Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and here is the rub. I think it is the reason for the latest poll out today on support for the action that trade unions are taking. It is not because the general public like the inconvenience. Of course we all want strike action to be avoided, but the public can glaringly see through the Government’s defence—that this legislation is needed because we need minimum service levels—because they have seen ambulance workers, nurses, and all other key workers fighting for this country and protecting people when this Government cannot provide the minimum safe service level at any other time, during any other week, when there is no strike action. It is this Government who are failing the British people and not providing the level of care, not our key workers, not our nurses, not our teachers and not our firefighters. They are the ones supporting our key public services, and I applaud them for doing that.

The Bill also allows bosses to target union members with work notices. What is to stop that happening? Will trade unions be liable for the actions of non-members? What about when there is no recognised trade union? What reasonable steps will a trade union need to take? Will it be penalised for picketing, or could the simple existence of an otherwise lawful peaceful picket line be effectively banned? The Secretary of State claims to stand up for the democratic freedom to strike. Where are the protections to ensure that work notices do not prevent legal industrial action, or the requirements on employers to take reasonable steps to make sure that they do not, either intentionally or not? Can he really say that not one worker will be banned from action by simply being named in every work notice? What about workers in control functions on the railways, such as fleet managers, route managers and maintenance managers, who would be forced to work regardless under this law?

If the Secretary of State does not care about workers, what about the burden on the employers? Does he seriously think that overstretched public services have the resources to assess new minimum service laws—to work out who needs to be in work, how many people and where, before every single strike day? Should we not promote good-faith negotiations instead? If only the Government put their time and their effort into doing the one thing that will resolve this crisis: negotiating with the employers and the workers in good faith. There are reports that some Ministers are seeing the light and are ready to negotiate. The Transport Secretary admits that these measures will not work; the Education Secretary sees the damage they will do to schools.

As is normally the case in Committee upstairs, we have tabled probing amendments—for example, why these six sectors? Will the Secretary of State add more, and how are they defined? Do health services include veterinary services, dentists or pharmacists? What about parcel delivery, ferry and waterway services, or steam railways? Does he mean to include private schools? Will he regulate minimum service levels for Eton?

The Government are running away from scrutiny precisely because they know that this Bill will not stand up to it. Does the Secretary of State not accept that first we need to see the assessment by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and inquiries by the relevant Select Committees, and that all promised consultations must be completed and published before the Act comes to pass? I know the Minister understands the challenges with legislation and the need to ensure that those affected are consulted properly, so I do not understand why he stands at the Dispatch Box today and does not want, as a minimum, these things to have happened before legislation is passed.

Who is the Secretary of State planning to consult? Will he consult the trade unions and employers affected? Why has he failed to publish the impact assessment that he promised? The Bill has nearly passed through the lower House and we have still not had any sight of it. This is near unprecedented and deeply anti-democratic. Even the Regulatory Policy Committee has not seen it. Is the Secretary of State scared that the impact assessment will speak the truth—that it will conclude that this legislation is unneeded and will actually make things worse?

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The Minister should go on a field trip to really understand what happens with these agreements. The paramedics on the ambulance service picket line carry bleeps, as do those in the NHS, so that they can provide surge staffing when that is required. That is an ongoing dialogue throughout the day and the minimum standards in the Bill will not address that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the standards are therefore superfluous because they will not address the day-to-day, minute-by-minute needs of the health service?

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Her point links to what I was trying to express earlier: the Government fail to recognise that every time they suggest in some way that our paramedics, nurses and other key workers do not provide a minimum service and do not take seriously the impact of challenging in the way they have been forced to. They protect the very people they are there to support. The Government have misjudged how people feel about that, because not only have they caused offence to those workers who protect us day in, day out, but they have failed to recognise that every single one of our key workers who does that has friends and family who know that they do that. This is why the public get very upset with the Government when they suggest that somehow our paramedics, nurses and other key workers do not provide those standards. I agree with my hon. Friend: if the Government were able to get out more and see what happens on the ground, they would have a clearer understanding of why this legislation will not work and fix the problems. The public understand that and the Minister should take note.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Just a tiny point of information: when I am sitting at the Table, I am not Madam Deputy Speaker; I am either Dame Rosie or Madam Chair. I call Rachael Maskell.

[Rachael Maskell]

Thank you, Dame Rosie. I rise to support many of the amendments. Not only is this Bill bad law, but it will make the industrial landscape far worse. The Minister is trying to make a monster out of something that does not exist and a problem that does not occur.

The Bill needs correcting to comply with international law. I am grateful to Members for tabling amendments 39 and 34, which highlight how the Bill is at odds with ILO convention 87. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) tabled amendment 83, which would bring that convention into law by creating a framework by which the Bill must go forward—otherwise, it will just spend months in the courts, and I expect that that is where it will end.

