Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 20th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We can have a good debate about this a week on Monday, but the Opposition parties seem to be arguing simultaneously that minimum service levels exist across Europe, that strikes are happening across Europe, and that the two things are incompatible. Clearly we are not taking away the right to strike: we know that nurses have voted to strike on 7 and 8 February. We are simply saying, “Yes, you can strike, but put a voluntary agreement in place to have minimum service levels,” as the nurses do—a derogation, as they call it. The two things are not incompatible.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. With respect, this is the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. Several Members referred to the matter in this debate, so I felt I needed to address it, but under your instructions I will move on. Other Government measures, of course, include increasing the national living wage to £10.42, which we shall do very shortly—so we have a number of measures to strengthen workers’ rights rather than reducing them.

As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East explained, an estimated 100,000 babies in the UK are admitted to neonatal care every year following birth, for a range of medical reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) said, tens of thousands of children are in neonatal care for a week or longer, so the issue clearly affects many, many parents. In 2018, our study identified that 37,400 children were in neonatal care for more than a week after birth, so it is clearly a hugely important issue.

The United Kingdom has generous entitlements and protections designed to support employed parents to balance their family and work commitments and maintain their place in the labour market while raising their children. However, for parents who are in the worrying position of having their newborn admitted to neonatal care, it is clear that the current leave and pay entitlements do not provide adequate support. The Government consulted on the issue, and in March 2020 we committed to introducing a new entitlement to neonatal leave and pay. We are therefore pleased to support the Bill, which will bring that policy into effect.

As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East set out, the Bill will provide a statutory leave entitlement that protects employees against any detriment. Many considerate employers provide that anyway, but the Bill will ensure that the minority who perhaps do not must do so in future. The Bill gives a day one right to leave to anyone with a child in neonatal care for seven full days of continuous care. It is a right to pay based upon continuity of service.

I will touch on some points made by Members, but I first thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) for his work on this Bill. The issue was first introduced to the House in an Adjournment debate, which was responded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. I know the hon. Member for Pontypridd has campaigned long and hard on this issue, as has the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on premature and sick babies. We should pay tribute to all those people.

Many Members in this debate and previous debates have spoken about their personal experiences very movingly. I am the father of four children; our first child was in neonatal care, as he was very jaundiced when he was born. That is a massive worry for any parent. It is not just about the jaundice, as there can be other health implications including deafness. For the first child it is even more worrying. All those contributions resonated with me and, I am sure, others in the House.

The hon. Member for Cheadle rightly thanked the charity Bliss and other charities that support families through their difficult time. The hon. Member for Pontypridd also thanked the charity Bliss. She is vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on premature and sick babies. I thank her for her work on that. She directed the House’s attention to her personal experience of this issue, as her son was born prematurely. I am grateful that her husband’s employer was flexible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Watford showed huge empathy, as always, for parents who go through that experience. He has much experience with the issue, having been the Minister in the Bill Committee at one point. He emphasised the impact that having a premature or poorly baby has on parents’ mental health. This Bill will massively help ease anxiety. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Putney, and the hon. Member for Pontypridd asked how long it has taken to introduce the Bill to the House. Legislation is never that speedy—only in emergency times, perhaps. This legislation was a 2019 manifesto commitment, and in 2020 we conducted a consultation. Clearly, there have been other issues that we have had to deal with over recent years, but we are keen to expedite this legislation and we are pleased to see it passing through its final stages in the House.

The shadow Minister also asked about a single enforcement body. We have this matter under review, but she can see that a tremendous amount of work is happening on other legislation that we are keen to bring forward. I am happy to have a conversation with the hon. Lady at any time about other measures that she would like us to implement. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) emphasised how the Bill will benefit fathers and non-birthing partners, as they will have leave to spend time with their child in hospital. She spoke of the benefits to businesses, as they will be able to reclaim the money via HMRC and have less financial burden.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) raised interesting points, as always. I was pleased to hear him talking about the potential impact on business. It is right that we consider that. We ask businesses to do more and more for employees, quite rightly. Nevertheless, we should always consider the impact. He talked about the impact assessment, which states that the financial impact on business is estimated at around £22 million per annum. That is an insignificant amount, and it is right to consider that, but on balance is the right thing to do.

