Miners and Mining Communities

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I commend the hon. Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Leigh (James Grundy) on securing this excellent debate, in which we have heard some common themes. I also thank the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on coalfield communities, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for driving forward its excellent work.

I am struck by the sense of pride expressed by everyone who has taken part in this debate, whether it is the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who has first-hand experience at the coalface, or the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather) who, being chronologically challenged through no fault of his own, has no such experience, although that does not diminish how we all feel about the communities we represent. I grew up in a mining community, and that sense of community is part of us, which is very evident from everyone who has taken part today.

I therefore welcome the opportunity to sum up this debate for the Scottish National party. As Members will probably be aware, I have made many contributions in this Chamber about my constituency and its rich mining history, which dates back to the 12th century, when the monks at Newbattle abbey first began extracting coal. By the 20th century, mining was an integral part of my community’s way of life. Midlothian was home to a range of pits, with probably the best known being Bilston Glen and Monktonhall. We also had the first Victorian super-pit, the Lady Victoria, which is still the home of the National Mining Museum Scotland. Again, I extend an invitation to Members to visit it, as it is an excellent facility. It was opened by my predecessor, David Hamilton, also a former miner. It was the UK’s first single facility for understanding and commemorating the mining industry and so is an excellent attraction that people can come to see any time they visit Midlothian.

We heard a lot today about the fact that we are marking the 40th anniversary of the miners’ strike of the 1980s, which left a scar in many communities across Scotland and the rest of the UK. Its unique set of circumstances saw entire communities defending their way of life and their jobs against a UK Tory Government who seemed determined to bring them to their knees and deployed the forces of the state to meet that end. As was narrated in the John Scott KC review in 2020, which was commissioned by the Scottish Government, some miners were dismissed notwithstanding the fact that they had been admonished in court. Dismissal brought with it financial hardship, with loss of income and pension rights, and difficulties for many in obtaining future employment. Above all, miners and their families lost their good name and their respectability as honest hard-working men doing dangerous jobs. That loss was perhaps the deepest one, cutting them hardest and being the hardest to bear.

The corrosive and bitter scars left by the impact of that Thatcher Government on once-proud mining communities, which felt abandoned by the state, are there for all to see. That is why I, along with many others, have called many times for a full inquiry into exactly what happened at that time. We have heard the calls for justice for Orgreave again today. We need to understand, and our communities need to understand, what political influence was exerted at that time and what political interference took place in respect of the actions and decisions of Thatcher’s Government.

[Peter Grant]

I recall realising at the time that Ian MacGregor, the chair of the National Coal Board, had worked out that if a way could be found to sack somebody for gross misconduct, that would be a lot cheaper than paying them the redundancy payments to which they were entitled. Does my hon. Friend believe that one day we will find that that was a matter of policy on behalf of the NCB?

[Owen Thompson]

I truly hope that we do, because only when we get the answers to these questions—the honest answers from Government—can our communities and those directly involved truly move forward. I accept that we are not talking about decisions made by this Government, but it would be for them to take the opportunity to start that inquiry so that we can get those answers.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

We are about to have a debate about BBC bias. I was a young correspondent at that time and I recall just how biased a lot of the coverage was. We constantly saw things from the police’s point of view, but never saw things from the miners’ point of view. What lessons does my hon. Friend think there are to learn from any inquiry on press and media coverage during that strike?

[Owen Thompson]

As we heard from others earlier in the debate, it is important that all sides are reflected and that the reality of the situation is reflected. I am perhaps proud to say that I am too young to remember watching much of the coverage live at the time, although I have watched the more recent documentaries, so I cannot speak directly about my experiences of what was broadcast at the time.

That moves me on to how proud I am that the Scottish Parliament has—unanimously, I believe—introduced a pardon for miners who were convicted of certain offences during the miners’ strike. However, I am frustrated that we have not seen more action taken to do the same here. Miners and those who were involved in the strike in my constituency, in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar), and in those of other colleagues in Scotland, cannot get the compensation that I feel they deserve until we have a UK-wide pardon in place.

That is why I took the unusual step of introducing my Miners’ Strike (Pardons) Bill in this place. I hope that Members across the Chamber will support it. It has been drafted, so all the Government need to do is support it and we could put that pardon in place to mirror the one established by the Scottish Government. I hope we will see that happen. I genuinely hope that if this Government do not do that, the next one will. However, I wrote to the right hon. Member for Islington North about my Bill in December and I have not yet received a response. [Interruption.] Sorry, not Islington North—I meant the leader of the Labour party. I can’t keep up with these London constituencies! I have had no reply from him in support of my Bill and that is deeply disappointing. I hope that enough colleagues on the Labour Benches will have a word in his ear to make sure that that pardon is introduced.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd highlighted the work of the all-party parliamentary group on coalfield communities and the “State of the Coalfields 2024” report. That excellent report has gone into a lot of depth on the issues that our coalfield communities still face. The inquiry received more than 70 submissions from across Scotland, England and Wales. I am glad that the Scottish Government, local authorities, and the voluntary and community sectors all contributed to that. It is important that where we have an evidence base such as this, we look at it in a lot of detail and understand better what it means for each of our communities.

