Fairness at Work and Power in Communities

Debate between Paul Scully and Andy McDonald

Thursday 12th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

We remain undiminished in our commitment to balance, as I outlined, the flexibility of the labour market with protections for workers. Indeed, we have already been working on a number of areas. We have made really good progress in extending the right to a written statement of core terms of employment to all workers—we have made access to that a day one right—and quadrupling the available aggravated breach penalties used in employment tribunals to £20,000 as well as any number of other issues, many of which I will outline in the debate. However, we clearly want to do more, and we will do that as parliamentary time allows.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Talking about the protection of workers, would the Minister like to tell the House what protections were afforded to the 800 P&O workers who lost their jobs over a video call?

[Paul Scully]

I will cover P&O a bit later in my speech, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. While we celebrate the flexibility of our workforce and the employers that do the right thing, clearly, there are egregious examples, such as P&O. We continue to address those through the work of the Insolvency Service and through the harbours Bill, which was announced in the Queen’s Speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

That is the careful balance that we in this place rightly have to achieve in our legislation. The entire philosophy behind removing exclusivity clauses is that it is for people on the lowest wages. They should not be bound to one employer. Clearly, people should not be forced to work in many jobs to earn a living wage. That is not the purpose of our proposals. We want to ensure that we remove discrimination by extending the protection against exclusivity clauses.

To come back to P&O, on 1 April, following a request from the Business Secretary, the Insolvency Service confirmed that, following its inquiries, it has commenced formal criminal and civil investigations into the circumstances surrounding the recent redundancies made by P&O Ferries. The Harbours (Seafarers’ Remuneration) Bill that was announced in the Queen’s Speech will protect seafarers working aboard vessels visiting UK ports by ensuring that the ports have powers ultimately to refuse access to ferry services that do not pay an equivalent to the national minimum wage to seafarers while in UK waters. That means that all ferry staff will receive a fair wage while in UK waters when operating regularly to or from UK ports, helping to avoid a legal loophole between UK and international maritime law that P&O Ferries ruthlessly exploited.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister said a very important thing: that a criminal investigation had started. An assurance was given to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee that there would be advice on the legal position by 8 April. Will he please inform the House whether he has received that advice and whether a criminal offence has been made out?

[Paul Scully]

I said that the Insolvency Service would respond by 8 April, which it did, and that is why it has launched its criminal and civil investigations. That is ongoing.

We have also recently committed to producing a statutory code on fire and rehire practices to strengthen the rights of all employees. The new code will deter employers from using controversial tactics and from failing to engage in meaningful consultations with employees. The Government’s approach is clear: when bad bosses do not play by the rules, we will act.

Sub-Postmasters: Compensation

Debate between Paul Scully and Andy McDonald

Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

Yes. In the same way as with the HSS, we can work with the estates to ensure that compensation is paid through them. That is my understanding.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on securing this urgent question. I also congratulate the Minister, who has stuck at this and been candid with us on every occasion. This is one of many battles—it is won, and I congratulate him—but the purpose of compensation is to put people in the position they would have been in had the insult not occurred in the first place. It is essential that this scheme properly compensates people for their past and future pecuniary losses, as well as compensating for their pain, suffering and loss of amenity, including the loss of liberty. Will he ensure that those principles are adhered to in this scheme, because nothing less than that will satisfy the people who have been so badly wronged by this terrible episode?

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. In terms of loss of liberty, that comes up with the overturned convictions. In terms of the overall losses, as I said, the HSS works by looking at the past losses as well as what is ongoing and making an assessment of that with an independent panel behind it. I envisage that there will be the same scheme for the 555 so that there will be parity in their compensation.

P&O Ferries and Employment Rights

Debate between Paul Scully and Andy McDonald

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I will not give way, but that reflects the contribution of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who talked about the agency workers not knowing the vessels. I have no doubt that that will be picked up by the MCA on its inspection.

[Andy McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I have not got time, because I want to ensure that I answer the questions before the Opposition Whips inevitably cut me off early.