My hon. Friend questioned why it costs £5 million for HMRC to set up the entitlement. That is a good question. As he said, I do not look after HMRC directly, but I am told that they need to update their IT systems and support employers and payroll providers to do the same. This is a sizeable project that is primarily a matter for HMRC and the Treasury, so he may want to ask a Treasury Minister. He also asked about the assessment of legal risk if employers do not claim at the time but claim later. The regulations will specify how long an employee has to claim entitlements to leave and pay, but the Bill specifies that it cannot be less than 68 weeks after the birth of the child. When it comes to pay, there is a power in the Bill that could require someone to still be employed by the same employer when the claim for pay starts. We acknowledge the point that my hon. Friend makes and it will be considered carefully when the regulations are drafted.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and I agree we should make the process as easy as possible to ease the burden on businesses. That is certainly something we will look at within the regulations.

We will also look at the definition of neonatal in the regulations, but hospital and outreach care and, tragically—as hon. Members have said—perhaps palliative care would be the key areas. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) told the moving story of her friend Kirsty, whose daughter needed neonatal care. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn shared her own experiences of a child who spent time in neonatal care.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) mentioned bags of sugar—I think bags of sugar are 2.2 lb each—and spoke about the other measures the Government are taking to improve workers’ rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) also paid tribute to the Bliss charity’s campaigning on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), even without notes, spoke about the charity Leo’s, named after a baby who tragically died.

Without further ado, the Government are supporting this Bill in line with our ongoing commitment to support workers and build a high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy. It is good to see support in the House from across the political spectrum for this important measure, as is clear from this debate.

In conclusion, I thank civil servants who worked on the Bill: Rosie Edmonds, Tolu Odeleye, Roxana Bakharia, Abi Bridger, Bryan Halka, Jayne McCann and Cora Sweet, who is in the officials’ box today. I look forward to continuing to work with the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to support the passage of these measures.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

With the leave of the House, I call Stuart C. McDonald to wind up the debate.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

The Minister spoke of taking back control, but the harsh reality is that the Government are taking back control from the Scottish Parliament. Yesterday we heard about the UK Government enacting section 35 to strike out a Bill of the Scottish Parliament. The Scotland Act 2016 contains the Sewel convention, which requires the UK Government to obtain the consent of the Scottish Parliament when they are acting in devolved matters. The Scottish Government are not giving their consent. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Why should the Scottish Government not have the right to veto this Bill, which tramples over devolution and our laws in a way that we do not consent to?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Could I gently say to the Minister that in order to facilitate Hansard and hon. Members seeking to hear, it would be helpful if she could address the microphone rather than the Back Benches?

[Ms Ghani]

My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The question is, why would the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) not take the power that the Scottish Government will be given through this Bill when it comes to devolved matters, to look at the EU laws and see whether they want to maintain them or enhance them for their own people? Why would they want to reject the power that they have been offered through this Bill? We remain fully committed to the Sewel convention. It is an essential element of the devolution settlement. The UK Government continue to seek legislative consent for Bills that interact with devolution. The right hon. Member’s argument does not make any sense. My worry is that Scottish Government do not want the powers because then they will have to exercise them. I know it is a little bit of work, but it is worth doing.

This Bill provides the opportunity to improve the competitiveness of the UK economy while maintaining high standards. It will ensure that the Government can more easily amend, revoke or replace retained EU law, so that the Government can create legislation that better suits the UK. This programme of reform must be done. The people of the UK did not vote for Brexit with the expectation that nearly a decade later, politicians in Westminster would continually rehash old and settled arguments, as those on the Opposition Benches so love to do. We must push on and seize the opportunities that Brexit provides. That will ensure that our economy is dynamic and agile and can support advances in technology and science.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice because the Environment Secretary testified to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the water framework directive was subject to change, on the advice of the Environment Agency, but now we are being told that it will not be. So who should we believe?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that that is not a matter for the Chair. The Minister is responsible for her own words and statements, and she must take responsibility for them. While I am on my feet, let me say that a significant number of Members wish to participate in this debate and a limited time is available. It is clear that the Minister does not intend to give way, having done so several times, and we should progress with the debate.

[Ms Ghani]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To ensure that the devolved Governments are also able to fully seize the benefits of Brexit, we are providing them with the tools to reform the retained EU law that is within their own devolved competence. That will give the devolved Governments greater flexibility to decide how they should regulate those areas currently governed by retained EU law. The majority of the powers in the Bill are conferred on the devolved Governments, which will enable them to take more active decisions about their citizens and their businesses. The devolved Governments will also have the ability to decide which retained EU law they wish to preserve and assimilate, and which they wish to let sunset within their devolved competences.