We are talking about safety, so not having an impact assessment is quite unbelievable, not least when we know that many of the clauses could well result in services being more unsafe than they are currently. I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that we already know that those services are unsafe. On Second Reading, I raised statistics from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine about the health service being unsafe, with 500 additional deaths every single week. The Secretary of State dismissed those figures. However, a witness from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine set out his peer-reviewed workings when he appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

There is an array of riches. I will give way to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell).

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Secretary of State has never negotiated a minimum service agreement in the NHS. I have. The Secretary of State is completely fabricating what happens. It is the trade unions who work with the staff and the employers to put a safe agreement—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I am afraid I will have to ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her remark about fabricating. She will do that, I know. I am sure that is not what she meant to say and will indicate that that is not what she meant to say—yes?

[Rachael Maskell]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. I will rephrase what I was saying. The reality is that safe agreements are negotiated between the staff and the employers. That happens on the ground; the process and the outcomes protect the NHS, because that is what staff want to do. Will the Secretary of State ensure that he reflects the truth of what happens in the NHS?

[Grant Shapps]

I would just say to the hon. Lady, who I know has received money from GMB, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, Unite the union, CLP among others—nothing wrong with that; I am just putting it on the record—that she is wrong factually about the way the last two strikes, last week and in December, occurred.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to be a Unite and GMB member—I point to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—as well as the former head of health at Unite, negotiating level of service agreements. I have never heard such misinformation as I have in the House today. Amid an economic crash and public services on their knees, we know that the morale of working people on the frontline is at rock-bottom as they are stressed out of their minds and struggling with low pay. This reckless Bill not only impacts on them but sours industrial relations and does nothing to resolve disputes. In fact, it will stoke more strikes and push workers into working to rule. The Minister will then have a problem on his hands as he learns how much unpaid overtime working people give.

The strikes are the canary in the mine of the biggest retention crisis in the history of our public services. Ministers should heed those warnings before things get even worse. Tonight, I am proud that we are voting against this regressive legislation, because I would rather have clinicians and frontline workers negotiating safety agreements than Ministers in Whitehall, who are clearly so out of touch.

When it comes to the ambulance service, there are 10 trusts, and each one negotiates its safety levels, as does each hospital and each clinic. That is because there are different pressures on each one, and it is vital that each has a separate negotiation determined locally to ensure that services are safe locally, not dictated by Whitehall. All the Minister needs to do is aggregate those negotiations to achieve those safe working levels. “Life and limb” was set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992—he can read it for himself—where there is an obligation to ensure that human life is saved.

We know what happens on strike days: they are safer than the rest of the time. Trains are not running, hospitals are not properly staffed and there are 133,000 vacancies in the NHS, yet on strike days Christmas day cover, essentially, is provided. Hospitals that were running red, ran green on strike days. Waits for the ambulance service were cut by 10%. They were safer for the public because frontline workers really care about their patients—that is why they are still working under such dreadful conditions.

This is a sham of a Bill, while there is still a need to put money on the table, to negotiate and to resolve these disputes. I say to the Government: stop walking away and stop playing games. Get back to work and get back to the negotiating table.

Future of Postal Services

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali). Once a successful, proud British enterprise in the hands of the British public, Royal Mail is being driven into the gig economy while senior managers are milking profits and funnelling £560 million in payouts to shareholders. They did not get up in the middle of the night to travel to all parts of our country, especially during covid, to care for our communities.

So well depicted in Ken Loach’s film “Sorry We Missed You”, the gig economy’s long hours, low wages and punitive, bogus self-employment will soon besmirch Royal Mail as it sells off the King’s head. Royal Mail is wanting to break up the universal service obligations, sack 10,000 posties and be the next P&O as it recruits agency staff and owner drivers at the expense of the current workforce, further ripping up the pathway to change without having to give account.

This Government are standing by as this next chapter of fire and hire plays out. What have they done? They have walked away when they should be pressing in. They have opened the door for investors—a foreign private equity firm—to sweep in and asset strip. So much for giving back control—they are, to a Czech oligarch. I thank the CWU and its members for standing up for our postal service and bringing it to our attention. As with other companies in failure, the Government will put in place an operator of last resort. We are now at that last resort, and we need the Government to step in and nationalise this company.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

After Richard Burgon, Members will have one minute each, so that everyone can get in.

