial relations landscape.
There can be little doubt that this is, unfortunately, a Bill drafted by the few to the detriment of the many, and the numerous provisions that will largely abolish the Trade Union Act 2016 threaten to drag the country back to the dark days of the 1970s. The very enjoyable speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) perhaps illustrates that return to the 1970s. I am pleased to see a number of his friends from the rebellious left on the Government Benches, and I look forward to hearing their comments in due course.
The Trade Union Act 2016 was brought in by the last Conservative Government to reflect the modern British economy and workplace. It moved the trade union movement into the 21st century and ensures that hard-working people are not disrupted by little-supported strike action.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Miss Murray, you used the term “you”. If it makes it easier, you can speak focused on the Chair, and that way you will not make such a mistake. Saying “thank you” means thanking me, and it gets very complicated for Hansard, so it is best not to do that. Just focus on the Chair, and that will help.
I need to make a correction. I should draw Members’ attention to a printing error in Government new clause 52 as it appears in the printed version of today’s amendment paper. The closing words at the end of subsection (1) should read:
“the Secretary of State may withdraw it by giving a notice of withdrawal to the person.”
A corrected version of the amendment paper is available online.
Jerome Mayhew
This is a chaotic mess of a Bill, cobbled together in 100 days to satisfy a press release. We have the unedifying spectacle of an amendment paper that is 274 pages long, as the Government try to correct their many mistakes.
The main thing that I want to address in my short speech is the idea that Labour is beholden to the unions. That is often suggested, but let us just look at the facts, because we need to put this to bed. Between 2019 and 2024, Labour received only £31,314,589 from the unions, and in this Parliament more than 200 Labour MPs have been paid directly by the unions. The Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade have collectively received about £120,000 from unions. What are the unions paying for? Whatever it is, they have been handsomely repaid in the drafting of this Bill. To make it easier for Labour Members, who were all here to hear my point of order, perhaps they could put their hands up if they have not received any cash from the unions—oh dear, oh dear!
Clause 52 suggests that there should be a requirement to contribute to political funds when people join a union. It changes the rules on how union members should donate and how they should contribute political funds to the Labour party. Clause 52(2) changes subscriptions from an opt-in to an opt-out. That raises the question: why do we need this clause? What is the problem that the Labour party is trying to fix? Is £31 million just not enough? This clause encourages unions, when signing up members, to take advantage of their distraction, because members will not be focused on that and they will fall into what is in effect a subscription trap.
In other circumstances, the Labour party does not think that subscription traps are a very good idea. In fact, the Government sent out a press release on 18 November 2024 entitled, “New measures unveiled to crack down on subscription traps”. That sounds good so far. It says:
“Consultation launched on measures to crack down on ‘subscription traps’ and better protect shoppers…Unwanted subscriptions cost families £14 per month per subscription and £1.6 billion a year in total”.
It goes on:
“New proposals to crack down on subscription traps have been unveiled today…‘Subscription traps’ are instances where consumers are frequently misled into signing up for a subscription…It comes as new figures reveal consumers are spending billions of pounds each year on unwanted subscriptions due to unclear terms and conditions and complicated cancellation routes.”
The Business Secretary says:
“Our mission is to put more money back into people’s pockets and improve living standards across this country, tackling subscription traps that rip people’s earnings away is an important part of that.”
Clause 52 flies in the face of that press release.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
As has been said already in this debate, trade union donations have been declared, but donations from employers who have a direct private interest in particular sectors that we have debated in this place have not been declared. If any of the hon. Member’s colleagues have not drawn attention to such an interest, will he encourage them to do so? Does he agree with us on the Labour Benches that they were wrong not to make such a declaration?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. There were two points of order on declarations earlier, and I think I made the situation quite clear. I just wish to let Mr Mayhew know that, if he is referring to Members directly with any form of criticism, he is meant to give them prior warning, so he should be mindful of that for what comes next in his speech.
Jerome Mayhew
The intervention from the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) is a classic distraction technique. This Bill addresses the unions and union membership, and clause 52 moves money from unsuspecting union joiners directly to the Labour party. There is no other explanation for the clause.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The hon. Lady is a fearsome campaigner on the Business and Trade Committee. She talks about intimidation and paints a lovely picture of unions working actively for their workers, but how can we square that with the version of intimidation that the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) seems to be referring to with the return of flying pickets?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before the hon. Lady responds, she will no doubt realise that she is close to eight minutes. I know she will want to speak for a little while, but not too much longer.
Antonia Bance
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my fellow member of the Business and Trade Committee for his intervention. As he will have seen from the amendment paper, the Government are not proposing the return of secondary picketing.
New schedule 2 will give unions greater protection from unfair practices during a recognition process and make winning it more likely. I wish that Ministers had gone the whole hog and deleted the three-year lockout; perhaps there will be an opportunity to take that forward.
In conclusion, as a whole, this package of modern industrial relations will lead to more sitting roundtables sorting out issues, fewer picket lines, fewer strikes, more productive relationships, more long-termism across our industrial base, better jobs, higher wages, higher skills and higher productivity. That is why the changes in this Bill to both collective rights and individual rights are so crucial, and so opposed by the Tories and the absent Reform party. This is the type of growth that my party stands for—the type of growth where proceeds are shared by all. It is time to make work pay.
Employment Rights Bill
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Billington
No, I will not give way.
This law will strengthen their hand. I say, in the words of the greatest pub manager of all time—Peggy Mitchell—to the proposers of the amendment, “Get outta my pub!”
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
What a speech to follow. I cannot quite claim to be Peggy Mitchell, but I will try to live up to that brilliant remark.
I rise as a proud member of the GMB. I happily refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will speak to new clauses 37 and 38, which relate to part 3 of the Bill. They will strengthen the bargaining power of social workers and, by doing so, create a stronger working relationship between employees and employers that both sides will invest more in. That means higher wages for those who look after our parents, more training and a healthier social care workforce. Both sides will invest more; both sides will benefit more. Pro-worker, pro-business, pro-growth—that is what these amendments and this Bill will achieve.
Before entering this place, I was a trade union rep, and I worked with my colleagues to help stop a 33% pay cut in my workplace. Workers speaking with one voice meant a happier and more productive workplace—one voice to set out what it means to increase productivity. That is why this is a pro-growth Bill.
Social care workers are among the lowest paid in our economy. One in six are legally paid less than the minimum wage. Little proper certification, reward or recognition for skills means that there is little training. Poor conditions mean that almost half suffer from work-related stress. Low pay, little progression and poor conditions are the reasons why a third of social care workers leave the sector each year. That is what this Bill and these new clauses will fix. The Adult Social Care Negotiating Body will mean more social care workers speaking as one voice, gaining higher wages, better conditions and more training. Those benefits do not just appear on payslips; they mean less time spent worrying about paying the bills, and more time with our families and reading to our children. They make workers more productive and benefit employers—they make life worth living.
Those on the Opposition Benches say that life cannot improve. They have talked a lot of fear instead of hope and the change we can achieve. They will likely vote against our amendments and against the Bill. In doing so, they would deny their constituents better wages and, indeed, a better life. We cannot simply sit back and hope that wages rise, that training will magically appear, or that conditions will get better on their own. We have to act to make it so. The Bill and the amendments do exactly that by giving social care workers the power to speak with one voice to negotiate higher wages, better training and better conditions, benefiting employee and employer—pro-worker, pro-business and pro-growth. That is what the Bill stands for. That is what I stand for. That is what we stand for.