With my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, I wrote to the CEO of P&O Ferries on Friday to demand answers and explanations of its decisions and actions. Once we have established the exact facts of the case, we can determine whether employment laws have been broken here in the UK and take necessary further action if needed. P&O Ferries has until 5 pm tomorrow to respond to our questions and I absolutely expect it to meet that deadline. We have also asked the Insolvency Service to look at whether P&O Ferries breached the requirement to notify the Secretary of State in advance of making those redundancies. If we believe that it is in breach, we will not hesitate to take further action.

On fire and rehire, briefly, the P&O Ferries situation, unlike other examples that have been cited in this place over the last year or so, does not appear to be simply fire and rehire. It is worse; it seems to be just “fire”, without the required consultation, the required notice or any definite prospect of further employment—that is, no “rehire”. It appears that hard-working British workers were given no choice and no notice and were instead immediately dismissed. There are reports that they may be replaced by cheaper labour from overseas. As I have said, I have written to P&O to demand that it explains itself. We will determine what further action may be required based on a detailed assessment of the facts of the case.

P&O already has statutory obligations under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Employment Rights Act 1996—both of which were creations of a Conservative Government. It is highly likely that it has breached both under UK jurisdiction. Under sections 193 and 194 of the 1992 Act, any employer proposing to make 100 or more employees redundant has a duty to notify the Secretary of State no less than 40 days before any dismissal will take effect. It has not done that and we demand to know why. The point is that whatever P&O has done appears to be in breach of existing laws within US-UK jurisdiction—it is not because we have not passed new ones.

[Paul Scully]

The sanction for P&O Ferries under that legislation is a criminal sanction and an unlimited fine, so I would be wary of it believing that the sanction is worth it.

[Andy McDonald]

rose—

[Paul Scully]

I am not going to give way.

Post Office: Horizon Compensation Arrangements

Debate between Paul Scully and Andy McDonald

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she does on protecting whistleblowers. As I say, I want to make sure we can get fair justice and compensation for everybody involved. That needs to go through a process and we need to get the balance right. That will be done by benchmarking people’s losses and how they have been affected. We have regular conversations both with postmasters and, importantly, their legal representatives to fully understand the harm done to them, so we can reflect that in any scheme we put forward.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) for securing this urgent question and I pay tribute to the Minister, because I know he cares passionately about this issue. He came before the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and expressed himself with great candour. May I press him on the issue of fair compensation? We have heard from many Members today, and we will hear more, that the correct way to address this situation is not by fair compensation, but by full compensation for all those past losses and expenses. They have paid money back to the Post Office and they need that money back. They need their future losses recovered, their pension losses recovered, and psychiatric injury and exemplary damages for their loss of liberty. That needs to be reflected in the system. We cannot have a compensation system on the cheap. These people have to be compensated in full. Will he commit to that?

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words at the beginning of his question. He outlines the complexity of what we need to do and what the Post Office needs to do to right this wrong. That will be reflected in conversations with legal representatives to ensure, without being able to restore the past 20 years to the people affected, we do everything we can to make sure they get full and fair compensation.

Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices

Debate between Paul Scully and Andy McDonald

Wednesday 19th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing today’s important debate.

Despite what we have heard, the UK still has one of the best employment rights records in the world. We have one of the world’s highest minimum wages; it was increased on 1 April last year and will be increased again next year. The UK’s national living wage is one of the highest minimum wages in the world—larger than those in similar economies such as those of France, Germany and Japan. In the UK, we get over five weeks of annual leave, minimum, whereas the EU requires only four weeks. In the UK, people get a year of maternity leave; the EU minimum is just 14 weeks. The world of work is changing, and continues to do so.

[Andy McDonald]

How does our statutory sick pay compare with that of our European competitors?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Scully and Andy McDonald

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

T7. The Minister for Corporate Responsibility has spoken about the Horizon Post Office scandal and the need to compensate victims properly. He will agree that the object of the exercise is to put those victims in the position that they would have been in had the insult not occurred in the first place. Will he ensure that any such scheme adopts the common law principles of compensating for pain, suffering and loss of amenity; exemplary damages; and past and future pecuniary losses and costs to put those people in the position that they should have been in?

[Paul Scully]

Consequential losses are included in the scheme, which is why we have an independent panel to add that expertise and ability to help those claimants to support their evidence for compensation.