Industrial Action

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I pay tribute to those in the NHS: there is a very good reason why, when the public sector in this country got a zero pay rise last year because of covid, over 1 million people in the NHS did receive a pay rise. At the moment it is worth about £1,400 per individual. I appreciate that in these times, with Putin’s evil war and the impact that has had on inflation, everyone would like more money as a pay rise, but the Government must consider what that would do to people’s taxes, to interest rates and to mortgage rates. We would get into a circle where we are never able to get inflation down. Inflation is the biggest evil of all. We are taking sensible steps to address it. That lot over there simply want to roll over and not address the difficult problems.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

With the Royal College of Emergency Medicine highlighting more than 300 excess deaths every single week, where is the Government’s minimum service level agreement to the public? The best way to avert a strike is to negotiate. Within the Secretary of State’s legislation, what obligations will there be on Government to enter meaningful negotiations, and how does he describe “meaningful”?

[Grant Shapps]

I want to pick up the hon. Lady on those figures, because the NHS itself says that it does not recognise those numbers. When we have a strike such as the one on Wednesday by ambulance workers, there is no way that she or anyone else in this House can realistically argue that people will somehow be better off without a national minimum safe level of service. That is what we will focus on, and that is why she and Opposition Members should support this Bill.

Prepayment Meters: Self-Disconnection

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Anne McLaughlin]

I see that the Minister is nodding and I thank him for that. I hope he is able to come back next week before Parliament goes into recess, before we are plunged into even colder temperatures than we are experiencing at the moment and before people start dying because they did not enjoy the same rights as the majority of people. I urge him to come back next week and tell us that he has decided to give everyone those rights and that he will do so by outlawing so-called “self-disconnection” for those on prepayment meters.

I am also calling on the energy suppliers to do the same. One of them surely will have the moral compass and backbone to lead the way and be the first to promise that nobody—none of its customers—will be subjected to self-disconnection simply because they are on a prepayment meter. I am calling on the big six, as those guys have the money—they have the billions—and they can do this. Those companies have to take responsibility, but we probably cannot wait for that and the Government need to compel them to do so.

The other thing I would like the Government to get on top of this side of Christmas is ensuring that everybody is accessing the energy bill discount of £66 a month. The consumer rights group Which? told me this morning that a reported £84 million of that money is not reaching half a million households—the ones who need it the most. That is happening for a variety of reasons. Every company has a different way to access this help, with some requiring people to go to the post office. With others, the help arrives by post and often the recipient thinks that this is junk mail or they are afraid to open the letter. That is what happens when someone is on a low income: they get scared of the letters coming through the door, so they bury their head in the sand. I know that the Secretary of State has written to these companies about this issue, but anything more that can be done must be done urgently.

Before I come on to the substance of the debate, may I also thank the many MPs, from all parties, who signed my debate application, both those who are here today and those who sent messages of support, as I very much appreciate it? More importantly, our constituents will appreciate seeing their MPs stand up and fight for them —I hate to say it, but in some cases they are fighting for these people’s lives.

I pay my gas and electricity bills by standing order. In common with those who pay by direct debit or pay when the bill comes in, I pay in arrears. Also in common with those who pay in arrears, if I stop paying my bills I can be disconnected by my energy provider but it is very much a final step—a last resort. That is not the case for those who pay by prepayment meter. Should they be unable to pay for gas or electricity, the first thing that happens is that they are disconnected from their supply. The minute they go over the £10 or, in some cases, £5 of emergency credit that is applied to each prepayment meter, their supply just stops and they are considered to have self-disconnected.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing today’s debate. Does she agree that it is an absolute disgrace that people on a prepayment meter are having to pay more for their energy, particularly as they are often the people in greatest deprivation and cannot afford to do so?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I absolutely agree on that. I should thank the hon. Lady, because I have a ten-minute rule Bill on this matter and she spoke up for it last week in allowing it to continue in this place. I will come on to that. It is so ironic that the poorest people are paying the most. We get to pay less, yet we are paying in arrears.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Yes, I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady on that. The whole system is wrong and crazy. Let me go back to what I was saying about the people who are just disconnected for their £5 or £10 of debt. When they are disconnected, they cannot boil a kettle or heat a room. They cannot even heat an electric blanket. They cannot wash their clothes, have a shower or watch TV—they cannot even charge their phones. In some cases, which I will come on to, they can no longer operate disability aids—that is an absolute disgrace. It means that I, as a well-paid MP and someone who is clearly able to pay their bills, could stop paying them just on a whim and, unlike someone on a meter I could then run up hundreds or perhaps thousands of pounds-worth of debt to my energy supplier before being disconnected, whereas people on prepayment meters—the ones with the least money—are limited to a debt of only £5 or £10 before they are cut off. It is that inequity that I want addressed.

I do not believe the Minister will tell me today that this situation is fair. I would be amazed if he did try to argue there was anything equitable about this treatment. So, as I have said in the past, I am hopeful, verging on confident, that the Government will support what I am calling for here. As I said at the start, the Government need to do it quickly—they need to do it now. I know how slowly things move in this place, but I also know the Government can move quickly when they need to, and I argue that they really do need to. I am desperately worried about people out there. I am worried that people are going to die—people who would have lived, had this awful practice been outlawed.