Anna Dixon
The hon. Gentleman may know that I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers. We are very pleased that there are now unpaid leave requirements for carers; on other occasions, I have urged the Government to look into going further with paid entitlements for carers. There is a real opportunity to enable the 3 million carers in paid employment to remain in employment and to stop the loss of an estimated 600 people per day who leave work due to their caring responsibilities. While that is not part of this Bill, hopefully the Government and the Minister will respond to that.
That is the first area of the Bill that I really welcome. The second, which has huge benefit for care workers, is its provisions on pay and conditions through pay agreements. I echo some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), who is no longer in his place, about the huge benefits that these will bring to so many of our valued adult social care staff.
The establishment of the new Fair Work Agency will ensure that everyone is playing by the same rules, and strengthening powers to deal with modern slavery and labour abuse will further extend protections to care workers. Many care workers have come to this country on overseas visas and, having paid extortionate fees in their country of origin, have found themselves tied into accommodation here, on zero-hours contracts and being exploited by the care companies. As such, the provisions in the Bill are very welcome. We know that too many care workers live in poverty; research by the Health Foundation suggests that one in five care workers cannot afford the essentials, either for themselves or for their children. I am proud to be sitting on the Labour Benches as we bring forward fair pay agreements, along with the abolition of exploitative zero-hours contracts, which will finally provide security for our valued social care workers.
In implementing these changes, it is really important that we establish a framework to help home care workers in particular—some of whom I met recently—who are not paid for their travel time or their sleep-in hours, despite the fact that such practices should be illegal. As we take forward the fair pay agreement in adult social care, I urge the Minister to work with colleagues to ensure it is accompanied by an ethical charter for care providers to sign up to. This Government have already shown how serious they are about valuing those who do so much to care for, and provide support to, disabled adults and older people in this country.
The third area I want to mention, which other colleagues have talked about and which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) has addressed in his new clause 102—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I keep looking at the clock. I believe there is an issue; would you please advise me on my remaining time?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Yes, the clock has stopped. You started at 7 pm, but you did take an intervention, so I think you can go for one more minute.
Anna Dixon
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Very briefly, I am delighted that the Government are strengthening statutory sick pay. During covid, many care workers were forced to go into work—at their own risk, and risking those they were caring for—because they were not eligible for statutory sick pay, so strengthening it is an excellent move.
In conclusion, this Bill, together with the proposed Government amendments and some of those suggested by my hon. Friends, will ensure that the 1.5 million people working in adult social care can get fair pay, guaranteed hours, statutory sick pay and day one rights. It is good for workers, and it is good for women.
Deirdre Costigan
No, because many Members are waiting to speak.
I welcome Government amendments 80 to 85, which specify the level of sick pay that low-paid workers will now be able to expect from day one. I know that some employers wanted to pay a bit less and trade unions wanted a bit more, but 80% is a compromise. I certainly do not support the delaying tactics of the Opposition, who have sought impact appraisals that already exist and show that these changes will lead to an increase in productivity and growth if we can get disabled people working when they want to do so.
This transformative Bill responds to a key demand of the disability employment charter for a default right to flexible working. For many disabled workers, the ability to organise their hours around taking medication and dealing with pain or fatigue will mean being able to keep their job rather than ending up sick or being marched out of the door. In line with the charter, this new law also introduces paid time off for trade union equality representatives, a subject that I know we will discuss tomorrow. Negotiating reasonable adjustments can take time, and input from a trained person, whose priority is to keep the worker in his or her job, will make all the difference.
However, Unison research has established that nearly a quarter of disabled workers who asked their employers for reasonable adjustments waited a year or more for help, and some never even received a reply. You cannot do a job that causes you pain, or sets you up to fail, so it is no wonder that disabled people end up out of the door. The disability employment charter calls for a new right to a two-week deadline for at least receiving a reply to a reasonable adjustment request. Currently there is no deadline for such a response, although in the case of flexible working requests the employer must respond within eight weeks. I have had constructive discussions with the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), and I am hopeful that we may see such a deadline included in the “Get Britain Working” plan, which complements the Bill.
Many good employers already support disabled workers, and I pay tribute to the 240 who have backed the disability employment charter and rights for those workers. The Bill and the Government amendments will ensure that there is a level playing field, so that bad employers cannot undercut those who want to do the right thing. They will ensure that more disabled workers can keep jobs that they value, and can contribute to the growth that we need to get our economy working again.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call Alex Sobel, and ask him to keep his remarks to four minutes.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my 28-year membership of the GMB union.
New clause 72, which stands in my name, would place a duty on employers to investigate whistleblowing concerns and establish internal channels for reporting and managing whistleblower disclosures. In recent years we have seen scandals rock the country in which whistleblowers raised the alarm at an early stage only for their warnings to be ignored and for disastrous consequences to follow. Scandals with thousands of victims, such as the Post Office Horizon case, the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy and the collapse of Carillion, involved whistleblowers raising the alarm only to face a wall of silence. We saw the very worst of that at Yorkshire cricket club in my constituency when Azeem Rafiq suffered years of racist harassment and abuse. Despite the number of players who admitted to racist remarks or actions, the club’s leadership refused to accept their mistakes and refused to release the full report, instead releasing an edited summary. Only when Azeem appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee did the full scale of institutional racism at the club become known.
These failures have a tragic human cost, and they often place a significant strain on the taxpayer. According to the report “The Cost of Whistleblowing Failures”, the avoidable costs incurred owing to the failure to listen to whistleblowers in the Post Office Horizon, Carillion and Letby cases was £426 million.
It is unacceptable for the taxpayer to have to bear the burden of failed systems and a failed legislative framework, which is why we need a new legal duty on employers to investigate whistleblowing. New clause 72 would ensure that employers must take “reasonable steps” to investigate any protected disclosure made to them. It would compel large employers to establish internal channels and appropriate procedures for reporting. By ensuring that disclosures are investigated, we can prevent scandals such as Horizon from occurring and ensure that harm in the workplace is dealt with early. The new clause is proudly pro-worker and pro-business, and would tackle one of the long-standing issues with our current whistleblowing legal framework for workers. The status quo provides only an after-the-event remedy for whistleblowers, and this new clause would ensure that there are channels for whistleblowers from the start.
North Sea Energy
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
With permission, I would like to make a statement about this Government�s plans to unleash the North sea�s clean energy future.
For almost half a century, the workers, businesses and communities of the North sea have powered our country and the world. We believe that they can and will continue to do so for the next half a century and beyond, which is why yesterday, we launched a consultation on the steps we are taking to seize the opportunities of the clean energy transition in the North sea. This is about working with businesses, workers and communities to strengthen north-east Scotland�s status as the energy capital of the UK, and it is about showing global leadership as we deliver a well-managed, orderly and prosperous transition.
We know that the North sea is a maturing basin. Oil and gas production has seen a natural decline of 72% between 1999 and 2023, and as a result, the industry has lost around a third of its direct workforce over the past decade. The truth is that sprinting to clean energy is the only way to deliver energy security and good, long-term jobs for the workforce and for communities. At the same time, we know that we need to listen to the science on what is required to keep global warming to 1.5�C. A science-aligned approach to future oil and gas production is the only way to deliver climate security for future generations, so we owe it to the North sea�s workers and communities�who have done so much for our country�to come up with a proper plan for the future. That is what this Government are doing.
First, we are consulting on our manifesto commitment not to issue new licences to explore new fields. While we have always been clear that oil and gas will continue to play an important role for decades to come, the reality is that new licences for oil and gas awarded in the past decade have made only a marginal difference to overall production. To continue granting them would not help our energy security, would not be compatible with our climate commitments, and would not take one penny off bills. As such, we will not award new licences, but we will continue working with the sector to manage existing fields for the entirety of their lifespan. We will also provide the long-term certainty on its fiscal landscape that the sector needs. Yesterday, the Treasury set out plans for a new regime to respond to future spikes in oil and gas prices once the energy profits levy ends in 2030.