Like so many others, I am deeply disappointed by the lack of levelling up and the fact that for many of our communities, it feels as though that has simply been a Government slogan. We need funding to shore up our coalfield communities and stop them falling further behind. I have always said that there needs to be a more even and balanced distribution of the UK’s prosperity; we cannot just have it all driven into one place, and our coalfields need it far more than most. The pit closures left a lasting legacy of social and economic damage. That resulted from decisions made in this place and it is up to this place to do much, much more to deal with it. Midlothian and other mining communities must benefit from any new funds and initiatives that could help to boost recovery.

Finally, I come to another issue that has been touched on by many Members: the miners’ pension. I commend the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) for her work in driving forward the review on that. It is long overdue that these recommendations are implemented; the BEIS Committee report from 2021 needs to be implemented now. Our miners deserve fairness. The 50% surplus arrangement has been in place since 1994. We have heard about figures such as £4.8 billion and rising, without even adjusting it for inflation. That money should be going to our miners—at the very least, it should be going into our coalfield communities. It is outrageous that it is taking so long to implement this. We need it to happen as soon as possible.

A number of miners, including my constituent Ally, have encountered a situation where they were mis-sold pension products from their miners’ pensions. Despite trying endlessly to get an outcome on that, they have found that the companies involved have often gone bust and tracking them down is a massive issue for anyone. I ask the Minister to relay to the Treasury the need for greater understanding of the impact this is having on former miners and the need for a further look at what is possible when that situation arises. I will certainly continue to try to bring that about.

Today’s debate has been excellent. It has shown the spirit that is still there in our mining communities; it is not going away any time soon and we will all continue to campaign for justice for our miners.

High Streets

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) for securing this debate. It is a great opportunity for us all to highlight our amazing local high streets.

The last debate that I led in this place, back in March 2020 before the pandemic, was on the impact of bank branch closures on the high street. Town centres were already struggling to remain vibrant in the face of changing shopping habits, reduced services and falling footfall. Nobody could have predicted the covid tsunami that they were about to face, making tackling those challenges far more urgent. Sir John Timpson, who led the high streets experts panel in 2018, said that we have seen 10 years of change in one go, with all the negatives but without the positives. It has been absolutely brutal, with well-kent names falling like dominoes and nothing to replace them.

As spending on online retailers accelerates, whatever plans we have to boost the high streets need to be turbocharged—something that maybe one of Jeff Bezos’s rockets could help with. It matters for the spirit and quality of our towns, but it is also important for our covid recovery. We know that money spent locally in high streets is money that stays in the local economy and is not left to languish in some offshore tax haven.

There is a need to level the playing field. I welcome one measure being explored by the Scottish Government—the possibility of a national digital sales tax, which would be well worth exploration much wider afield. Much work needed on support for high streets is, rightly, devolved—the more local the better, for finding solutions that work for any given town.

Scotland’s share of any funding pot for town centre regeneration must be devolved to the Scottish Government, so that they can pursue their well-considered plans. These measures include the town centre action plan, the “Scotland Loves Local” campaign and the focus on developing more 20-minute neighbourhoods—liveable, accessible places where people can meet their needs within a 20-minute walk. Direct funding, as this Government seem so increasingly keen to pursue, reduces the impact and cohesiveness of that kind of work, muddying the field to no one’s benefit. We need much more local decision making.

Although our high streets must evolve and adapt, the good news is that we see many towns successfully bucking trends and local businesses thriving, but in a time of crisis, we need decisive action, support and strong local leadership. Above all, finding the best way forward must involve the community. There is not a one-size-fits-all solution, as every town will have its own unique history and its own strengths and traditions. Communities must be consulted meaningfully and involved in plans at every stage. We need leadership from ourselves and from our local councils.

In my local area, in Penicuik, we have seen local leadership driving forward the business improvement district, which has been highly successful. We have seen a real change in that community over recent years, although there is much still be done. In the county town of Midlothian, Dalkeith—as a former council leader, I should declare an interest—we had a vision when I was council leader. I used to have meetings in the office. People would come into Midlothian House and would look out the window at the centre of Dalkeith and everyone would pretty much say, “Is there not something we can do about that?” We eventually said, “Yes, let’s do something about it. Let us start with a blank sheet of paper.” We started looking into feasibility studies. Unfortunately, it was opposed by the opposition at the time. Subsequent to the change of administration after the 2017 council elections in Scotland, those plans were effectively burned. The importance of looking at what we can do now is even more critical.