However, I want to start by talking about a very important group of people who do not fit that category, because they are not going to live for much longer regardless of the result of my campaign. I have been speaking to Marie Curie about its “Dying in poverty” campaign and have heard about the people it is supporting: people who return home after a lengthy stay in hospital or a hospice, try to top up the prepayment meter and discover that the large sum they have topped up by just is not enough.

Why is that? Because every day they were in the hospice, they racked up daily standing charges. They were not there and they did not use gas or electricity, but they have a big debt to pay off before they can even access heat or light. Worse, their daily standing charges are higher than our daily standing charges. When we consider that the average cost of an electricity bill can rise by 75% for someone who is terminally ill, it is doubly unfair. Would any of us want that situation for our own families? Of course we would not—and if it is not good enough for our families, it is not good enough for anybody’s family.

I want to run through some of my main concerns about these meters. Those on prepayment meters are generally on them because they are on low income and most are given no choice. Citizens Advice described the process as follows: people have a period where they are unable to pay their bills and their energy supplier is obliged to negotiate a repayment plan that takes in to account their ability to pay for the debt and their ongoing energy consumption. Because of the higher costs, however, many people do not have enough money to cover their ongoing usage, let alone pay towards arrears. They begin to fall behind on payments and, to recover that money, the supplier gains entry to their home and installs a prepayment meter.

[Rachael Maskell]

I do not know whether the hon. Lady saw this article in The Independent, but I was completely taken aback and shocked to read that Wigan and Leigh magistrates court took a call from the energy supplier and, in just three minutes 51 seconds, determined that 496 people would have their energy supply cut off. Where is the scrutiny in that? Surely we should not be cutting anyone off at this time?

[Anne McLaughlin]

That is exactly what the Good Law Project is working on; I think it was featured in that article. Tens of thousands of warrants are being rubber-stamped by magistrates in minutes. The Good Law Project has asked me to ask the Minister whether the Government will consider instructing Ofgem to require energy companies to halt all new installations of prepayment meters, including remote switching of smart meters.

There is a problem of people on smart meters being switched to prepayment without the need for a warrant, because the warrant is about gaining entry to the house and, if the switch can be done remotely, there is no need to gain entry. Ofgem called those practices “unacceptable” and said it would take action if they continued. Six weeks after it said that, they are continuing, so I am keen to know what action Ofgem plans to take and when it plans to do it.

The energy companies say that the reason those on prepayment meters pay more is the cost of installing the meter. I am not sure I buy that, and in any case I do not think the cost should be passed to the customer, but, if that is the case, surely they cannot charge higher amounts to someone who has been switched remotely? Another concern is that, as has been mentioned, people on prepayment meters pay more per unit of energy and higher daily standing charges, and they pay in advance while the rest of us get to pay in arrears.

I am also concerned about the numbers: 60,000 new meters were installed across the UK in the six months to March this year, reversing a long-term trend of falling numbers. However, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy does not know how many people are being put on prepayment meters now and it cannot give me an answer to that. I think the Minister will be interested in finding that out for us.

Something else that concerns me is that, according to Citizens Advice Scotland, Scotland disproportionately bears the brunt of this situation. We have more prepayment meters per population than any part of the UK: roughly 15% of people in the UK are on them, but it is 19% of people in Scotland and in my city of Glasgow it is over 20%. Scotland is also colder, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker—I see you nodding in agreement. Estimates suggest that next year, while the rest of the UK will pay on average a shocking £2,500 a year per household for energy bills, in Scotland it will be £3,300 on average.

It stands to reason that Scotland will see more disconnections, because people cannot magic up an extra £800 on top of all the other increases. There is nothing the Scottish Government can do, because we are not independent and we do not have the power in Scotland to do anything about it. That is ironic, given the amount of energy Scotland produces. We produce six times more gas than we consume and 80% of electricity comes from clean energy sources. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) said yesterday, we have the energy; we just do not have the power—yet.

Energy suppliers are supposed to be obliged to consider whether somebody is vulnerable before disconnection. I would argue that everyone on a prepayment meter, especially this winter and especially in the middle of a cost of living crisis, is vulnerable, but there are definitions that the suppliers are supposed to work to. Ofgem recently produced a report expressing a lack of confidence that they are doing so and certainly concerns that they are not doing it consistently.

Let us look at a few examples of people I would consider most vulnerable. We already know that those living with disability pay a financial premium; many of them have only ever known a cost of living crisis. The average extra cost of being disabled in the UK was £583 a month, and for the 24% of families with a disabled child, that figure was more than £1,000 a month before the cost of living crisis, so those figures will be higher now.