The second part of the consultation is about harnessing the North sea�s unique strengths, including its offshore infrastructure, highly skilled engineers and deep supply chains, to make it a global clean energy powerhouse. In just eight months, we have already made significant progress. We have established Great British Energy in Aberdeen, so that it is in the perfect position to drive the roll-out of clean energy projects. We have improved the offshore wind auction, so that later this year there will for the first time be a new clean industry bonus to reward investment in good manufacturing jobs and clean supply chains. We have overseen a record-breaking renewables auction. We have kick-started the UK�s carbon capture and hydrogen industries�the energy sectors of the future�with strong, early investments. Just yesterday, we awarded more than �55 million to the port of Cromarty Firth for upgrades that will support the development of floating offshore wind, creating hundreds of jobs as we ensure Scotland and the UK remain world leaders in this next-generation technology. But that is just the start.
Our clean power action plan will drive �40 billion a year of investment to meet our goal of clean power by 2030. Research shows that jobs in offshore renewable sectors could increase by tens of thousands in that time. We will also make sure workers have the tools they need to take up these new opportunities. Already, we have worked with the Scottish Government and trade bodies to launch a skills passport, making it easier and quicker for oil and gas workers to bring their skills and experience into clean energy jobs. That idea has been stuck in the mud for years. Thankfully, we have made more progress in the past eight months than was made in the previous 14 years combined. At the same time, we are putting clean energy at the heart of our upcoming modern industrial strategy.
We are incredibly fortunate to have the North sea on our doorstep. For decades, the oil and gas buried there have fuelled development and charged our economy, but the North sea�s long-term future lies in its incredible clean energy potential. We know that its stable winds and shallow shelves make it one of the best locations in the world for offshore wind farms. We know that the UK continental shelf alone has enough capacity to store up to 78 billion tonnes of carbon, which is roughly the amount this country has produced since the industrial revolution. With our skilled offshore industry and workforce, we are perfectly placed to seize this natural advantage and get ahead in the global race for new jobs in new industries.
Instead of sticking our head in the sand and avoiding the big decisions, we have set out a plan to deliver the future that the North sea�s workers and communities deserve. It is a plan to co-ordinate the scale-up of clean energy industries, from offshore wind and hydrogen to carbon capture and storage; a plan to give the oil and gas sector the support and clarity it needs to continue operating for decades to come; a plan for energy security and sustainable economic growth; and a plan to keep working with the people who matter most�the North sea�s businesses, workers, communities and trade unions� to take advantage of the tremendous opportunities of the years ahead together. I commend this statement to the House.
Sarah Jones
The shadow Minister quoted trade union representatives, having not met them or supported them in government. That is always rich. [Interruption.] He says that he did; I stand corrected, although I suspect that he did not do it often. He quoted the general secretary of the GMB, so let me quote him back. The general secretary said:
�Tory ideology has left the UK vulnerable and exposed. Our Government stood by and exported the bulk of the jobs, closed gas storage and failed to invest in new nuclear and skills.�
I thank the shadow Minister for his questions, and I will come to them shortly, but I have to say that this is a fairly familiar story from the Conservative party: no acknowledgment of their failed record on the North sea, no acknowledgment of their having presided over the worst cost of living crisis in a generation, and no answers to the future challenges that our country faces. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was his party that lost 70,000 North sea jobs in less than a decade. His Government were content for those workers to have to go around the world to find jobs, but this Government want to keep those talents here in the UK, which is why, unlike the last Government, we have a plan.
In my statement, I said that everyone accepts that the North sea is a declining basin. I do not know whether the shadow Minister understands the basic geology, but this is a super-mature basin, and the harder it becomes to drill for oil and gas, the less likely it is that people will be successful. Only one in 10 of the licences that have been offered and granted in recent years have ultimately led to any work.
The hon. Gentleman needs to establish what his party�s view of this agenda is. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who is sitting next to him, had some very peculiar things to say in Westminster Hall yesterday, and it is unclear exactly what their position is. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) was a Minister for the grid who opposed grid infrastructure, he was a Minister for solar who opposed solar power, and here he is now, the Minister for Aberdeen, campaigning against jobs and investment in his own community.
We are getting on with a plan for the future. First, we will invest in clean power. It is ludicrous that at this time when our bills depend on what Putin chooses to do and we have to respond, the shadow Minister is suggesting that we should do more of that. Even if there were no climate change, even if there were no push to clean power, if we drilled as much oil and gas from the North sea as we possibly could, it would amount to less than 1% of the global market and would have no impact on bills whatsoever.
We will give immediate support to workers�we have explained how we will do that�and we will support Scotland more widely. We will support Great British Energy in Aberdeen. We will support Grangemouth with �200 million from the national wealth fund. Harland and Wolff in Arnish and Methil has been saved from closure. Yesterday, the Port of Cromarty Firth received �55 million through the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme. Twenty per cent. of the contracts in allocation round 6 of the contracts for difference auction are going to Scotland. We have hydrogen investment in Cromarty and Ayrshire. We have the biggest budget for the Scottish Government that we have seen. This is a party that is committed to supporting the people of Scotland, not overseeing managed decline.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Minister was right to remind us that the North sea is a mature basin, she was right to remind us that 70,000 jobs have been lost there in the last 10 years, and she was right to praise the highly skilled engineers who have made such a contribution in the North sea and to the country. She mentioned the skills passport, and said that the Government were making progress with the industry in finding alternatives in the jobs transition. The Select Committee has heard, a number of times, evidence that one of the challenges is the fact that pay in the North sea is significantly higher than pay in equivalent jobs in the renewable sector, and offshore wind in particular. What, at this stage, are the Minister�s thoughts on how we can make pay more attractive for workers moving from oil and gas into renewables?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the Select Committee, which is very important. As he knows, for a long time we have been a bit stuck in trying to set up a passport system because of the slightly different skills and qualifications in each industry and the need to bring them together. The Government became involved to try to ensure that we could bridge that gap and enable people to make the transition. Oil and gas workers are highly skilled and greatly in demand, and, as my hon. Friend says, they are paid a good wage. We need to work with the new offshore wind companies; we like to see union recognition, and we like to see good salaries for people doing those jobs as well. There will be other jobs that people can go into. The plan is to help people make the transition rather than leaving them adrift as the last Government did.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, much of which we can agree with.
The North sea gives the UK the opportunity to become a powerhouse in renewable energy generation, and it is time that we seized it. We urge the Government to make good their commitment to consult on a new regime to boost investment in jobs. We want to ensure that the oil and gas industry is wound down in a way that supports the redeployment of skills and jobs, and provides the right incentives to encourage fossil fuel industries to invest in green technologies. What details can the Minister give us of the support that the Government will provide to upskill and redeploy those who were formerly working in the fossil fuel industry?
We believe that much bolder action is urgently needed to ensure energy security, to cut bills and, with Donald Trump threatening to pull the United States out of the Paris agreement once again, to resume the UK�s global leadership role on climate action, which was abandoned by the previous Conservative Government. We urge this Government to introduce an emergency 10-year plan to insulate homes, starting with free insulation for the most vulnerable residents, and to introduce an energy social tariff to tackle fuel poverty and health inequalities caused by cold, damp homes.