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

Debate between Paul Scully and Andy McDonald

Friday 22nd October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

We published the “Good work plan”, in which we accepted many of Matthew Taylor’s reviews, but we did not have to wait for an employment Bill to begin progress on this. We have closed the loophole which saw agency workers employed on cheaper rates than permanent workers, we have quadrupled the maximum fine for employers who treat their workers badly, and we have given all workers the right to receive a statement of their rights from day one. We do not have to always reach for primary legislation first when we can be doing other things to make sure that we can stand up for workers across the UK.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister says that he does not have to reach for primary legislation, but when is he going to do anything at all? He has stood at that Dispatch Box for years, wrung his hands over the pernicious practice of fire and rehire, and done diddly squat. If we are going to have to wait for some other document from a new Member of Parliament, where is it and when are we going to get it? The only message that is going out from this place is that this Government will do nothing about fire and rehire, and bad bosses can carry on as before, continue these practices and cut people’s wages—it is either that or they will lose their jobs. That is the message that leaves this place today.

[Paul Scully]

I am sorry if the hon. Member feels that I have been here for years. I think I have been here for only 18 or 19 months, but it does seem like years, so perhaps I am boring for Britain in talking about workers’ rights and standing up for those rights. None the less, we are acting on this, and I will develop my speech to show exactly how we are doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Scully and Andy McDonald

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I appreciate the work that the hon. Gentleman and his all-party parliamentary group on premature and sick babies are doing in this area. The Government are committed to ensuring that all workers can participate and progress in the labour market and that we build back better as we recover from covid-19. We will bring forward the employment Bill when the time is right. In the meantime, we will continue to take the necessary action to support businesses and protect jobs.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Millions of workers are denied maternity pay and parental leave, as well as other basic rights and protections, because the Government allow only some workers to have full rights, and only after two years in the job. Is it not the case that working people are paying the price for the Government’s broken promise to bring in an employment Bill? Does the Minister not agree that all workers should have full rights from day one on the job?

[Paul Scully]

As I say, we are expanding workers’ rights and delivering based on qualitative and quantitative evidence. That will be seen when the employment Bill comes through, when parliamentary time allows. What we cannot do, though, is work on a whim. Last week, the Labour party announced that it wanted a £10 minimum wage, yet this week it is reportedly recruiting stewards for its conference at £9.75 an hour. We say what we mean and we will deliver.

Employment Rights

Debate between Paul Scully and Andy McDonald

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The Government have overseen a crisis of insecurity and a lack of protections at work, and the proposals announced today will do little to address it. There is no plan to legislate for a single enforcement body, so can the Minister explain how and when that will happen, given that the long-promised employment Bill has been ditched?

There is no new money in this announcement. We had a decade of cuts and underfunding that left us woefully unprepared when the pandemic hit. In the past year, just one workplace in 171 has had a safety or workers’ rights inspection, and not a single employer has been prosecuted and fined for putting workers or the public at risk of contracting covid-19. A staggering 2 million people are paid below the national minimum wage, yet there are currently just 18 employment agency standards inspectors responsible for inspecting 40,000 employment agencies.

Without new funding, the Minister is simply proposing to merge several under-resourced agencies into a single under- resourced agency. The hollowness of the Government’s commitment is underlined by the fact that the post of director of labour market enforcement has been left vacant for the past six months. However, the most glaring omission in this plan is that many of the most exploitative employment practices are perfectly legal.

Bogus self-employment denies millions of workers in the gig economy basic rights and protections, including the national minimum wage, rest breaks and health and safety protections. For those workers it is not a matter of enforcement, because they do not have rights to enforce. They have been totally abandoned by the Government. Will the Minister commit to giving all workers full employment rights to ensure that everyone has dignity and security at work?

On fire and rehire, the Minister says:

“This Government have always been clear that we do not accept fire and rehire as a negotiation tactic.”

These are empty words. The only clear message would be to outlaw the practice. The Government have hidden behind the ACAS report since February, using it as an excuse to do nothing. Today’s announcement that ACAS will be asked to produce further guidance kicks the can down the road yet again. Almost 3 million people—one in 10—have been subjected to fire and rehire since last March.