A report from Scope, the charity that fights every day for equality for disabled people, has shown that those with disabilities have higher energy needs in their homes and are even more exposed to the energy crisis—so exposed that 91% of those surveyed by Scope were worried that they would not be able to afford to pay their bills this winter. We often talk about choosing between heating and eating, but many of those paying a premium of well over £500 a month just to survive are now able to do neither adequately. For those on a prepayment meter that will spell disaster if we do not outlaw the practice of forced self-disconnection.

That is not always just about money. Many people with disabilities have mobility issues; I have heard of people who cannot reach their meter and have to wait for someone to help them with it, and others who have periods when they are unable to get out of the house to top up the meter.

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. I want to highlight people who have to use home medical devices. This could be a feeding machine, sleep apnoea machine or bilevel positive airway pressure machine—there are many devices that people have to use at home. Those people are now having to make significant choices about their health. Should they not have an additional payment? I know the Government have put in a little bit of money for disabled people, but should there not be full cost recovery for running those devices?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I absolutely agree with that, and for another reason too: we have an issue in the health service with bed blocking. If people are unable to run the equipment at home, they will end up in some kind of care facility, which blocks beds and increases the NHS waiting list. But yes, the moral argument is that they should absolutely have those costs covered.

Then there are people who have been homeless, who have finally moved into their new home and almost always find it has a prepayment meter. The Simon Community in Glasgow told me that many of the people it works with are simply walking the streets again in an effort to warm up because they do not have the money to get the meter working. How can that be right?

Many pensioners are on prepayment meters, and some will inevitably find themselves in the situation I have described, where they have no gas and no electricity. That is bad enough for anyone, but for a pensioner it can be disastrous. Age UK tells us that being cold even for a short period of time can be dangerous to older people. Age UK is widely respected and not given to hyperbole, so we really should listen. We cannot have our pensioners being cut off from gas and electricity because they have gone £5 or £10 over, while the rest of us have the luxury of paying our bills months in arrears.

The Children and Young People’s Commissioner of Scotland is campaigning for the right of children and young people not to find themselves with no gas or electricity in their home simply because their parents use a prepayment meter. He is calling for the definition of vulnerable to be widened, so that instead of applying only to children aged up to five, it applies to those up to 18. It is hard for me to think of an argument against that, so instead I wholeheartedly support it, and I ask if the Minister would be good enough to look at that question and come back to me on it.

All I am really asking is for those on prepayment meters to be treated equally to the rest of us. The right to be treated equally is crucial, because I have heard just two arguments against my proposal: first that people could end up in debt; and secondly, that people might simply not bother to pay their bills. On the latter point, I would argue strongly that those on prepayment meters are no more likely to be morally predisposed to not bothering to pay their bills than those of us who pay by different methods. Living on a low income does not make someone any less honest than anybody else. Yes, there is a risk that stopping self-disconnection could lead to people being in debt, but I repeat what I said in my ten-minute rule Bill speech: if the rest of us, paying by different methods, are allowed to take the risk of ending up in debt, and we are trusted to find ways to resolve that without being disconnected, why not those on prepayment meters? Secondly, if anyone in the Chamber is asked to choose between debt or death for their constituent, who among us would seriously choose death? I know how dramatic that sounds, but life is dramatic. It is unpredictable at the moment, and our constituents’ lives are at risk if we do not sort this.

The campaigning organisation Debt Justice wants the Government to start thinking now about what will happen to people who simply cannot pay their energy bills, and those who will rack up unpayable debts despite living frugally, and who will never be in a position to pay it off. Debt Justice wants the Government to start thinking about debt write-offs, and how that would work and who would be eligible. As I said, in order to stay alive, some people will have to run up debt. If we do not start talking about that now, some people will be so worried about that debt that they will simply switch everything off and their lives will then be endangered.

A point was raised with me by the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland about the legislation that allows companies to forcibly enter people’s homes and install prepayment meters in the first place, namely the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954. First we were getting rid of the Human Rights Act, and then we were not, then we were again, and now I think I am right in saying we are not. We have the Human Rights Act, and we are keeping it, as we should, but the 1954 Act predates that. I would be grateful if the Minister could look into whether it is compatible with human rights legislation—I know that others are looking into that too.

We are heading for recess, and I have no objection to anyone taking a well-earned break. I know that we are not an emergency service, but we can do something now to prevent people from ending up in emergency situations. I am speaking up for everyone on prepayment meters, and I want nobody to be disconnected. I am most terrified for those whom I noted in my speech: young people, pensioners, those who were previously homeless, people living with a disability, and those living with a terminal illness. I repeat my call to the big six energy companies: will one of them please just have the backbone to be first to say that nobody will be forced into so-called self-disconnection this winter? We can argue later about how long that should last, but will one of those companies, today, please blaze a trail for their industry?