We are deeply concerned about the cost of heating bills following Ofgem�s decision to increase the energy price cap by 6.4% this April�the third increase since October 2024. The Government must decouple electricity prices from the wholesale gas price and toughen up their windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas giants, including by increasing the tax by another two percentage points to a headline rate of 80%. Time and again, we have been disappointed by the decisions that the Government have taken this winter to delay energy bills support for households. For example, the Government�s warm homes scheme, designed to insulate homes, will not benefit households until�
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. There is always a maximum of two minutes, and you have exceeded it. Please be seated.
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. On upskilling and redeploying workers, as I said previously, we are introducing the passporting scheme and making sure that we can break down the barriers that exist in different industries, because the skills and talents of people working in oil and gas can be transferred to renewable energy. We want to make sure that we do that.
The hon. Lady talks about vulnerable residents and the cost of heating, and she is absolutely right to do so. We have all suffered from the huge cost of living crisis caused by Putin�s invasion of Ukraine. We are doing what we can, and 6 million people will now get the �150 warm homes discount this winter, which will help with their energy bills.
The hon. Lady asks about the windfall tax. The clue is in the name: it is a tax on windfall profits. While the oil and gas industry is making windfall profits, there will be a windfall tax; when it is not, there will not be. That is the way the scheme works, but her points on the need to insulate homes�we are working at pace on that�and to support vulnerable people are absolutely right. The basic principle is that we have an energy bill rise driven by fossil fuels, so we must move to home-grown power for our energy security and for long-term bill reductions.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. If questions are not kept short, Members will prevent their colleagues from getting in.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on setting out a plan that supports jobs, skills and communities in the face of technological change�unlike the Conservative party, which abandoned wholesale our industrial base in the 1980s. Like the north-east of Scotland, the north-east of England has jobs, skills and opportunities that depend on the energy of the North sea. Kinewell Energy, in my constituency, leads in wind farm design optimisation. Can the Minister confirm that she will work with the Mayor of the North East, Kim McGuiness, to ensure that the north-east of England benefits from the jobs and opportunities of the North sea?
Sarah Jones
I meet industry representatives all the time, and their response to Kim McGuiness is great. She is such a force of enthusiasm, knowledge and power for her communities, and people engage with her. They like what she says about investing in the north-east, and they are responding to her. She is making a real difference in her community. We are doing all we can, through all kinds of levers that the Government can use, to make sure that the investment in clean energy supports all our communities. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that we need to take advantage of the particular skills of people in the north-east.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
When I climb the hill behind my home in the Lincolnshire wolds, I can see, 20 miles away, a wonderful array of wind turbines in the North sea. We love it locally�we love it for our economy�but nothing in that precludes oil and gas exploration. If we in Lincolnshire are doing so much for green energy, why are we allowing the bread basket of England to be covered with solar farms? We have 10,000 acres of them around Gainsborough, and there is another application for 3,900 acres at North Clifton. Will the Minister and her boss please look at such mass applications in the round so that there is not overdevelopment in the break basket of England?
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Through support for jobs, support for skills, the prominence of the industrial strategy and support for a clean transition, the Minister has demonstrated what is possible when there is political will. To quote her words back to her, when will we be able to give the sector the support and clarity it needs to continue operating for some decades? The ceramics sector would love a package like this�or is the ceramics sector not sufficiently important enough?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I ask the Minister to keep her responses short.
Sarah Jones
Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am over-enthusiastic and have so many things to say.
I always worry when my hon. Friends quote my words back to me. My hon. Friend and I have talked often about ceramics, and I am well aware of the issues. We had a great debate in Westminster Hall this week on the ceramics industry�s challenges with the transition and with energy prices. We are well aware of all of them, and we are working to fix them. I give as much time to ceramics as I do to any other industry, and I will continue to do so.
Several hon. Members rose�
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I keep repeating myself: short questions please.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
As someone with two generations of their family who have depended on the North sea oil and gas industry, I know that we have to move away from fossil fuels and that we have to drive forward to the just transition, but we must also recognise that we are not there yet and that this is not the moment to push the industry off a cliff. It is declining naturally. We are leaving ourselves in a position where we will still need oil, so will we import it? We will need gas for hydrogen production, plastics, chemicals and pharmaceuticals. All of that is necessary. We also face a threat from the Chinese trying to infiltrate our renewables, so what are the Government going to do about that?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend will know about the announcements that were made recently about support for Grangemouth. In the last couple of weeks, I met INEOS to talk about its chemical factory and the huge contribution it brings in terms of jobs and the provision of chemicals. The �200 million investment from the National Wealth Fund is really important in this space. The work that the Government have done to look at possible businesses and industries for Grangemouth in the future is really important and I am very happy to have a conversation with him.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
While I very much welcome the move towards clean energy, my concern is that we cannot allow energy prices to rise any further, especially when we take into account the loss of the winter fuel payment for many pensioners on the poverty line. How will the Minister ensure that clean energy and heat will not be out of reach for those who are already struggling: the elderly, the vulnerable, those in poor health and those in poverty?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. We know that energy bills have been rising because of the oil and gas we rely on and the impact of the war in Ukraine. We have massively increased the warm home discount so that 6 million households will get �150 to help towards their energy bills, but he is right to champion people who are going through a cost of living crisis. We will do what we can to support them.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That marks the end of the statement. I could not get all colleagues in because questions were so long, and answers were occasionally just as lengthy.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders
I think it is something of a stretch to say that a Bill that is not even law yet, most of the provisions of which will not come into force until next year, is driving unemployment already. I quote back to him what the head of the CBI said yesterday about our growth plan. He said:
“This positive leadership and a…vision to kickstart the economy and boost productivity is welcome.”
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
In the week of Labour’s latest reset, how does the Minister reconcile imposing an additional £5 billion of costs on business—on the Government’s own figures—with growing the economy? What was it about the breakfast with the Prime Minister that saw bosses laying off more workers 24 hours later?
Sarah Jones
Word salad? Gosh. That abuse from the Opposition Front Bench has cut me to the core. The industrial strategy has set out eight sectors that will turbocharge the economy. Across all those sectors lie our foundational sectors, of which the chemical industry is one. We will support that industry in a way that his Government failed to do.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I will try to avoid a word salad. We have heard from various different industrial sectors how important it is to have stable and predictable energy costs. This month has seen little sun and only intermittent wind, so we have been heavily dependent on imported oil and gas. Are Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade challenging the Energy Secretary over his policies?
Gareth Thomas
I referred to the establishment of the business growth service in answer to an earlier question. We are working with the Scottish Government to begin to think through how that service can support businesses in Scotland and complement the support already provided by the Scottish Government. We are clear on the need to reform business rates to support retail, hospitality and leisure businesses on the high street. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend if he thinks there are further initiatives we can take to help small businesses in Falkirk.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
R Young Art Gallery is the last art gallery in Wokingham town centre and a proud feature of our high street. However, political inactivity on business rates reform means that it is on the precipice of closing. I was shocked to learn that it is the impending cuts to business rate relief, with no measures in the short term to provide financial support, that have led the owner to fear for the survival of his business. High streets across the country continue to struggle. What is the Minister doing to ensure that small, independent businesses such as R Young Art Gallery are supported?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I saw the talent and potential for myself when I visited Exeter in September for Great South West’s annual conference. I am visiting the region again in a few weeks, because there is huge potential, huge excitement and huge opportunities to grow. As he knows, there is £1.8 billion from the national wealth fund to invest in our ports. I am very happy to meet him and others to see what potential we can discuss.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I declare an interest: a family member has shares in a medical company.