The town centre in Dalkeith has been neglected for years and urgently needs a clear plan to support its regeneration. Instead, something that resembles a dog’s dinner is being taken forward by the current council. Ideas have been developed by a local community group, One Dalkeith, which has genuinely reached out to the local community to engage and to take on board its thoughts and views. I urge the council to look back at what the community wants to see happening, rather than following through on its current plans to abandon Dalkeith by closing all the council offices there, in a move that would ultimately devastate the town centre.

Midlothian is a fantastic place. It is little wonder that it is one of the fastest growing parts of Scotland, if not the fastest growing. We need more homes—that is absolutely true—but we also need proper consideration of public spaces and facilities and the needs of our communities. The energy and talent of people who live and work in our communities must be harnessed as we rebuild, to make sure that our town centres and our communities can continue to thrive.

National Security and Investment Bill

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]]

I again thank colleagues in the other place who have worked tirelessly to improve the Bill.

Labour is the party of national security and has long called for a new regime to deal with the evolving national security threat arising from mergers and acquisitions, as the Bill seeks to do. The Bill was much improved in Committee, as the Minister acknowledged in Monday’s debate; however, as Members from all parties highlighted then, it still lacks an appropriate level of oversight for critical national security decisions. Labour believes that Intelligence and Security Committee scrutiny is essential to provide the robust and sensitive oversight and accountability that matters of national security require. The Bill gives significant new powers to BEIS, a Department traditionally lacking in national security experience.

On Monday, as the Minister indicated, the Government rejected Lords amendments 11 and 15, stating that

“it is appropriate and sufficient for oversight and scrutiny of decisions made by the Secretary of State for BEIS to be conducted by their departmental select committee”—

that is, the BEIS Committee. The Lords have responded with amendments 11B and 11C, which would allow the Government to add the Investment Security Unit into the Government and ISC memorandum of understanding, thereby removing the obligation to provide the ISC with a confidential annexe.

We maintain our position: that the BEIS Committee does not have the security clearance necessary to provide scrutiny. In Monday’s debate, the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), said clearly that the Committee

“does not have the access to the intelligence information that it would need in order to adequately scrutinise the Investment Security Unit in the BEIS Department.”—[Official Report, 26 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 164.]

As the Minister indicated, the Secretary of State has said that classified information could be shared with the BEIS Committee on a case-by-case basis, but the retaining, recording, discussing or reporting of that information after the fact would constitute a security breach, somewhat limiting the Committee’s actions.

In this afternoon’s debate in the other place, the Government said that they will “carefully consider” ways in which classified information could be provided so that the Committee can do its job. Why do we need careful consideration when we have, through the Intelligence and Security Committee, an existing and functioning mechanism for parliamentary scrutiny on issues of national security? Earlier this afternoon, the Government were again defeated in the other place, this time by an even greater margin, showing that, despite the Minister’s efforts, support for Intelligence and Security Committee oversight is growing. I feel that it is becoming an issue of intransigence and stubbornness—or, as former Conservative Health Secretary Lord Lansley put it today, “arrogance”—by a Government refusing to prioritise national security in the National Security and Investment Bill, and determined to overturn common sense for reasons that are unclear to us all.

It is clear to us that there is a need for Intelligence and Security Committee oversight. Indeed the Chair of the ISC, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), said:

“The setting up of the new Investment Security Unit in BEIS”—

a function of this Bill—

“is…precisely the situation that the Government assured the House”—[Official Report, 26 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 157.]

would mean that there was ISC oversight, under the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the ISC. Today’s amendment provides for ISC scrutiny until an amended MOU resolves the confusion that appears to exist—on the Government’s part, at least.

If the Government are serious about protecting the UK’s national security through this Bill, they will not force through legislation with such a significant blind spot. Labour, the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, many Government Back Benchers and cross-party consensus in the other place all agree that the ISC is best placed to provide national security oversight. Why are the Government determined to stand alone in risking our national security in this case?

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I will be very brief. Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) made the case very clearly that we broadly support the principles of the Bill, but still have concerns over the levels of scrutiny, as we have heard from other Members. We have attempted to be constructive at all stages, and have tried to support the Government to find a balance between the needs of business and national security, particularly in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises.

Many amendments have been accepted, which will help to achieve this; we welcome the Government’s steps in that regard. However, the scrutiny process remains vital and we are not yet satisfied that it has been taken fully into consideration. The comments made by the Chair of the ISC earlier this week certainly highlighted that. I urge the Government to heed those words and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South.