Finally, there would be no need for me to stand here and plead with those huge companies to throw people a few crumbs from their billions in profit if the Minister simply told them that they can no longer disconnect people on prepayment meters. A moratorium, a ban, right now—I don’t mind which. As long as when we head to our warm homes and our families for recess, we know that our constituents are guaranteed that their energy supply will not be cut off, leaving them in misery and their lives in peril.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

Yes, absolutely, and I recommend that everyone in the House reads that report, and not just that testimony, but testimonies from other people across the country. The point Mel made is that they are not unique. That situation is repeated up and down the country, and all of us will have such cases in our inbox. My hon. Friend mentioned Scope’s research, which found that 50% of disabled people who are on prepayment meters say they are forced to ration energy usage so that they do not lose supply, 26% are going off supply in order to save money, and 14% went off supply because they were not physically able to top up their meters due to their impairment. That is disgraceful behaviour on the part of energy companies—cutting people off because they physically cannot access their prepayment meters. Citizens Advice has documented similar cases. The increasing practice among energy companies of using smart meter technology to force people on to prepayment meters is particularly concerning, especially when they are using it as a means of avoiding the requirement for a warrant to enter people’s homes.

I echo Citizens Advice’s call for a moratorium on all forced switches to prepayment meters until at least April 2023. That chimes with the calls in my hon. Friend’s motion, in her ten-minute rule Bill and in other ten-minute rule Bills and motions that have been brought before the House. The Government have been using sitting Fridays in this Session to put a lot of very worthy legislation through the House, so there is no reason why they could not find a way to prioritise my hon. Friend’s Bill and offer some security to those who face fuel poverty or disconnection this winter.

The Government must work with and, if necessary, proactively regulate the energy companies to ensure that prices are aligned. Nobody should pay a premium just because of the type of meter or payment method they use, and especially not those who can least afford it.

[Rachael Maskell]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government really need to talk to directors of public health? We are seeing a real spike in respiratory syncytial virus among children and babies, and in community-acquired pneumonia and flu. People in cold conditions are often the most susceptible to illness. To prevent a further crisis in the NHS, it is therefore really important that preventive measures be put in place so that people are not cold and living in damp housing.

[Patrick Grady]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The case studies that we have highlighted show that this is a health issue: it is about people’s health and wellbeing. It is not about some sort of privilege or nice thing to have.

If people’s body temperature is not allowed to remain stable and they are not kept warm, the costs will ultimately be passed on to the NHS. Like a lot of interventions and preventive measures, this is going to have to be paid for somehow, so it should be paid for in a way that keeps people well, comfortable and cared for in their own home. Otherwise, the costs will be passed on via the interventions that come through the NHS. The energy companies need to realise that and step up their response. They are getting money up front from prepaying customers, and presumably they earn interest on money going into their bank account before the energy has been consumed, so you would think it would be in their interest to make prices fair across the board.

If the Government will not regulate the energy companies and the prices that people have to pay, they should devolve the powers so that Scotland’s Parliament can step up and step in. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East says, we are talking about energy-rich Scotland, where people living in fuel poverty look out their windows and see cheap, renewable, clean wind turbines on the horizon—energy-rich Scotland, where the average energy costs are higher than in the other parts of the UK and the use of prepayment meters is disproportionately higher. Energy-rich Scotland, as we all like to say on the SNP Benches, has the energy but does not yet have the power. As with so many issues, if the UK Government will not act, people in Scotland will ultimately decide to take power into their own hands through independence.

Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill (First sitting)

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th December 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I entirely agree. Whether they are related to a disability, childcare responsibilities or semi-retirement, such provisions mean that we can bring talented people back into the workplace, which is good for the talented people and for the workplace. I therefore entirely agree with the hon. Lady’s point.

To address the point that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn raised about whether an employee or potential employee can challenge the employer, it is about a dialogue. That is the key to this, and, as part of the legislation, there will be a dialogue between employer and employee around flexible working, so a discussion can happen at that point. The employer would have to set out a reason for refusal—there are eight reasons, such as customer service or productivity—so, at that point, there is not an appeal process. It is important to have a balance between the rights of employers and of employees, and I think that this strikes the right balance.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Minister to his place and it is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mr Davies. When Government pass legislation around employment law, they normally provide guidance to employers. Given that many people make decisions about the employment that they take up depending on the arrangements around flexibility, will the Minister ensure that there will be guidance about having that conversation at interview, and about making it the norm that discussions around work patterns are included in that conversation, to enable people to make informed choices about their future employment?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. Of course, as she will be aware, we engage heavily with ACAS on such provisions, and it does some excellent work in providing guidance for employers. This measure will be no different, in terms of advice that might be available to employers and employees.