Since we left the EU, more powers have already been passed on to devolved Administrations, in areas such as farming, fishing and the environment. Under the Bill, these powers can continue to be there. The question is: why would they not enjoy that power to make sure that decisions are taken that best fit their communities? We have carefully considered how this Bill will have an impact on each of the four great nations and we recognise that it is of paramount importance that we continue to work together as one on important issues, including the environment.

As has been mentioned, we accept that some retained EU law in scope of the sunset is required to continue to operate our international obligations, including the trade and co-operation agreement, the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. Therefore, I am happy to make a commitment here today that the Government will, as a priority, take the action required to ensure that the necessary legislation is in place to uphold the UK’s international obligations. In the near future, we will set out where retained EU law is required. Obviously, as well as sharing things on the dashboard, we are working closely with officials in Northern Ireland.

One amendment relates to carving out devolved nations. This Bill must and should apply to all nations of the UK. The territorial scope of the Bill is UK-wide and it is therefore constitutionally appropriate that the sunset applies across all four sovereign nations of the UK. One of the Bill’s primary objectives is to end retained EU law as a legal category across the UK. Providing a carve-out for legislation that is within a devolved competence would severely impact the coherence of the UK statute book and legal certainty for our public and businesses.

I also commend my Cabinet colleagues who are already making gallant efforts to establish ambitious reform plans that will help to drive growth. We are already in the process of removing outdated retained EU law in financial services, through the Financial Services and Markets Bill, and we have already repealed other outdated rules, enabling us to capitalise on tax freedoms. For example, the Government have ended the tampon tax by removing VAT on women’s sanitary products. We have also been able to embrace other opportunities, such as on vaccines, freeports, gene editing, free trade agreements, EU budget payments, immigration control, fishing and even foreign policy on Ukraine. Outside the EU’s unwritten rules on solidarity in foreign policy, we were the first to send arms to defend Ukraine, ignoring German bans on such equipment. That is unlikely to have happened when we were in the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Take out your mental editing pens, ladies and gentlemen, because you are going to have to start cutting your speeches in a big way. We have heard two very lengthy opening statements and a number of lengthy interventions. There are some 30 Members still wishing to take part and the wind-up speeches will start at 5.30 pm. I am going to call the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee and the SNP Front-Bench spokesperson, upon both of whom I would urge brevity, after which I shall impose a six-minute time limit on speeches, which may drop further under Mr Evans later on. I call the Chairman of the Select Committee.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Having endured the last 40 minutes, I am bound to say, as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, that although I will be relatively brief there are important matters that need to be discussed. I will raise them and give the House the opportunity to reflect on what I have to say.

This Bill was passed by this House without amendment. There were no amendments on Second Reading or in the Public Bill Committee. I have been Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee for many years, and I have been on this Committee since 1985. I draw the attention of the House to the European Scrutiny Committee report tagged to this debate, published on 21 July last year. As the Minister said, EU retained law was never intended to remain part of our domestic statute book. I am deeply grateful to the Government for today’s round robin letter to all Members and to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) for his work on the genesis of this Bill.

We left the European Union with section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 guaranteeing UK sovereignty and democracy, and therefore UK democracy itself. It was the culmination of a process that began with my sovereignty amendment to the Single European Act in 1986, which, at that time, I was not even allowed to debate. In turn, that was followed by the Maastricht treaty and a whole series of treaties, enactments and debates on the Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon treaties.

Incidentally, on the question of maternity pay—the only interesting thing mentioned by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders)—the UK actually has 52 weeks of maternity pay, while the EU has merely eight. On holiday pay, we have six weeks; the EU has four.

The views of the British people, as expressed ultimately in the 2016 referendum, repudiated the idea of our remaining in the EU by democratic vote, and the general election that endorsed that decision, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) as Prime Minister, gave the present Conservative Government a large majority. The democracy that we enjoy is based on our unique and universally envied constitutional arrangements, whereby laws are passed in this House by a simple majority of MPs representing individual constituencies, who derive their authority exclusively from those who voted them into the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been told many times that when we are on Report, we should not make general speeches but refer to amendments. Can you make a judgment on whether what is being said is appropriate?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I have already exercised that judgment. If I thought that the hon. Gentleman was out of order, I would have ruled him out of order.

[Sir William Cash]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So much for that.