Allowing working people to be bullied on to lower wages and worse terms and conditions is both morally wrong and economically illiterate. The Government claim to oppose fire and rehire while encouraging it through their inaction because they believe that this one-sided flexibility is good for the economy. How many more millions of workers is the Minister prepared to allow to be fired and rehired before he acts to outlaw the practice?

The proposal to give the certification officer powers to commission investigations and fine trade unions even when there has been no complaint from a member, funded by a levy on trade unions, is an ideological attack on working people. The Minister is proposing to solve a problem that does not exist. The certification officer had a tiny number of cases last year resulting in just one enforcement order. This means that unions will face financial burdens at times when their members are facing hardship, diverting time and resources away from protecting working people to deal with spurious complaints initiated by groups like the TaxPayers’ Alliance rather than fighting for members. If the Minister is genuinely concerned about law-breaking, I suggest he looks closer to home. Staff in his Department are balloting for strike action because of repeated breaches of employment law, including unlawful deductions of wages that force staff to rely on food banks, as well as breaching the working time directive and repeated breaches of Health and Safety Executive covid guidelines.

Trade unions are the best mechanism for protecting workers’ rights, yet the Minister wants to tip the balance of power even further away from them. Compare and contrast this with Joe Biden, who is unshackling and empowering trade unions to rejuvenate the American economy and raise living standards. This Government want to hobble trade unions. The Minister has committed his Government to

“do whatever we can to protect and enhance workers’ rights.”

There is a chasm between the reality and the rhetoric. This is another deceit on working people, but I have news for the Minister: he is fooling nobody.

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman talks about enforcement issues and funding. We have more than doubled the budget for minimum wage enforcement and compliance, which is now over £27 million annually, up from £13.2 million in 2015. There are more than 400 HMRC staff involved in enforcement of the minimum wage. We concluded over 2,700 investigations on the minimum wage and returned more than £16.7 million in arrears to over 155,000 workers. We are determined that people should get a fair wage for a fair day’s work. As we build back better, we will build back fairer, and it will not be on the backs of the lowest paid. That is why we will continue to increase the national minimum wage and the national living wage and also to enforce action on transgressions in that area.

On the Health and Safety Executive and what has happened with covid, the HSE has received £14.4 million in extra funding and has conducted 274,000 spot checks in the past year.

Worker status is clearly complicated when we have three issues of the worker, the employer and the self-employed, but that allows us to have a flexible, dynamic labour market that enabled us, after the last recession, to build back better by delivering more jobs than the rest of the EU put together.

On fire and rehire, we hear a lot in this place about a binary choice, but in reality the situation is far more complicated. As we build back better, we want to make sure that we can protect people’s jobs as well as their working conditions. That is why we have to get that balance right. Only we on the Government Benches will deal with the economy and with businesses, but most importantly with workers who are subject to transgression of their workers’ rights by irresponsible employers, yet not just painting all employers with the same brush.

The hon. Gentleman talked about changes to the certification officer’s duties being ideological. Actually, it is adhering to the law, as it is what we said we would do in the Trade Union Act. All we are doing is implementing what was debated properly and agreed in this place under that Act.

We will protect workers’ rights, protect jobs, and create more jobs, and it will be through a flexible, dynamic labour market, getting that balance right. Rather than just having a 1970s-style binary debate, we want to work for 21st-century working conditions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Scully and Andy McDonald

Tuesday 25th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I have said repeatedly that bully-boy tactics are absolutely unacceptable, but if it is a matter of a choice over protecting jobs in the first place, that is the flexibility that we need to check, based on the evidence, and ACAS has gone a long way to providing that evidence.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Why is it that fire and rehire has spread like wildfire across our country? Trade unions are shackled to prevent them from defending their members; employers have free rein to terminate workers’ contracts; and protections for workers are woefully weak. Opposition Members know how to outlaw fire and rehire, and I am more than happy to meet the Minister and show him how, but is not the truth that this Government are content with millions of workers being bullied into accepting low wages and worse terms and conditions or facing the sack, because it is in the Tories’ DNA to side with bad employers rather than to protect working people?