We consider the measure to be a key part of the policy package, bringing an estimated 2.2 million additional people into the scope of the legislation and encouraging early conversations about flexibility. The Government will introduce the day one entitlement through secondary legislation, alongside the measures included in this Bill, so we do not believe there is any need to amend the Bill to achieve that change.

The Government already have the power to make flexible working a day one right via secondary legislation and intend to lay the statutory instrument to remove the 26-week qualifying period when parliamentary time allows, so that it takes effect at the same time as the measures in this Bill. On that basis, I would invite the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

The Bill will impact millions of people in this country who face the dual challenge of balancing full or part-time work with other responsibilities. It is a basic step towards achieving flexible working for all. I close my remarks by thanking the Minister and his officials. I thank the Committee Clerks, who I forgot to mention earlier, as well as Bethan and others, for their helpful guidance in how to pass a Bill through Committee stage. I thank them for their help, advice and assistance. I also thank my parliamentary colleagues who have supported me in the process of the Bill.

[Rachael Maskell]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Davies, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East on getting her Bill to this point.

I was a national equalities official for the trade union MSF in 2003, when we had the initial debates about flexible working. I, too, remember some of the challenges when it came to making even small steps, such as giving the right to request—the right to ask a question, as we put it back in the day—for a limited number of people. From then until 2006, I was part of a coalition of trade unions who really fought to extend such provision to carers and others, and worked with organisations such as Legal and General, which piloted work on extending the rights of carers. It saw the business case and opportunity, which was vital in pushing legislation. Obviously, legislation moved forward in 2014 and today we are making further steps for stronger employment across our country. We must remember that there are 17.5 million parents and carers across our country—people at a time of life when they need flexibility to manage domestic issues and to be in reliable employment.

Something not mentioned so far in today’s debate is the impact on disabled people and the flexibilities they require in the workplace. Only 52.3% of disabled people are in employment, compared with 82% of the general population. Ensuring flexibility will enable more disabled people to work, whether their impairment is physical or mental. That has to be a really positive step forward in ensuring that their dignity is restored as well.

For some, the issue is flexibility to undertake education—or indeed, wellbeing or life. That is why removing the requirement to set out all the details of personal circumstances and to do the company’s work for it by justifying how to make the adjustments is so important.

The issue is ultimately about recruitment and retention, and it will be positive for the employer as well as for the worker. In York, we have high employment but women in particular are significantly underemployed. That has a real impact on productivity—an issue that the Government have wrestled with for the past 12 years. I trust that the Bill will increase productivity, as people have the ability to flex their hours or perhaps their location of work.

The pandemic has changed how we look at work and the workplace, and the opportunities of technology are moving that further forward. Some 36% of adults work at home at least one day a week, but 70% want that opportunity. This legislation will provide those workers with that opportunity, and I trust that more will become possible with the advance of technology. We must also remember that some people need to be in a physical location for work, although the hours they work can certainly be flexed. I remember working in the NHS: an employer could facilitate a patient’s rehabilitation by enabling them to flex their time and start earlier in the day with occupational or physiotherapy. More could be achieved with greater flexibility.

Earlier this week, I was really taken by a presentation given by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) about the University of Hull’s remote working report, which was launched here. It found that women in particular and people in the 35 to 44 and the 45 to 54 age brackets benefited from flexible working, and as a result more people are remaining in Hull, which is helping its economy to grow. Ultimately, there are economic benefits from greater flexibility, but the University of Hull also drew our attention to the opportunities of new places of work such as co-working spaces. In York, we now have a location for co-working at the Guildhall. That flexibility not only benefits the employee, but co-working spaces enable a sharing of minds across different businesses, which can enhance a business. The creativity that can come from the flexibility provided by this legislation could be a real boost for our economic opportunities.

I trust that we will see the real benefit of the measures in the Bill, but we must also think of the climate benefit of people not necessarily travelling to work every day, which has to be a plus, and we must think of people’s wellbeing. We know that we have a wellbeing crisis across the country, with many people struggling after covid or for other reasons. To be able to work around individuals’ needs as well as business needs is ultimately a win-win for employer and employee that lifts morale and productivity.

Finally, we need to ensure that there are good systems of accountability and communications. For those outside the work environment or working hours, we must make sure that we use the tools available so that people are still completely included. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East has done the workers of our country and employers a favour in bringing forward this legislation.

Employment and the High Street

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) for securing the debate.

If we were in York today, we would see that it is buzzing, which is no accident, because York BID—the business improvement district—along with the York High Street Forum and Indie York, which represents 65% of businesses in York, have worked so hard. York is thriving, but they are worried about what will come in the new year, and they certainly do not feel comfortable about that, not least given the challenges ahead. Energy is still an issue, but we are also still working through this recovery, which will take some time.