In the United States, President Trump created chaos by freezing funding for the National Institutes of Health, and his nominee for US Health Secretary is an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist. The United Kingdom has the perfect opportunity to seize this moment and make ourselves a beacon for global research investment. Already, Wokingham has many pharmaceutical businesses, such as Becton Dickinson and Hollister. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure we attract global life sciences sectors to the UK?
Gareth Thomas
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her support for Rolls-Royce, which is one of our great British companies leading the way in many export markets across the world. Only yesterday I was discussing with the Minister for Skills our plans to reform the growth and skills levy to make it easier for businesses such as Rolls-Royce to recruit apprentices and find the talent that they need to continue to be successful.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I would be happy to meet a group of MPs from her area. The ambition on airport expansion was very clear in the Chancellor’s speech yesterday. We are hungry for growth; we set that need alongside the need to decarbonise our airspace. Yesterday, I chaired a meeting of industry experts looking at how we can turbocharge our decarbonisation of aviation.
I would be pleased to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), and I agree that we need to grow all parts of the UK to make this work.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Next week, members of the Public and Commercial Services Union in the Department for Business and Trade are once again out on strike. Does the Minister consider the union’s demands to be reasonable? Will Ministers cross picket lines to return to work?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We need to keep questions and answers short and sharp.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Harland & Wolff
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement on the UK shipbuilding firm Harland & Wolff. I am pleased to inform the House that, subject to approvals, a commercial deal has been reached that will protect jobs, drive investment and secure the future of the workforce. The deal will see Navantia UK, a specialist in shipbuilding, purchase all of Harland & Wolff’s shipyards.
As right hon. and hon. Members will know, Harland & Wolff is a major employer in Belfast, with additional important yards at Arnish and Methil in Scotland and Appledore in Devon. For more than 150 years, the firm has built famous vessels for notable shipping organisations and companies, including the Royal Navy, the Royal Mail and the White Star Line. This industry-led deal, which we expect to complete shortly, will secure all four of Harland & Wolff’s shipyards, protecting around 1,000 jobs right across the UK. I hope that this announcement will come as some relief to Harland & Wolff’s employees. I realise that this has been a deeply worrying time for them, and for everyone affected by the continued speculation over the firm’s future. I welcome Navantia UK’s intention to work closely with the relevant unions to protect workers’ existing terms and conditions. That is important for the hard-working employees and communities who have served the firm over many years.
I was first informed that Harland & Wolff was in serious financial difficulty on day one of the new Government. As the previous Government had open-book arrangements with the company, it was clear that the firm had significant and unsustainable debts. Members will be aware that, at that point, Harland & Wolff was seeking a Government guarantee or liquidity loan. Had that occurred, the British taxpayer would have been put at significant risk of losing millions of pounds, without the safeguarding of any yards, jobs or ships. I believe that the possibility of the Government providing such a guarantee or loan, which was much speculated on in the press, was preventing a market-based solution. The former Government’s inability to make a decision left the yards and the workforce in limbo. That is why I made it clear in my first weeks in this job that no taxpayer guarantee or loan would be provided. I was dismayed that when I did so Conservative Members opposed that, knowing as they did that with a guarantee or loan there stood a significant risk of losing an eye-watering amount of taxpayers’ money. That was deeply irresponsible.
Crucially, the deal that has been agreed will secure the delivery of the fleet solid support contract of the Ministry of Defence. The Government have worked closely with Navantia UK on the future of the FSS programme. We have agreed the absolute minimum of changes to the contract to ensure its continued delivery. Navantia UK is the prime contractor of the Team Resolute consortium, which is charged with building three logistics support vessels for the Royal Navy, and it will maintain the required portion of UK-only build as part of this deal. It is also worth saying that FSS is a vital component of the UK carrier strike capability, providing munitions, spares and stores. At a time when strategic alignment with our NATO allies is more critical than ever, the Government fully endorse this deal, which will also see Navantia UK invest significantly on commercial terms in Harland & Wolff shipyards.
Anyone familiar with Navantia UK will know that the firm boasts strong expertise in naval shipbuilding. I am pleased that, thanks to this agreement, it will continue to bring the next generation of technology to its operations here in the UK. This is quite simply a good deal for the Harland & Wolff shipyards, a good deal for its employees, and a good deal for British shipbuilding. It provides the best opportunity to sustain our essential sovereign shipbuilding capacity and capability, now and over the long term. Defence is at the heart of the industrial strategy that we have identified. Defence is one of our eight growth-driving sectors of the UK economy. That industrial strategy is unreservedly and unashamedly pro-business, engaging on complex issues that are currently barriers to growth and investment. National security is one of the foundations of our plan for change. Without it, we cannot deliver on our milestones to raise living standards across the UK, with good, skilled, productive jobs like those at Harland & Wolff.
UK shipbuilding alone supports some 42,500 jobs nationwide and adds £2.4 billion to the economy every single year. We recognise how important it is, as a vital pillar of our civil and defence industrial base. That is why my Department, together with the Ministry of Defence and the National Shipbuilding Office, is doing everything that we can to bolster our world-class shipbuilding industry. That includes the significant progress that we are making on key procurement programmes. We have a major contract with BAE Systems, which has increased the order from three to eight Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates on the Clyde, and a contract with Babcock for five Type 31 general purpose frigates at Rosyth. Those projects have already brought significant recapitalisation investment to shipyards throughout the UK, and there are further procurements to be won, ranging from Border Force and local councils to marine in-port service vessels at His Majesty’s naval bases.
The Government are absolutely committed to supporting vibrant, growing and successful shipbuilding and fabrication industries across the country, and I pay tribute to the skilled, diligent workforces who have made these industries what they are today. Thanks to the deal that has been announced, workers in Belfast, Arnish, Methil, Appledore and right across the country can be confident that the Government are squarely behind them, that UK ship- building is secure, and that together, as a United Kingdom, we will lead the sector into a better future. I hope that all workers in all four yards are now able to enjoy this Christmas with their families, as they should. I commend this statement to the House.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement. The famous yellow gantry of Harland & Wolff stands tall, not only on the skyline of Belfast but in the history of our nation. It is difficult to overstate what Harland & Wolff means to people in the communities of Belfast, Appledore, Arnish and Methil. Extended families across the country will welcome today’s confirmation that the shipbuilding contract that we awarded in government will now proceed. There remain, however, many unanswered questions, which I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could answer. If he cannot answer them at the Dispatch Box today, I would be grateful if he or the Defence Secretary would write in the coming days.
First, at a time of enormous geopolitical uncertainty, can the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no change to the in-service date of the three fleet solid support ships, with the first ship entering service as expected in the fourth quarter of 2028? Secondly, what funding or commitment, if any, has been provided by any part of the Government to Navantia to secure this finalised deal? If so, which budget will that be appropriated from? Has he received state aid clearance for the transaction and, if not, could he clarify the process by which that will now be obtained?
The Secretary of State said in his statement that the Department has agreed the
“absolute minimum of changes to the contract,”
but the statement provides absolutely nothing whatsoever as to what that actually conceals. Can he guarantee, as Navantia promised as part of its original bid for the contract, that no less than 60% of the whole supply chain activity will take place in the UK? Will he confirm that there are no additional work packages beyond those originally envisaged moving from Belfast or anywhere in the UK to Puerto Real in Cádiz? Above all, will he assure the workers and their families who are watching that the final assembly and systems integration, which is where much of the high-value work sits for all three of those vital ships, will take place in Belfast, rather than in Navantia’s parent shipyards in Spain?