[Paul Scully]

It is in the Tories’ DNA to create jobs and opportunities. After the previous recession, we were creating more jobs than the whole of Europe put together, and we will continue to do so as we build back better after this pandemic. ACAS has provided the evidence for us to consider; we are doing that in due course, and I look forward to coming back to this place. The TUC reported back in January on a survey of its members, but it has not shared its methodology; we cannot use that as substantial evidence unless the TUC shares that with us.

Uber: Supreme Court Ruling

Debate between Paul Scully and Andy McDonald

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I want to begin by making it absolutely clear that everyone deserves to be treated fairly at work and rewarded for their contribution to the economy with both fair pay and fair working conditions. This means that employers must take their responsibilities seriously, not simply opt out of them. If there is a dispute between the individual and an employer, as seen in the recent case involving Uber, the courts consider each case on an individual basis. The courts are independent and the Government do not intervene. As such, with the Supreme Court being the final stage of the appeal, its judgment is final and Uber will need to take action to align with the judgment.

The Government recognise concerns about employment status being unclear in some cases, and we are committed to making it easier for individuals and businesses to understand which rights and tax obligations apply to them. We have made good progress in bringing forward measures that add flexibility for workers while ensuring the protection of employment rights. For example, we have legislated to extend the right to a written statement of core terms of employment to all workers, making access to a written statement a day one right and extending the contents of a written statement. We have also banned the use of exclusivity contracts and zero-hours contracts to give workers more flexibility. This means an employer cannot stop an individual on a zero-hours contract from looking for, or accepting work from, another employer. We will continue to explore options for employment status that protect rights while also maintaining flexibility in the labour market. This Government have a proud history of protecting and enhancing workers’ rights, and we are committed to making the UK the best place in the world to work.

[Andy McDonald [V]]

Last Friday’s Supreme Court ruling on Uber was a landmark victory for working people, and testament to the hard work of the GMB union, the App Drivers and Couriers Union and the drivers who brought the action. It rejected Uber’s bogus claim that its drivers are self-employed, ruling instead that they are workers and therefore entitled to basic rights that they have so far been denied, such at the national minimum wage and holiday pay. The ruling has far-reaching consequences for tens of thousands of Uber drivers as well as all gig economy workers.

Yet Uber is attempting to dodge the Supreme Court’s ruling, just as it attempts to dodge its responsibilities to its drivers, by trying to interpret the ruling so that it applies to only a tiny minority of its workforce. If Uber ignores the ruling, tens of thousands of workers will be cheated out of their rights, forcing low-paid and precarious workers to spend time and money that they can ill afford in order to litigate to recover withheld wages, in cases that they will likely win but will take years to conclude. The Government should not abandon working people to fight for their rights in the courts, so will the Minister take this opportunity to make it clear that the judgment applies to all Uber drivers, and that the company cannot continue to cheat its drivers out of their basic rights?

Even before the pandemic, one in 10 working adults—around 5 million—were found to be working in the gig economy, in fragile and insecure work, and with one-sided flexibility. It is bad for those workers, bad for the economy and, as we have seen from the pandemic, a disaster for public health. Will the Minister confirm that the principles of the judgment in the Uber case must apply not only to all Uber drivers, but to all those on similar arrangements across the country?

Let me say again that the Government cannot abrogate their responsibility by telling workers to fight for their basic protection through an employment tribunal system that barely functions following a decade of neglect. Working people need a Government who will stand behind them, so will the Minister commit now to legislate to end bogus self-employment and provide security to all gig economy workers?

[Paul Scully]

As I have said, the Government are clear that everybody deserves to be treated fairly at work and rewarded for their contribution to the economy. The judgment has been laid down and there are no further avenues for appeal, so Uber must respond accordingly. The hon. Gentleman talked about clarifying employment status and rights. We are committed to continuing to look at workers’ rights, and to ensure that we consider carefully and in the round all the questions about the various workers’ rights, while keeping flexibility in our employment market.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Scully and Andy McDonald

Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I regularly speak to the Secretary of State about such issues. In the event of a workplace outbreak, businesses should follow the advice outlined in their action card guidance, and that includes departments such as the DVLA. The guidance is designed by the Department of Health and Social Care for specific out- break situations, and businesses should contact their local PHE health protection team if necessary.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) [V]]

“The effects are non-permanent or reversible, non-progressive and disability is temporary”.