Today, I will focus my comments on some of the innovation that is happening in the high streets of York. We have the StreetLife project on Coney Street, which is looking at the future and considering what York’s high streets are going to be like, including the opening up of a new high street on the riverside that will be a new opportunity for businesses to invest. Currently, a centre is open that people can come into, and it is wonderful seeing children playing in what used to be a high street shop. People can come and just take in what our city is about.

I want to focus in particular on the Guildhall project. We are looking at new skills, businesses and opportunities in the city. The University of York has made a significant investment, as a university for public good, working to take a 30-year lease. Already, we are looking at 160 jobs coming into the city centre, giving it a new life. The university says:

“A crucial part of the University’s civic mission as an institution for public good is to support local business and community networks, and as we rebuild and recover from the pandemic the Guildhall will enable us to provide more expertise and training to help our regional businesses and charities to recover, innovate and grow.”

The Guildhall project is really exciting. The 15^th-century Guildhall now has offices around it, and Eagle Labs and the University of York have come along to support new entrepreneurs in our city to accelerate their businesses and grow them, bringing new businesses into our city centre with office space, conferencing facilities, a café and co-working. There is a great opportunity there, with training and networking for existing businesses, and business leaders coming into the heart of our city. This is how we are revitalising our high streets: with the businesses for the future and the new communities for the future.

[Catherine West]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her positive tone. Combined with her ideas on housing, which she has talked about in the House, what she describes could be a really fantastic way forward for York, with the university, the housing and the vibrant high street.

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. Of course, we are building that vision for the future of our city and it is coming to life.

There is not only the Guildhall project. Spark is a community interest company in our city centre that has now set up in old shipping containers, no less. It is a real community space where there are start-ups, support, events, a food bank, a kids’ cinema kids—you name it, it happens at Spark. It is an exciting place.

We need to ensure that the kinds of initiatives I have mentioned get the support that they need to be able to grow and create the next generation of our high streets. That is why I look to the Minister, while he has the pen in his hand, to think about how we invest in the future of our high streets. In particular, we should look at the investment funding pots that can be applied to, to ensure that we really give energy to these opportunities and see the businesses, growth and entrepreneurs flourish in the future, while ensuring that we build stability in our towns and cities for the years ahead.

COP27

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman challenges me again to put our programme forward before the COP27 delegation has even arrived in Westminster. I would argue that they want to ensure that, where we have not gone as far as we wanted at COP27, we can achieve those ambitious targets at the next COP. As everyone mentioned earlier, the world is watching and we cannot be in the situation of saying that 1.5° is hanging by a thread.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister has not mentioned methane and the disappointing agreement to reduce methane by just 30% by 2030. Why is her Department sitting on a green new deal for BioYorkshire that would put the science in place for global transformation around issues such as methane and fuel transition?

[Ms Ghani]

The most peculiar thing is that I assumed the Minister for Climate would be in the Chamber. I did my best to prepare for the methane question, but I am struggling to find the exact answer in front of me. If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will make sure that she gets a written response from him, if not from me, by the end of the week.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is an effective campaigner for pump hydro storage and it is important to look at that. We are looking at all possibilities for maximising renewable energy.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Today’s news that an additional 10,000 people every single month are now on pre-payment meters, bringing the total to 7.5 million, is deeply troubling, not least as they are paying up to 27% more for their energy. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that there is poverty alleviation on energy for the very poorest?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I have said already, schemes are in place to support people during the winter. There is £800 available that has already been announced. There is the £400 that everybody will get. I also went through the additional schemes that are available to support people. I absolutely recognise—the hon. Lady is right to raise this on behalf of her constituents—that the price rises are difficult and worrying for people. That is why such a wide package of support has been brought forward.

Shale Gas Extraction

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady refers to dangerous fossil fuels that people depend on for heating their water and their homes every day, that businesses depend on for being in business, and that people put in their cars to get around the countryside. We need to ensure that we have a sensible transition. Gas is fundamental to that. Simply wishing the world to be a different world will not be a successful policy.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Yorkshire is currently under a hosepipe ban because we simply do not have the infrastructure in place to provide resilience in our water supply. At the same time, when fracking uses an exhaustive amount of water, this proposal does not make sense. Will the Secretary of State publish an impact assessment on our water infrastructure to ensure that there is resilience in the system before he even considers fracking?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady raises a fair point. It does depend on the water company. In my area, Wessex Water has done a phenomenal job of ensuring that it did not need hosepipe bans, or even get close to hosepipe bans, because it runs its system effectively. She is right to call on the water companies to run their systems effectively, because it is hard to believe that the United Kingdom is actually short of water.