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions and considerations in this debate and others. I will make a couple of brief points in response.

The nub of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) was the question of whether the BEIS Committee will have access to top secret information. We will make sure that the Committee has the information it needs to fulfil its remit and scrutinise the work of the ISU under the NSI regime. Much of the information is unlikely to be highly classified, but where the Committee’s questioning touches on areas of high classification, it is likely that relevant information could be given in a way that does not require as high a level of classification, and that this could be provided to the Committee on a confidential basis. If, however, the Committee does require access to highly classified information, we will carefully consider how best to provide this while maintaining information security in close collaboration with the Committee’s Chair.

The Government’s main powers to scrutinise and intervene in mergers and acquisitions for national security reasons comes from the Enterprise Act 2002. The powers under the Act sit with the Secretaries of State for BEIS and for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, not with the Cabinet Office. The BEIS Committee’s oversight of the new NSI regime is entirely in keeping with this and does not represent a reduction in the ISC’s remit, so there is no barrier to the Committee handling top secret or other sensitive material, subject to the agreement of the Department and the Chair of the Committee on appropriate handling.

This House should continue its excellent work of speeding this Bill towards becoming law for the benefit of the UK’s world-leading investment environment, as well as of protecting the nation’s security. I therefore urge the House to disagree with the Lords in their amendments 11B and 11C.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 11B and 11C.

Greensill Capital

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

What I can do is explain the difference between an output and an outcome. An output means that any number of meetings, any number of requests— unless you block the number, any Minister will receive those texts. An outcome is what actually happens as a result, and I was absolutely clear that the Chancellor rejected what was put forward by Greensill and rejected what was put forward by David Cameron.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

This process is just another example of where covid contracts are becoming a genuine source of public concern. The allegations are further undermining public confidence and cultivating among the public a feeling of suspicion about all the activities of this Government. How do the Government propose to rebuild public trust in the wake of the emergence of yet another scandal?

[Paul Scully]

Having been in opposition at a local level, I know what causes speculation and mistrust among the public, and it is that chipping away, the politicisation of some of these issues. But the Chancellor has been particularly robust in his actions and his outcomes here. There is a review; Nigel Boardman will do his work. People have committed to be open and transparent with him, and the review will report back at the end of June, and will show results for the public to see.

Covid-19: Employment Rights

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) on initiating this important debate. I certainly note that, as the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said, the number of Members taking part shows the real importance of this issue. I also welcome my hon. Friend’s Bill—the Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) Bill—and commend that to Members, as well as the work that he is doing to end the practice of firing and rehiring.

The days of people worrying for their lives when they go to work should be long gone. Gone, too, should be the days when staff have to put up with salaries that do not pay the bills and with exploitative contracts that take advantage of job insecurities. Employers have a duty to look after their staff, and it is even more important in these difficult times that workers are properly rewarded with a real living wage and working conditions that allow them a comfortable life. It was a tough slog to get the employment rights that we enjoy in the UK, and we cannot let them be one of the casualties of this crisis.

One easy step that the Government could take would be to support the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North to stop firing and rehiring on less favourable terms. They could also ensure that employees understand their existing rights and the working mechanisms to ensure that employers meet their obligations.

It has been clear historically that many Conservative Members are not fans of workers’ rights, as many ex-mining communities such as those in my constituency will testify. More recently, with the Trade Union Act 2016, Conservatives did all they could to undermine trade unions and workers’ collective bargaining rights. Perhaps they prefer working practices to be a little like the way No.10 appears to operate: a wild west where following the rules and showing respect for others goes out the window.

The hon. Member for York Central (Rachel Maskell) referred to the rights of women and working mothers, on which I should like to focus in my comments. There are fears that, without action, this pandemic could set women’s employment back a generation. Unlike previous recessions, many of the sectors most devastated—retail and hospitality—are major employers of women. We know that women are more likely to be in insecure contracts, to have greater caring responsibilities and to be in a precarious position over coming months as jobs are on the line.

A joint report from Maternity Action, “Covid19: new and expectant mothers in the front line”, cites a TUC survey from June, when one in four pregnant women and new mothers surveyed had experienced unfair treatment or discrimination at work, including being singled out for redundancy or furlough. In the same month, a survey by the Office for National Statistics found that parents, at 13.6%, were almost twice as likely to report that they had been furloughed as workers without children, at 7.2%. I am grateful for the fact that the furlough has eventually been extended, but fears remain that many hundreds of thousands of furloughed jobs will be lost, with a new wave of discrimination when the scheme winds down.

Another private Member’s Bill that the Government could throw their weight behind was introduced by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on pregnancy and maternity protections. I certainly urge them to do so. This would be similar to the legal framework in Germany, strengthening redundancy provisions for pregnant women and new mothers and ensuring that jobs are less likely to be put unfairly at risk during maternity leave. It could be done swiftly and would benefit thousands.