Our system has relied uniquely on a large bench of high-quality, independent judges, who address points that are brought before them when people or businesses apply to the courts for remedies for perceived damage or misconduct. Through our traditional decision-making process, which must be interpreted in accordance with what is precisely set out in our sovereign Parliament, the judges must develop what is generally regarded as a fair and equitable system of redress, and set standards of care and determine consequences of breach in matters of responsibility and duty.

We therefore have to strip away vast amounts of inherited EU law, which operates on the constitutional code-based model that is alien to our system, so that we once again have a single common law system in our country—provided, of course, that we have the right people doing it, such as the Brexit opportunities unit, and that the task can be performed smoothly. In addition, economic research shows that this step will considerably enhance the UK growth rate, not by lowering standards but by removing or replacing voluminous, poorly drafted, generalised, purposive EU texts.

If we miss this opportunity, we will have shirked the core and inevitable consequence of the democratic decision that was taken by the people of this country. We must make our own sovereign democratic laws on our own terms, although on occasion, we may well decide to complement laws made in the US, parts of the EU or parts of the Commonwealth. Exchange across different constitutional arrangements sometimes leads to improved ways of doing things and improved laws, which is a good thing.

Ultimately, however, the simple test is what this House decides as the democratic law-making system under which we are governed; what the judges determine in the best tradition of our constitutional arrangements, which have been built up over many centuries; and how they interpret those laws in line with what our sovereign Parliament has decided. The work of the Brexit opportunities unit and of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, to whom I pay tribute, as well as the work of my Committee, is absolutely enormous.

The principle of the Bill was agreed on Second Reading and, as I said, in the Public Bill Committee. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and the Government for listening to the strong advice that I and others have offered. The Bill not only is justified democratically but, as enacted, will continue to be so. The freedoms that it will provide, in creating new opportunities for legislation, competitiveness and innovation, are self-explanatory.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). Bluntly, we do not agree on much, but I do not doubt his enthusiasm for the subject. If what he is on comes in powder form, I would be grateful if he could slip me over some wraps—I think I am missing out on quite a journey.

Much as we disagree with the substance and content of the Bill, it is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), who did much of the heavy lifting throughout its earlier stages and who, for his troubles, was rewarded by metamorphosing into our Chief Whip so he cannot be here today. I am pleased to carry on his work. The fact that he has maintained his sunny disposition and sanity during the process is testament to his fortitude, because when I read the earlier proceedings, I could not help thinking that they were some sort of satirical effort written by Armando Iannucci, Ian Hislop, Paul Foot or—to go back a bit further—Jonathan Swift or Lewis Carroll; I very much enjoyed “Nusrat in Wonderland” during the Minister’s opening speech.

I will focus on our amendments 29, 30, 31 and 33. We will press amendment 28 to a vote, because we believe that it is worth checking the mood of House. I will come on to the detail of that in due course.

I will speak about our philosophy and approach to the Bill, and about its import. I have never been more conscious of the difference in world view between Government Members and my party and country. We did not see the EU as a prison to leave or as undemocratic. EU laws were passed in conjunction with the democratically elected UK Government and democratically elected MEPs in the Council. The hon. Member for Stone talked about the codified basis of EU legislation, and he is right about that in codified jurisdictions, but to enter into the domestic legal framework of these islands, it had to be dealt with via statutory instrument. I really do not think, therefore, that the starting point of the Bill is correct.

I will give our bona fides. SNP Members deeply regret leaving the EU, as does my country, which voted against it. We in Scotland were taken out against our democratic will, so although the hon. Gentleman talks about a democratic deficit, Government Members should worry far more about the democratic deficit in the UK than the one in the EU. I see their smirks, as ever, but it is not just us that they are denigrating—it is the people of Scotland. In the last opinion poll, 72% of the people of Scotland wanted to go back into the European Union. We hear that Brexit has been such a success, but in 2016, the UK economy was 90% the size of the German economy and it is now 70%. If anybody would like to prove me wrong about that, they can try. These are facts.

I accept the democratic mandate that some hon. Members talk about, but in terms of where we are coming from with the Bill, I hope that Government Members respect our pro-EU sentiment, because it is deeply felt. To be clear, this is a matter of deep sadness and anger for us, but I am not interested in fighting old battles. I am interested in fighting future ones, however, and we will have plenty of those.

I say to Government Members: “If you will do this damn silly thing, don’t do it in this damn silly way.” I do not agree with the premise or the intent of this legislation, but it is the content that will quickly come back to haunt the Government, in exactly the same way that many other mistakes that were harrumphed to the rafters in this House came back to haunt the Government who tried to deny that they had anything to do with them.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I cannot give way, because I do not have time.