The Secretary of State will appreciate that it is sometimes hard, though one tries, to take him at his word after the number of impacts on business over the past few months. The wider context—though welcome in respect of this particular contract and these defence jobs—is the large-scale uncertainty that our defence companies, contractors, workers and employees face about the timetable for the Government to reach 2.5% on defence spending. They do not have the certainty that Harland & Wolff workers now do this Christmas. We do not even have a timeline for a timeline as to when that 2.5% will be hit, and we have seen a degree of equivocation on exactly when the strategic defence review will be published. Again, I would be grateful if the Secretary of State clarified that or if a colleague wrote to me.
It is, at the end of the day, action not words. We welcome this deal for Harland & Wolff and the certainty that it will provide to workers and their families, and I thank the Department officials for their work on that, but there are still many questions to be answered.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Secretary of State. Having served in his Department, I too will be paying close attention to the answer.
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree with the shadow Secretary of State on the iconic nature of this business; its role in British history and in the community, particularly in Belfast; and the esteem in which it is held. I do feel he could have thanked us for cleaning up another mess that the previous Government left us, although perhaps that is too much to ask. After all, they could have made the decisions to allow the market-based solution with support from Government that we have been able to achieve. Despite those caveats, I welcome the fact that he welcomed the news and recognised it as a substantial good news story for many workers as we go into Christmas and for the next years.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions. On the delivery of the fleet solid support contract, the issues that the previous Government left us may have some material impact, although there is no large, foreseen delay to the delivery of the project at this stage. On the support to the business, there is no support going directly from Government to the business to subsidise the transaction. There have been amendments to the contracts supported by my Department and the Ministry of Defence. He asked for the details. I will not reveal it in the House because of the commercial sensitivity, but I will find out whether there is a way to share that with him. On whether the deal is compliant with the Windsor framework and our commitments as a country under those arrangements, I am satisfied with all that. Despite the fact that we will always respect those arrangements, we are the UK Government and we make decisions for every part of the UK, with the regulatory approvals, and I seek no one’s permission to be the Secretary of State for Business and Trade across all the UK.
On additional work packages, there are no additional promises from the Government, although he will know that there is a 30-year supply pipeline for shipbuilding in the UK and many opportunities, particularly in sectors such as energy, maintenance and fabrication, and a whole range of functions where Members across the House would want to have a strong, diverse and competitive shipbuilding and maintenance sector.
Finally, on defence spending, the hon. Gentleman had a bit of a try-on. He asked what assurances the sector can have. The biggest assurance I can give is that we only ever hit that 2.5% under Labour Governments. The fact is that we have a Labour Government with that commitment to the defence sector and its role—the ability to deliver maximum economic benefits for the UK, as well as that vibrant and important defence role—and we will continue to deliver on the way to that.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Congratulations to the Secretary of State. This is excellent news for the people of Appledore and of Northern Ireland and for workers across the Harland & Wolff supply chain. He might want to confirm that the peril of providing a Government guarantee was the possibility of entailing a huge payout to a US-based hedge fund, which was the largest creditor for Harland & Wolff. What is happening to the contract value for the FSS deal? It was priced at about £1.6 billion. Has that contract value now gone up? Crucially, what does the Secretary of State envisage for Harland & Wolff after that enormous contract is safely and soundly delivered?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank the Select Committee Chair for his kind words. I am delighted that we have been able to secure this future for Harland & Wolff. His assessment is right that the largest creditor to Harland & Wolff when we took office was Riverstone, a significant US hedge fund. He is right to say that had we gone ahead with that Government guarantee or loan, there would likely have been no real return to the taxpayer—no guarantee of jobs, shipyards or ships being built. That money would have gone to the creditors. Actually, in the commercial market-based solution that we have been able to broker, all creditors have behaved responsibly, but, understandably, if anyone thinks the Government will come along and give them free money, they will hold out for that option. That was why it was so important to make that decision early on to secure this far better outcome.
On the specific question, and I should have directed my answer to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), there is no change to the UK-based content of the contract. As I said in the statement, there have been some changes on commercial terms, although they are relatively minor based on the overall value of the contract.
On the future, I can tell the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) that the deal we have brokered guarantees not only all four yards, but the jobs in the Belfast yard for three years and jobs in the three other yards for two years. We therefore have a chance not just for new investment coming into those yards, but for the long-term future to be secured for a pipeline of work and energy and defence contracts, which is a vibrant and successful opportunity for the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who has up to two minutes.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
This is an outstanding Christmas present for the 1,000 employees from Devon to the Isle of Lewis who will benefit from this decision and the deal that has been pulled off by the Government. In the west country, we have a low-wage economy, and in the Appledore dockyard, which is not too far from my constituency of Torbay, this will go down extremely well, so congratulations are in order. That is in sharp contrast with the failure of the previous Administration on implementing an industrial strategy, supporting our shipping industry and growing our economy over many years. The position that the Conservatives are taking now is utterly shameful. How can we hardwire that long-term support for our shipping industry so that we see growth in this area and support for industries such as steel manufacturing?
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I add my congratulations to the Government for getting this agreement over the line, but when will we get their defence industrial strategy? So far we have had only a rather lengthy statement of intent. We need to reindustrialise our defence industrial base in order to face modern challenges, and that is particularly essential given the threats we face from the east of Europe at this time. That is very difficult to do in government, because the Treasury hates his stuff, as the Secretary of State may already have discovered, but we will hold him to account on what he described as leading this sector into future growth, and indeed on reindustrialising our steel industrial base and so on, so that we have the self-sufficiency that is vital for the defence of the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I encourage the Secretary of State to be brave in responding to the point about the Treasury.
Jonathan Reynolds
Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I very much welcome the question and would like to put on the record that I have only good things to say about His Majesty’s Treasury at all times. [Laughter.] It is true; I mean that. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there is great imperative—with a particular degree of responsibility in the defence part of the industrial strategy—in the challenges we face. It is imperative not just that we work closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence on procurement issues and Government-to-Government sales, in which my Department plays a major role, but that we address wider regulatory issues.
As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Department recently did work on environmental, social and governance criteria to ensure that they do not prevent investment into defence companies. There are issues with small and medium-sized enterprises in the defence sector struggling to access bank accounts—not through a prohibition on defence, but perhaps because of a lack of understanding about such commercial contracts being different from those in other parts of the economy. There are a whole range of issues that we must get right, but I think that, in the main, Members across the House share his aspirations and objectives. He has been a voice of expertise and authority on these issues throughout my time in Parliament, and I am grateful for his engagement on them.
Jonathan Reynolds
I recognise the role that shipbuilding has played in my hon. Friend’s city. I grew up in Sunderland —part of what was once one of the major civil shipbuilding locations in the world—and I recognise the identity and pride that comes with that industrial heritage. In many cases, people feel that it is something of the past, but in this statement we are stressing exactly what she said about the contemporary contribution and the opportunities for the future, about which we should be excited. There are a whole range of increasing needs to shipbuilding expertise, particularly in the energy sector—offshore wind, for example, creates a range of demand for different types of maintenance and supply vessels—so this should be an optimistic story for the future. Sometimes I feel that the wider British public perhaps do not understand the number of jobs or the economic benefit that come from such a sector, so it is always good to make that case from the Dispatch Box—as my hon. Friend does every day from the Back Benches.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call John Cooper, a member of the Business and Trade Committee.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I congratulate this Front-Bench team and the wider Government on landing this deal in the face of what the Secretary of State has euphemistically called the “headwinds” —I would call them a full-force gale—created by the Budget. Did Navantia raise concerns about the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill? It swings the pendulum very much in favour of trade unions, which, as we know, are very often red in tooth and claw. Was that an issue in landing the deal?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments on the deal and for his observations about the questions from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman about the 2.5% target. On the modern industrial strategy that we are creating, we have had an incredible response to our Green Paper—some 22,000 individual answers to the questions it asked—showing that there is a huge appetite from industry across the board, both in the UK and abroad, to engage with what the Government are seeking to do. Again, I stress that that should always be on a cross-party basis; there is nothing in that Green Paper that anyone of any political stripe should be able to oppose. It is based on our national interest and the goal of being more competitive and business-friendly, succeeding to a greater degree on the world stage.