Why would the Government not embrace such a cost-effective solution? In theory, extending maternity and paternity leave regulations and ensuring that a suitable alternative vacancy is offered when one is available are not without cost, but doing so has so many benefits. Women’s rights and protections when pregnant are in existing health and safety guidance, but it is worth placing that on the record because there seems to be some confusion about it in the comments of some hon. Members.

Pregnancy is not an illness: it is important that we are absolutely clear about that. The guidance, however, is often little known or understood. If pregnant employees cannot work from home, employers should undertake a risk assessment to determine what steps must be taken to make the workplace safe for them. If an employer is unable to provide a workplace that meets those requirements, a pregnant woman must be suspended on full pay.

When the UK Government gravely warned pregnant women about the dangers of the covid-19 virus, they could and should have clarified those rules. Instead, many women report being forced to take annual leave or unpaid leave or to use maternity leave early when the pandemic meant they could not safely perform their roles. Surveys have found that around half of pregnant women have had a risk assessment carried out, and equally few feel confident that their employer will, in accordance with the legislation, accommodate the outcome of the risk assessment. Surely, looking after pregnant women should be a priority of any Government or any civilised society.

The UK Government’s response to pregnant women and mothers who have been unfairly treated has been to advise them to take matters to an employment tribunal. I am delighted by this Damascene conversion to the value of employment tribunals, given that the trade unions had to drag the Government through the courts to get rid of the fees that prevented access to tribunals for those who could not afford it. Tribunals are a vital tool, but early prevention in disputes is a far better cure. So why not get the guidance right in the first place? Why not make these issues legally enforceable and put deterrents in place for bad employers? Why put all the extra stress and pressure on the employees to fight their corner and put extra pressure on a tribunal system already feeling the strain?

So far, from written questions that I have asked on these matters, very few answers have come my way and they do not offer much comfort to tax-paying workers struggling to get by while facing discriminatory practices under the cover of the current pandemic. I urge the Government to improve the commitment to employment rights, tighten up laws where necessary—we have heard a few examples today—and make sure that they really do wrap their arms around everyone by protecting them from unfair employment practices.

Covid-19: Maternity and Parental Leave

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Monday 5th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. I begin by thanking colleagues for their contributions, the petitioners for creating the petition in the first place and, in particular, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for the work of her Committee in bringing this issue to the House today. We should not underestimate the impact that the issue has on so many people. It was really encouraging to see so many sharing their experiences in record numbers with the inquiry.

Few issues can be more important to society than how we look after the health and wellbeing of pregnant women, new parents and newborn children, so it is great to see this matter prioritised on the first day back in Westminster Hall. It is a great pity that the UK Government’s response to the recommendations has so far been more of a shrug of the shoulders than a helping hand. I very much hope that the Minister is here today with renewed vigour for taking action. Simply saying that our system is among the best and most generous in the world will not really cut it for those who are struggling financially. Maternity allowances here are far from generous. Indeed, UNICEF ranks the UK among the least family-friendly of the world’s richest countries. It is a worrying thought that, unbound by EU minimums, we may see that under threat.

The Government response to this report so far suggests that they either have not grasped or are not concerned about the extent of the impact of covid-19 on the lives and livelihoods of pregnant women and new parents. It should be an easy decision to extend maternity leave by three months, at the very least, to ensure that those who have unfairly lost income, lost leave rights and lost access to health and dentistry services, to baby groups and to family and childcare support are not disadvantaged even further.

It is safe to say that the Prime Minister is in the advantageous position of undoubtedly being able to enjoy the benefits of having a newborn baby around through this period. That certainly brings much joy in a period of difficulty. However, it would be difficult to argue that he shares the experience of those who are struggling with poverty, low wages, insecure work and loss of access to healthcare support, or those facing discriminatory attitudes from an employer. We have heard from other Members about those who have seen their roles downgraded on their return.

In a survey of almost 20,000 mothers and pregnant women by the campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed, 46% of those who were being made redundant blamed the lack of childcare provision because of the covid-19 pandemic. Thousands of real experiences are summarised in this Committee report, which I hope will persuade the Minister of the need for a more sympathetic response as we look to move forward. So far, the Government have been sluggish in responding to the recommendations in the report, waiting until September before even coming out to say no to most of them. We know that they can rush to react when they want to. They did not, for example, drag their heels in any shape or form when it came to getting rid of procurement rules so that they could splash billions of pounds of public money giving questionable contracts to private companies of their choosing, regardless of evidence of ability to carry out the job.