Those are the words of the Minister for Employment in justifying why covid-19 has not been categorised as a “serious” workplace risk. Some 112,000 British citizens are dead, tens of thousands are experiencing long covid, and many more have permanent damage to vital organs, but only 0.1% of complaints result in an enforcement notice. This is serious, and re-categorisation is urgently needed. The UK continues to suffer the highest covid death toll in the world, but with such a disregard for workplace safety, is it any wonder?

[Paul Scully]

We work with Public Health England and with the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that we have the best safer workplace guidance, and if there are specific examples where that is not working, I would be happy to take that on board, but with 12.3 million first-dose vaccinations undertaken to date, hopefully we can get through this period and have even safer workplaces as the economy comes back to normal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Scully and Andy McDonald

Tuesday 15th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

It is not acceptable for employers to use unacceptable negotiating tactics, including fire and rehire. I understand that it is a difficult situation for employees to find themselves in. There are commercial matters between employers and employees, but we expect employers to treat their staff in the spirit of partnership. In the vast majority of cases—unlike the ones that have just been outlined—employers do want to do the right thing, and there are processes in place to prevent abuse.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Heathrow, British Airways and British Gas—all flagship companies—have used abusive fire and rehire tactics to cut the pay and conditions of their loyal work forces. Rolls-Royce in Barnoldswick is home of the jet engine and the battle of Britain aircraft. Hundreds of staff there are being made redundant and their jobs offshored to Singapore, Spain and Japan. These iconic companies have received billions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash, so why did the Government not make retaining jobs a condition of this financial help? Does the Minister recognise that by providing no-strings-attached support, the Government have facilitated UK jobs being either downgraded or moved out of the country at the taxpayers’ expense?

[Paul Scully]

We have worked with and supported the aviation sector in a number of different ways. We have also made it really clear that when companies want to make redundancies, they should follow the correct consultation process. It is important that we get the balance right to protect jobs for those companies.

Lifting the Lockdown: Workplace Safety

Debate between Paul Scully and Andy McDonald

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) [V]]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make a statement on guidelines for workplace safety after the lifting of lockdown.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

We have made clear that there are five tests that the Government will need to be satisfied of before we will consider it safe to adjust the current measures. As hon. Members will be aware, the Government are in the process of consulting with businesses, business representative organisations and trade unions on the issue of safer working in a covid-19 context. We want workers in our country to feel confident that they are returning to a safe workplace, so we are working with Public Health England, the Health and Safety Executive and 525 stakeholders in total in detail, the vast majority of which are represented across all parts of the United Kingdom. That includes nine unions and over 400 businesses.

We are grateful for all the feedback and the constructive way in which it has been provided. Our guidelines will be published in due course.

[Andy McDonald]

Last Sunday, the Government sent trade unions and businesses seven consultation documents outlining proposals for a return to workplaces. We all share a common objective of a safe return to work at the appropriate time that protects public health. However, when the Government’s plans fall short, it is our duty to say so. Trade unions were given just 12 hours to respond. The documents were not shared with the Opposition and the proposals themselves are wholly inadequate.

No worker should have their life or the lives of their loved ones risked simply by going to work. This is a legal right, which held true before this crisis and, crucially, must not be cast aside now. The documents present measures to maintain safe workplaces, such as hand washing and social distancing, as being at the discretion of employers, when in fact they are requirements of the law. The Government must make this clear and inform workers and businesses of their respective rights and duties. I share the surprise of trade unions that the documents provide no recommendations on personal protective equipment, without which it is impossible to make judgments on safe working practices.

Critically, the proposals exclude workers. A safe return to work is a significant challenge that can be met only if Government and business work with staff. My ask of the Minister is that the Government now bring forward guidelines requiring specific covid-19 risk assessments for most businesses, and that assessments are made public and registered with the Health and Safety Executive. Given the lack of capacity for inspections, these assessments must be agreed with staff. In workplaces with trade unions, this can be done by health and safety reps. In those without them, the Government should enable trade unions to assist workforces in their sectors to elect or appoint a rep to be consulted and involved in the settling, implementation and enforcement of assessments.