This week, we had our first meeting of the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council, with some tremendous representatives with expertise across the board—UK industry, academics and business figures. It is an incredibly exciting time. This is just one component of our growth mission, but clearly an important one, alongside areas of work for me such as the small business plan that we are putting together. I genuinely believe that everyone should be excited about the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Alison Griffiths, a member of the Select Committee.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will have noticed that the Secretary of State did not answer one question, which was whether he would clarify that the final assembly and systems integration will take place in Belfast, rather than in the Navantia shipyards in Spain.
Future of the Post Office
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
With permission, I will make a statement on the Post Office. Frankly, the Government inherited a Post Office that is simply not fit for purpose, following disinterest from the previous Government, a toxic culture in head office and years of under-investment.
Our top priority remains delivering redress to those affected by the Horizon scandal. We have already taken significant steps to increase the payment of redress, which has nearly doubled under this Government. Let me be clear with the House, though. There are still complex cases to resolve, and we have identified gaps in the compensation process, but we are beginning to make progress. As of 31 October, £438 million has been paid to over 3,100 claimants. In July, we launched the new Horizon convictions redress scheme for victims whose convictions were overturned by legislation, and we have announced our intention to set up an appeals system for the much-criticised Horizon shortfall scheme.
We were clear in our manifesto that we will work to strengthen the post office network in consultation with postmasters, trade unions and customers. The post office network provides critical services that are valued by communities across the whole of the UK. Their essential services go beyond post; they provide access to cash, banking and other financial services too. This Government recognise that access to cash remains particularly important to millions of people across the UK. Through its network of 11,500 branches across the UK, the Post Office continues to provide vital banking services to communities and businesses alike through the banking framework, and to protect access to cash.
I know how highly this House rightly values postmasters and what they provide day in and day out to the communities they serve, but we have to recognise that the Post Office is far from perfect. We have seen this from the evidence given at the inquiry. It is clear that there needs to be a significant cultural change at the Post Office to ensure that it genuinely prioritises the needs of postmasters and delivers customers’ needs far into the future. It is also clear that more needs to be done to rebuild trust within the business and with the public who depend on its services. It is also no secret that the business is facing commercial challenges. Nearly half of its branches are not profitable or only make a small profit from the Post Office business, postmaster pay has not increased materially for a decade, and the company has a high cost base and needs to transform its IT system.
Earlier today, Nigel Railton set out his ambition for the future of the Post Office, in his role as its chair. Postmasters have to be placed front and centre of the Post Office, and we agree that the culture of Post Office headquarters, in particular, needs to change fundamentally to deliver that. As part of this, the Post Office plans to reduce central costs and look seriously at other ways to deliver efficiencies, which should enable real-terms increases in postmaster pay.
Mr Railton’s ambitions are a new deal for postmasters that puts postmasters at the heart of the Post Office. There will be stronger postmaster engagement in the running of the business. As part of this, a new postmaster panel will be established to enable current postmasters to work with the company to improve the support and training provided to postmasters. The Post Office will also set up a new consultative council that will work with the Post Office’s senior management on how these new plans are taken forward, to provide genuine challenge and maintain focus on the needs of postmasters. Mr Railton’s plan seeks to makes changes to the business, with the ambition of significantly increasing postmaster remuneration, and it sets out an intention to transform the service and support that postmasters receive from the Post Office.
No decisions to close any or all of the remaining directly managed branches have been taken. The Post Office will continue to deliver on the 11,500 minimum branches requirement set by Government. We have made it clear to the Post Office that we expect it to consult postmasters, trade unions and other stakeholders before any individual decisions are taken. Aspects of the plans are also subject to Government funding and the outcomes of the upcoming spending review.
Lastly, we have already set out our plan to publish a Green Paper to consult the public on the long-term future of the Post Office, not least on how it should be governed after a decade of decline. Doing nothing at the Post Office is simply not an option. There is more work to be done, but there has to be change. I commend this statement to the House.
Gareth Thomas
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for some of his comments. I am happy to confirm that I will keep the House updated on work around the future of the Post Office, as well as, even more importantly, on the work to ensure that all those sub-postmasters who were the victims of the Horizon scandal get full and fair redress. On that point, I should say at the outset that I have met a series of sub-postmasters who were victims of the Horizon scandal, and each of them certainly left their mark on me. Their stories will stay with me for a very long time, and in that regard I am sure that I speak for the whole House, given the conversations that Members have had with individual sub-postmasters in their constituencies. I am therefore acutely aware of my responsibility, and the Government’s responsibility more generally, to follow through on our commitment to speed up redress.
The number of cases that have been settled with full and fair compensation has nearly doubled in the four months since we came into government, compared with the four months before. We have taken a series of additional steps to try to make it easier for sub-postmasters who were the victims of the scandal to get full and fair redress quickly, not least by fixing some payments for those applying under the Horizon shortfall scheme and similarly fixing some payments under the Horizon convictions redress scheme, which we launched back in July.
The hon. Gentleman’s wider point about the Budget’s impact on the high street sounded like he was replaying his lines from last week’s Budget debate. I recall him being the right-hand man to Kwasi Kwarteng, who helped to do huge damage to businesses up and down the country and helped to drive interest rates to a 16-year high, so I gently suggest that he has more work to do to be convincing on his support for businesses.
I hope the hon. Gentleman is willing to take responsibility for another impact, because more than 9,500 bank branches have closed over the past 14 years, which has had a considerable impact on the future of the high street. With Nigel Railton, our plan is to improve banking services and to roll out banking hubs, which I hope will make a significant difference.
On the Budget more generally, given the financial mess in which the Conservatives left the country and given the lack of money set aside for Horizon compensation, I think the hon. Gentleman should be a little more honest to this House about his responsibility for the scale of the mess we inherited.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Today is the last day of the Horizon inquiry. I look forward to working with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and with colleagues across the House to explore appropriate sanctions for those who clearly misled us as the scandal unfolded. I look forward to seeing the Minister and the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), before the Committee on Tuesday 19 November to explore how redress payments can be paid faster.
It is surely right that we aim to grow the top line of Post Office businesses, which has to mean that high street banks contribute more to the core business. What steps can the Minister take to ensure this happens?
Gareth Thomas
I welcome that the Committee’s first act is to look at redress for sub-postmasters who were victims of the Horizon scandal. I will happily appear next week to talk through where we are on compensation payments.
My right hon. Friend is right to say that one of the bright spots in the Post Office’s future lies in banking, and the continuing commitment of its sub-postmasters is the brightest spot. With the right support from the financial services industry, there is clearly more that the Post Office could offer on the high street through banking hubs and the post office network. We will work with the Post Office, and the banks have a particular responsibility, given how many bank branches have closed, to work constructively with the Post Office to improve the banking offer on the high street.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
I also thank the Minister for his statement.
Post Office branches across the UK are a vital part of our local communities and high streets, with millions of people depending on them, especially in more rural areas of the south-west, such as my constituency. The news that 115 branches and around 1,000 jobs could be at risk is extremely concerning. I am pleased to hear the Minister’s reassurances, but the organisation needs reform. Local communities cannot be left without the essential services that post offices offer, especially as we see high street banks disappear. The Government must guarantee that local services and post office jobs are protected.