However, when it comes to the relatively small and inexpensive fixes that would ensure fairness for pregnant women and new parents, the response is far slower. For example, making sure that guidance is clear for employers and employees would stop people struggling unnecessarily and would save on the need for costly, time-consuming tribunals. On 16 March, the Government announced that pregnant women at work were especially vulnerable, but they did nothing to make clear the legal obligations under existing health and safety rules—that, if alternative safe work or working from home could not be secured for those women, they should be suspended on full pay. Instead, many were wrongly forced on to sick pay or unpaid leave, or were forced to use up their holiday entitlement or start their maternity leave early, affecting entitlement to statutory maternity pay for many and reducing their maternity leave when they needed it most.

The Government could have prevented that, but they chose to leave those things in a murky mess, allowing pregnant women’s rights to be ignored with impunity. When I asked how many employers the Health and Safety Executive had investigated and taken enforcement action against since March for breaching obligations to pregnant women, the answer, unsurprisingly, was none.

The pandemic has been a wake-up call for so many. The Government have had the opportunity to respond to the detailed inquiry undertaken by the Petitions Committee. On 8 April, the Chancellor said:

“When you need it, when you fall on hard times, we will…be there for you.”

I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to prove through actions, not words, that they are there for new parents.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey]

Thank you, Sir Graham.

I will conclude by saying—

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Joy Morrissey]

I probably should make headway. I am trying to understand and sympathise with the amendments that have been tabled, but I do not feel that they are in any way needed to enhance what is in the Bill. I urge hon. Members to vote to keep the Bill the way it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cherilyn Mackrory]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and agree 100% with what he said. I want to confine my comments to the specific measures we are discussing today. We are here today, with this Bill progressing through the House, for exactly the reason he set out and because of the comments made at the joint committee’s negotiating table, where what I will refer to as a “foreign power”, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, is trying to interfere in our internal market. That is why we are here. While wanting to keep my comments specific, I must absolutely reiterate that point.

I am hearing what Opposition Members are saying about devolution and their fears that they are being overruled by Westminster, but that is simply not the case from what I have read in this Bill. The advice goes equally to all the devolved Administrations and all politicians get the chance to sit and scrutinise it.

[Owen Thompson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cherilyn Mackrory]

If I may, I will make some progress. I wish to talk about similarity with the Committee on Climate Change, which spoke to all the devolved Administrations and gave advice to all of them. From that advice, this Westminster Government have formed the Environment Bill, and I am happy to be serving on that Bill’s Committee—I hope it will sit later this autumn. That Bill is facing very little opposition in this place, because it is what we are calling a “broad framework”, and the semantics can be decided after, in this place and by experts in the field. Although I take a great interest in environmental issues and am passionate about them, I am not an expert and I would not expect to be. I hope that those specifics—the targets and everything else being met by that Bill—will be decided with much input from those people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alexander Stafford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but my point is that this is about equality. We are one country and one family, and everyone should be equal. The father is not superior to the mother, the wife not superior to the husband, and the husband not superior to the daughter. I do not know what sort of family the hon. Gentleman comes from, but everyone is equal in my family.

[Owen Thompson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alexander Stafford]

I have just given way, so I will make some progress first. I am mid-flow.

As I was saying, any services that are authorised in one part of the United Kingdom may be offered without any additional authorisation in all other parts of the UK. Professional qualifications issued in one part of the UK will also be recognised in all parts of the UK. This makes it easier for us to trade and work between our four great nations. The SNP’s amendment 28 goes against the fairness and terms of the Bill, and it will make trade and equality harder for everyone.

For centuries, our internal market has been at the heart of the UK’s economic and social prosperity, and it has been a source of unhindered and open trade across all four countries. Our internal market predates all other economic unions, and it has been uniquely successful in pushing forward economic progress and prosperity across the country. This Bill provides businesses with the certainty they need to grow and thrive. What is more, business organisations agree that the Bill, unamended, does so. The CBI has said that protecting the UK internal market is essential, and the Scottish Retail Consortium has said that protecting the UK internal market will mean that Scottish consumers benefit enormously. Are we honestly saying that if the amendment is accepted, Scottish consumers will benefit more? I do not think so. If the voice of business says this, we should listen to them. We are, after all, Conservatives—the party of business. Business will make us prosper.

I turn to some substantive clauses of the Bill and the nub of today’s discussions. This Bill will see the creation of an independent Office for the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority. It will be a British body monitoring British trade, putting mutual recognition and principles of non-discrimination at its heart—equality. If we are to continue with the levelling-up agenda, we must welcome the OIM, so that we have a body that ensures effective competition in every aspect of the country. It will provide balanced oversight and, ultimately, a central point for the different Parliaments to plug into, thus binding us closer together. In other words, everyone will get a say. The Parliaments and Assemblies of the country will get together to talk and work through difficulties. We will not be pulling apart; we will be coming together under this body, and that will strengthen us. That is why the SNP do not like this Bill. As the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said, they want independence, and they want us not to come together. Under this Bill, we will all come together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alexander Stafford]

I completely agree, obviously. Parliament should not be getting into this.