Importantly, I wish to press the Government to consider widening the list of sectors where minimum service standards are needed. I wish to ask the Government to ensure that they always look to keep legislation and measures open and under review, so that we can continue to uphold standards to protect the public going about their daily lives.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) said that this was a partisan debate. Of course it is a partisan debate, because we either believe in the right of workers to strike or we do not, so, clearly, it is a partisan debate. She spoke about SMEs struggling because of strikes. I can tell her that SMEs in my constituency are more worried about their energy bills going through the roof and the lack of Government support that is coming down the line from April onwards.

We know that this is “anti-strike legislation”—those are not my words, but the words of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland from the Dispatch Box last week at Scotland questions. He boasted that his Government were introducing “anti-strike” legislation in a rare bit of honesty from the Dispatch Box.

The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy keeps going on about minimum ambulance cover, but the reality is that this is an attack on millions of public sector workers. The explanatory notes tell us that this is a Tory manifesto commitment about tackling transport strikes. Although the Conservatives might hide behind that manifesto commitment, that commitment has nothing to do with clamping down on the NHS or on teachers. The Conservatives claim that it is about safety, but, as I said earlier, the word “safety” is not used once in the Bill or in explanatory notes. The reality is that this is an ideological war on the unions, which the Tories somehow think will curry favour with the public. It is a misty-eyed look back to Margaret Thatcher taking on the National Union of Mineworkers. It was a battle that she won, but it was a battle that resulted in the closures of mines and left communities devasted and thousands of workers on the dole. Do we really want to go back to sacking workers and putting them on the dole? That is what this is all about.

We know that this is an ideological war, because, in this period of Tory governance, the Government have already given us the Trade Union Act 2016, introducing voting thresholds, and then, last year, the legislation to allow employers to hire agency staff to break strikes. There is no doubt that this Government want to end strikes, effectively removing the ultimate backstop on collective bargaining.

The Bill not only facilitates an attack on workers, but enables employers to potentially sue unions for damages. It is no wonder that it is opposed by the TUC, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Unison, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing among others, and I certainly support them in opposing this.

The legislation is nothing more than an attack on democracy—an attack on the rights of workers to withdraw their labour, and a further attack on devolution. Neither the Scottish Government nor the Welsh Government want this legislation, but, yet again, this legislation will be imposed on the devolved nations. In Scotland, this is further proof that the Westminster straitjacket does us no good at all. We could have had employment and workers’ rights devolved, but, unfortunately, Labour resisted those powers coming to Scotland. However, even the STUC has now called for the devolution of employment rights to Scotland, so perhaps Labour should consider that, instead of listening to Gordon Brown’s rehash of broken promises.

It is worth noting that the Bill does not impact Northern Ireland, as employment law is already devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, so, yet again, the so-called most powerful devolved Parliament in the world—the Scottish Parliament—has fewer powers than the Northern Ireland Assembly, and this proves it.

This ideological attack comes from someone who, as Transport Secretary, was non-existent when it came to dialogue and communications, and that was confirmed by the unions. He was somebody who was blocking the DFT from agreeing deals, and now we have that same person in post leading the charge for anti-strike and anti-worker legislation. Given the Secretary of State’s form, we know that he is up for a fight, but even if wins this fight, he will be destroying worker relationships for good. These are hard-pressed workers, particularly from within the NHS, who are struggling at times with the pressures that they are under. Who seriously thinks that not negotiating and threatening workers with the sack for striking will help matters? It is utterly insane. As the rail unions pointed out at the Transport Committee last week, deals have been agreed where DfT and UK Ministers are not involved. Clearly the union asks cannot be too unreasonable, when RMT and ASLEF have agreed deals with ScotRail and the Scottish Government, deals in Wales and deals with Merseyrail, for example—deals with Governments and authorities that have been hamstrung by the Tory austerity imposed on them, yet still managed to agree deals.

The Tories tell us they are the party of workers. That phrase fools no one, but they also tell us they are all about a high-wage, skilled economy. Yet, as we have heard, when workers ask for a wage rise they are told no, that it is unaffordable; even worse, in the case of the rail unions, the Secretary of State quotes figures that he thinks show how well paid all rail staff are. That is really telling: the Secretary of State is effectively saying, “Train drivers are overpaid—how dare they ask for a wage rise?”. That is insulting beyond belief.