Finally, workers need to have confidence and trust that the Government have got their back, so will the Minister confirm that employees will not be prejudiced in any way for drawing attention to safety failings in the workplace? This time, we are truly all in this together. I trust that my comments are received in the constructive spirit in which they are offered.

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the constructive way in which we began our relationship as our opposite numbers in a call we had last week. We have plenty of opportunity to work together to ensure the confidence that employers, employees and customers need as we begin to open up the economy. The guidelines that he was talking about are an early draft. There will continue to be plenty of opportunity for him to feed in, as there has been for those 400 businesses and nine trade unions, because this is not a finished process. We need to get into the technical detail to ensure that everybody has confidence.

In the same way that employees need that confidence, they should be able to discuss with their employers the steps they might take to make their workplaces safer, especially when we start to lift restrictions. Where workers still feel unsafe, they can contact the Health and Safety Executive or their local authority. Where employers are identified, action can be taken to ensure compliance with the relevant public health legislation and guidance.

Chris Gibb Report: Improvements to Southern Railway

Debate between Paul Scully and Andy McDonald

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

That is not accurate and I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why. If it were not for the stitch-up with Serco and Abellio taking £17 million out of the deal and £5 million that we could use to have a guard on every train, we would not have the problem. So, yet again, he just serves this up to his mates. He does his deals with these people, extracting the value from our railway system. [Interruption.] Absolutely not. It is important to point out that the Gibb report makes no assessment of the merits and de-merits of driver-only operation. However, despite a lack of assessment, Chris Gibb makes it clear that he supports DOO and thinks that any industrial action is wrong.

I would like the Secretary of State to reflect on the following passage from appendix 1 of the Gibb report. It says:

“We have undertaken this project for CLGR Limited, a consultancy company owned and operated by my family and I, and CLGR Limited has been contracted to Govia Thameslink Railway, as facilitated by the DfT. Discussions have been held under the terms of a confidentiality agreement between CLGR Limited and GTR.”

There we have it—Chris Gibb is contracted to Govia, the very company he is supposed to be reporting on. It is more than just “he who pays the piper”. Surely even this Secretary of State can see this latest blatant conflict of interest. Where is the independence in this report? It is just another stitch-up.

What is it with the DFT? Its senior civil servant, who previously told the world he wanted unions out of his industry, has his own consultancy company—First Class Partnerships, I believe—to advise the parent company of Govia, the very company that was then handed the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern concession on a £1.2 billion-a-year gold plate. This Government would refuse to recognise a conflict of interest if it got up and bit them on the gluteus maximus.

Labour, like the staff who understand and operate our rail network, the passenger groups who have been protesting and have been motivated to take legal action, and disability charities, simply do not agree with the assumption that destaffing and deskilling our railways is a positive step. Despite being first introduced more than 30 years ago, DOO is only in use on a third of the national rail network. It was originally introduced on three or four-car trains at a time of declining passenger numbers. Passenger numbers having increased hugely in recent years, it is now proposed to introduce DOO on trains with as many as 12 cars. In the past 15 years, passenger numbers on Southern have increased by 64%, from 116 million to 191 million a year. That enormous rise in numbers means that at the platform-train interface there are inevitably increased risks to passenger safety, as anyone who travels on Southern services can see.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the same union has agreed to 12-car-train driver-controlled operation on Thameslink, with the same company, and on the same lines?

[Andy McDonald]

It is somewhat curious, is it not, that people are being criticised for adhering to a previously achieved agreement, whereas, looking at the situation as it is now, they quite rightly want to look at it properly.

Labour believes that passengers are more at risk if they no longer have the guarantee of a safety-critical member of staff on the train to prevent something from going wrong or assist when something does go wrong. The view of Her Majesty’s chief inspector of railways, Ian Prosser, has been laid out in the Office of Rail and Road’s report, “GTR-Southern Railways—Driver Only Operation”, published earlier this year. Mr Prosser is clear that there are obvious caveats to safe operation of DOO, namely legal levels of lighting—that would be a good start—suitable equipment, suitable procedures and the competence of the relevant staff. None has been adequately satisfied, even by his assessment.