[Owen Thompson]

rose—

[Alexander Stafford]

I will give way in a second. Government should not get in the way of business. Business will thrive and needs to thrive. When we fully leave the European Union, we need business to thrive, and we need this internal market to be turbo-charged.

[Owen Thompson]

On interference, is it not the case that the Government are now interfering in devolution in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by imposing the Bill against the wishes of those devolved Administrations?

[Alexander Stafford]

I completely refute that point. In fact, I think the Bill will actually create a better working environment, as I said, by bringing the four components together. Since ’97, the Union has been pulling apart, and the Bill will actually bring the parties together, to talk better. That is why the SNP does not want the Bill, because the Bill actually says that we are one family. Yes, we have differences, and yes, we have different opinions, but we are a family and we need to work together. The Competition and Markets Authority is the Christmas table, bringing us all together from across the land to share the stuffed goose.

--- Later in debate ---

Unfortunately, what appears to lie behind all this is the question that has dogged this Parliament and its predecessor: who governs the United Kingdom? Is it Michel Barnier? Is it the European Community? Is it this Parliament? I believe it should be this Parliament, and the people from all the nations of this nation coming together to govern us. I hope that will be the outcome.

[Owen Thompson]

There are many things wrong with the Bill. Today, we are focused on the creation of yet another unelected body with the monitoring responsibilities to investigate devolved decisions. The current Government seem very keen on creating record numbers of unelected roles. They threatened to abolish the Electoral Commission, so we know that they do not like oversight. But yet another bureaucratic body to investigate and veto what elected politicians decide in the devolved Administrations —is that really what we need? Just because the Prime Minister, and perhaps his Government, are averse to democracy and oversight does not mean that the rest of us are.

Perhaps, if I might be so bold, this is more about the fact that the Conservative party has been unable to win an election in Scotland or Wales since 1957, yet it wants to implement its own policies in disregard of the elected wishes of the Scottish people, who democratically elect the Parliament at Holyrood. Perhaps that is what the Bill is about. Perhaps the Conservative party has taken lessons from some of the donors in the Kremlin.

This unnecessary new body will decide whether a Bill meets the new test for the internal market, putting permanent constraints on the devolved competencies of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and the Northern Ireland Assembly. We cannot support such an anti-democratic move in either principle or practice. The amendments seek to remove the Bill’s remit from Scotland. The Office for the Internal Market should not be given powers to monitor the regulatory provisions that apply in Scotland but in not the whole UK. This is nothing short of a threat to Scottish democracy.

How will the OIM’s decisions be scrutinised? Yes, a report must be lodged annually in this place, but nothing tells us at what point that will appear before Members. Will it be like an estimates day? By what process can hon. Members genuinely scrutinise the OIM’s decisions? We need to know. How can we possibly have any clarity about how this will work if we do not know the process of simple oversight and scrutiny?

The regulations proposed to set up this body are unwarranted and lack the necessary clarity about the extent of its remit, how the CMA will receive and consider proposals for investigations and essential mechanisms for democratic scrutiny of the membership and dispute resolution. At very least, it should be essential for all four Administrations to agree at every stage. As the Royal Society of Edinburgh said, the use of this authority against the wishes of the devolved Administrations constitutes a failure of intergovernmental relations.

What happened to the respect agenda? We were told we were in a Union of equals and that we were to “lead not leave”. Where has that gone? Let us make this simple: scrutiny of Bills passed at Holyrood should be undertaken in Holyrood. Transparent, proportionate processes are in place to scrutinise Bills in the Scottish Parliament and consider the input of key stakeholders, including business, public authorities and the public. Replacing that with an unelected body and an unclear process is a retrograde step for transparency in our democracy. It could result in vested interests with financial clout having undue influence, or in regulators challenging the decisions of our elected representatives.

We hear a lot about unelected bureaucrats—we had a lesson from my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), who highlighted that some of the so-called unelected bureaucrats are in fact elected—but this is a genuinely unelected quango. There is no need for the creation of a new body that could scupper much of the excellent evidence-based policy work that has served Scotland so well. Policies such as the minimum unit pricing of alcohol and maintaining free higher education pose no threat to the integrity of the Union, but could fall foul of the rules for this new internal market.

[Alyn Smith]

I commend my hon. Friend on a powerful speech. Does he share my concern that as well as the general structure of this body, it is beyond ludicrous that at this late stage, we still do not know who these individuals will be, how they will be appointed, who they will serve and what policy they will implement?