We also urge the Government to take action to set the Post Office on a sustainable footing for the long term. The Liberal Democrats have put forward a proposal for mutualisation of the Post Office, which would give sub-postmasters more independence and control. We should encourage post offices to play a more active role in our local economies, acting, as Members have mentioned previously, as community banking hubs and Government services hubs.
These post offices are often the only non-digital places where a local community can access Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency services and passport services, or to prepay for their utility bills. These post offices are essential for some of our more elderly and vulnerable residents.
The Government have announced that they are looking into broader reform of the organisation, and they will produce a Green Paper next year. Will the Minister assure the House that these proposals, including mutualisation and strengthening the services provided by post offices, will be properly considered so that we can ensure post offices are fit for the future?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a final quick point—
Gareth Thomas
I underline that no decision has been taken on any or all the directly managed branches. However, these branches cost significantly more to run than those run by franchisees. We have made it clear to the Post Office that, as it reviews these costs, it must talk to sub-postmasters, trade unions and other stakeholders.
The more general point about ensuring that people in rural areas can access a post office branch is well understood within the Department and across Government. There has been no decision to change the commitment to run 11,500 branches or to change the level of Government funding provided to run the network across the country.
I agree with the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) that the Post Office can do more. That is one reason why we committed in opposition—and are delivering in government—to rolling out more banking hubs, which will be run by the Post Office. She made an interesting point about digital exclusion and the Post Office’s potential to do more in that regard.
Lastly, given my background, I am interested in mutualisation, but I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that there are significant challenges in determining whether mutualisation is a realistic possibility at this stage. One reason for our commitment to publishing a Green Paper next year is to explore these issues in more detail.
Gareth Thomas
I am acutely aware of the responsibility of Government to ensure that every community has access to a post office branch. That is why we are continuing to provide a £50 million subsidy to the Post Office to maintain the network going forward. It is also why we think the Post Office should do more when it comes to providing banking services—it is one of the potential areas for it to grow its business. In that regard, given the retreat of bank branches from constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s, we absolutely think that the banks should work directly with the Post Office to improve the banking offer in all our communities.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It would help if the Minister occasionally looked at the Chair and kept his answers short so that we can get everybody in.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
In my constituency, there is real concern about the loss of more rural and village branches. Can the Minister give us some assurance that he will do everything that he can to preserve this vital link and that he will look at how the Post Office can operate more like a commercial franchise operator, which would support and help postmasters to really maximise their business?
Gareth Thomas
The situation the hon. Lady describes is exactly why I welcome the fact that the new management of the Post Office is putting the issue of sub-postmaster pay front and centre in its thinking. If we do not do something to shift sub-postmaster pay upwards, we will see more sub-postmasters making the sorts of decisions that she describes. We must do something urgently to address this. The Post Office management and chair are rightly homing in on that question as fundamental to the future of the Post Office. As I have underlined, I think there is more that the Post Office could do on banking; that view is certainly shared by the Post Office senior management team, and we are working directly with them to see what more can be done.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
If everybody gives short questions—and short answers, Minister—we can get this done in the next 15 minutes.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
My constituents in Crowthorne are rightly proud of our high street, but as there is no direct access on that street to banking services or a post office branch, they struggle to access vital services. Does the Minister agree that today’s announcement highlights the need to roll out more banking hubs, while setting out a viable future for post offices, so that communities such as mine can access the vital services they need?
Pubs Code: Guest Beers
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Minns
I agree with my hon. Friend. From March next year, pub tenants just 700 yards from my constituency will be able to open up a direct relationship with local breweries such as those that my hon. Friend referred to and have beer from small independent breweries served to their customers. The Scottish pubs code, championed by the Labour MSP for West Scotland, who brought it forward as a Member’s Bill, is due to be introduced in 2025. It is similar in many respects to our own pubs code, which governs England and Wales, but for one crucial element. In regulating the relationship between tied pub landlords and tenants, it aims to promote fairness and equitable treatment within tied pub lease agreements. It also allows Scottish pub tenants to enter into a guest beer agreement whereby the tenant can sell at least one beer in any format—including cask and keg —chosen by them at a price they determine. They can change that as frequently as they wish. The beer must be of a brand where less than 5,000 hectolitres—I am reliably told that is about 875,000 pints—was produced in the previous production year. That means that it is beer from small local breweries that qualifies and not that from the larger breweries.
That will empower tenants, allowing them to respond to their customers’ requests, and support small local breweries. Introducing a guest beer agreement in the rest of the UK could be worth £28 million to local breweries. It would widen consumer choice, help landlords and support small local businesses, so I am delighted that the Chancellor and Ministers have been watching developments in Scotland closely and promised in the Budget last month a consultation on ways to encourage small breweries to retain and expand their access to UK pubs. The consultation provides an opportunity to maximise consumer choice and support local businesses by enabling more guest beers. It is an important development, and it shows that the Government want local community businesses to have the opportunity to compete, grow and expand.
As we have heard, 78% of the beer sold in our pubs comes from just five global brewing companies. In comparison, our 1,700 small breweries represent only about 6% of the market. That needs to be urgently reviewed to ensure that there is a level playing field where small businesses can compete fully.
On that point, I congratulate the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates on the launch of its new “indie beer” campaign, which seeks to make it easier for beer drinkers to identify beer from independent breweries in pubs, bars and shops as demand for local beer rises across the UK. Research shows that most beer drinkers are unaware that the mass-marketed craft beer brands that we see in our pubs across the UK are in fact owned by global brewers. A good example of that from my own county is Wainwright beer. Inspired by the chronicler of our famous Cumbrian fells, the name Wainwright is synonymous with the county of Cumbria, and that leads many visitors to believe that they are sampling a locally brewed beer when they come to Cumbria; in fact, it is just one of a range of beers produced by the global beer company Carlsberg. The majority of beer consumers say that they want to buy beer from genuinely independent local breweries. I believe that SIBA’s campaign will help many more do just that.
These issues are wider than just the tenanted pub market, with small breweries facing restrictions in the leased, managed and free house pub markets as well. Perversely, many free houses are not free at all when it comes to beer. Sole supply contracts with global breweries are prevalent, restricting and determining what beers can be sold. Increasingly, these global breweries are also using proprietary equipment in pubs, which prevents a local brewery from even being able to connect their casks to the pub and offer their products to the landlord at all.
Publicans, brewers and beer consumers in my constituency hope that the Minister will be able to start the consultation process as soon as possible. I wonder whether the Minister may be able to offer some clarity on when that might commence, so that all interested parties can have the opportunity to provide their insights and experiences. It would also be appreciated if he could confirm that this will include issues experienced right across the UK, including in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Will it also look at the whole pub market, including tenanted, leased, managed and free houses? Will it include both keg and cask draught beer, which is predominately sold in our pubs?
Finally, will the Minister look closely at the Scottish guest beer agreement to see whether its provisions could be included in our own pubs code for England and Wales, perhaps as part of the statutory review of the pubs code, which I understand is due next year? Should the Minister ever find time in his busy diary, I would like to invite him to visit my constituency to meet some of my local breweries and to join me for a drink—albeit not a locally brewed one—in the Border Reiver, the last pub in Britain to have been designed, funded and built by the UK Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the Minister, I have been updated on the recent wedding this weekend of the hon. Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey). I congratulate him, and I understand that his husband Ben has been waiting quite some time to see his new husband. That is some pressure for the Minister.