[Owen Thompson]

Indeed. Hon. Members could be forgiven for thinking that the Bill was being rushed through without a huge amount of thought behind it—not that I would ever suggest any such thing.

The premise of the internal market on which the Bill is based is false. It seems to regard differences in policy decisions taken across different parts of the countries and nations as somehow a bad thing or an irritating bump in the road that somehow has to be smoothed out. That is devolution. The point and principle of devolution is that decisions can be made in a devolved Administration. It was designed to respect localised democracy and better meet differing priorities in different parts of the United Kingdom. Instead, under the Bill, the centralising tendencies of this unequal Union are being put into overdrive.

The Scottish Government have always recognised the importance of free trade across the isles. We have a system in place to govern trading arrangements across the UK, consisting of reserved and devolved competences. Where work is at an intersection of EU law, the four Governments can and should work jointly through the common framework process, although that involves concepts that might be difficult for Government Members to grasp: mutual trust, respect and constructive dialogue, none of which are evident in this Bill. These processes are already there to ensure the continued frictionless trade across the UK that we all want to see, and the Scottish Government happily signed up to this process—it is the correct way to proceed.

The Bill is a political move to curb the power of the devolved Administration, and if this Government continue to seek to guarantee the controlled right of UK companies to trade unhindered in every part of the UK, they should get on with it and use the processes that are already there. The processes in this Bill mean that private health companies or private water companies operating in other parts of the country could soon have a guarantee to work in Scotland, where these things are run by public companies. This is a constitutional and legislative mess.

The Bill is a blatant political move to scupper those rebellious Scots, who just do not seem to fall for the Prime Minister’s charms. He is throwing his toys out of the pram, taking a huff and saying, “It’s ma baw and ye cannae have it.” The Prime Minister had the brass neck to pretend yesterday that each devolved Administration will be “fully and equally involved” in monitoring the internal market, despite sovereignty resting wholly with the Westminster Government. If he is speaking in good faith—it could happen—Conservative Members will back our amendments tonight. They would at least require the approval of devolved Administrations, bringing at least a degree of democracy and accountability to what is, in effect, an unelected body. Surely, that has to be a simple thing to support.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I rise to speak to Liberal Democrat amendment 21, new clause 1 and new clause 4. It will come as no surprise to this House that I have serious concerns about the Bill. As a Liberal Democrat, I believe passionately in devolution; the role of our regional governments in powering their communities is vital. If unamended, the Bill undermines that key function. Government must work for the whole UK. Food standards are a key example in that regard, and I am sure that most, if not all, Members of this House have been contacted by their constituents on maintaining our higher food standards. It is unacceptable that the Government should compromise on standards or harm British farmers by ramming through a damaging trade deal against the wishes of at least one of the nations of this United Kingdom—it is also unacceptable for all our constituents. The Government must co-operate with our devolved Administrations, and I urge Members from all parts of the House to support our amendments, which will strengthen our devolved Administrations.

This is my first speech on this Bill, so let me comment on its specific implication for Northern Ireland, an integral part of our family of nations. The Bill is intended to allow frictionless trade within our four nations, and of course it would not be acceptable to have a hard internal border between any of the component parts. On that point, I absolutely share the concerns of my colleagues on the Government Benches and of colleagues behind me, but the only reason there is any risk of a hard internal border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK is the deal that the Prime Minister signed last year, which threw Northern Ireland under a bus—I never forget the anger from my Northern Irish colleagues behind me.

At the time, the Prime Minister called it a “fantastic” deal, so what happened to this oven-ready deal? He has now remembered that he has a responsibility to keep the Union together. The question is: what can he do, after his deal got us into this current mess? The Government have two options: they can renege on the withdrawal agreement, break international law and trash our reputation as a trusted trade partner, or they can uphold the withdrawal treaty, abide by international law and negotiate a deal with the EU that avoids the need for a significant internal border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

The principle of the rule of law—a principle founded in this country—will be gravely compromised if this legislation is passed as it currently stands. The UK has a proud history of upholding liberal democratic values and setting a global example to stand up for the rule of law. Without significant alterations, this legislation will undermine our commitment to the rule of law. What does that say to the rest of the world about our values? It sends the message that we are ready to rip up agreed rules at a moment’s notice for political gain, not just to our would-be trading partners, but to authoritarian regimes around the world that are themselves determined to undermine the rule of law and promote the politics of division. The rule of law is under attack across the world, from unrest in Beirut to the horrific accounts of what is happening to the Uyghur population in China. The impending economic consequences of covid-19 are causing authoritarian regimes to grab extra power. This is the worst possible time to send the message that it is acceptable in some instances to break the law and go back on our word.