The Tories can forget saying they want a high-wage economy. They were quite happy for the rail companies to pay dividends during the pandemic. They were quite happy for Virgin Trains East Coast to walk away from the London North Eastern Railway franchise owing billions of pounds, but they always go for attacking workers.

It is the same with the Secretary’s rhetoric about this legislation mirroring what happens elsewhere in Europe. His soundbites are easily proven to be false. Indeed, the general secretary of the European Federation of Public Service Unions, Jan Willem Goudriaan, argued that comparison by the UK Government of this Bill with existing laws in other EU countries was misrepresenting the situation, because all minimum service levels in Europe are agreed through negotiation. Moreover, the general secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation, Esther Lynch, said:

“The UK already has among the most draconian restrictions on the right to strike in Europe, and the UK government’s plans would push it even further away from normal, democratic practice across Europe”.

Pablo Sánchez Centellas, a spokesperson for the EPSU, was much more succinct, saying, “It’s bollocks.” The Secretary of State should reflect on the true position of this proposed legislation compared with what is happening in Europe.

It also seems that this legislation is in breach of article 11 of the European convention on human rights, especially with regard to proportionate action. Richard Arthur, head of trade union law at Thompsons Solicitors, said the Bill raised,

“very serious legal question marks”,

and anticipates legal challenges under article 11 of the ECHR and convention 87 of the International Labour Organisation. He has also rightly pointed out that the human rights memorandum that accompanied the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill set out reasons why minimum service levels were not justified in fire services, health settings or education, yet that is what the Government now propose. By default, this Government are now going against their own previous human rights opinion. What kind of madness is that?

When it comes to the International Labour Organisation, which the Secretary of State likes to reference, its idea of minimum service requirements is clearly intended to be based on endangerment to life, personal safety or health. This wide-ranging legislation goes way beyond those parameters. The ILO makes it clear there should be an independent arbitration body, yet this Bill is completely silent on such a body. Why is that?

It is also clear that any minimum service level is supposed to be just that—a bare minimum. We have no idea what this Government will railroad through via statutory instruments. Statutory instruments cannot be amended and the last time a Government was defeated on a statutory instrument was in 1979, so we know all power rests with the Government there.

As Liberty has observed, the Bill does not create any form of minimal service. Liberty also confirms that MPs debating this legislation on Second Reading will not know exactly what they are voting for, so all the Tory MPs in the Chamber who are going to take part in the debate and then trot through the Lobby will do so blind to what the future legislation and regulations on minimum service will look like. It is an affront to democracy. Any Tory MP who claims to care about parliamentary sovereignty cannot possibly vote for this Bill.

The Bill is made worse by the Henry VIII power that allows amendment and revocation even of future legislation not yet passed. We can see how the Government are ramming this Bill through Parliament with minimum scrutiny and a proposed programme motion allowing just five hours for Committee. It really is an assault on democracy. The fact that the Bill comes into effect immediately once passed, so that work notices and actions can be taken by employers for strikes that have already been voted through, shows just how ridiculous this assault on workers is.

The impact assessment for the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill observes that on a strike day in July 2022, 20% of rail services were still in operation. Right away that suggests to me that a minimum level of service was operating. What do the Tories really think a minimum service is, if 20% is not a bare minimum? There are huge ramifications here for rail workers overall, because if this Government force through a high threshold of minimum service, strikes by signalmen and track operatives will effectively be banned. A high minimum service will force all those guys to work to keep the tracks in operation and the trains running, effectively blocking strikes by the back door.

What will minimum service look like for teachers? Where does that fit in with all the talk about safety? What happens to train companies that cannot provide a minimum service at the moment, especially if union members decide not to work on their rest days and to work to rule? Where will that leave this Government on minimum service level obligations?

The overview in the explanatory notes makes it clear that the ability to sack workers is a key aspect of the Bill. That is the polar opposite of what was said when a transport strike Bill was listed in the Queen’s Speech in December 2019, when it was stated that workers would not be discriminated against. Why are the Government now threatening people’s livelihoods?

Despite what the Secretary of State says, it is also clear that this legislation will allow employers to target those they think are part of an awkward squad. Allowing employers to decide who has to work on notified strike days clearly infringes on workers’ rights to withdraw labour. Instead of the illegal blacklisting previously done by some companies, employers now can name workers they want to break a strike, and sack those workers if they stay true to their beliefs. How can that be deemed acceptable?

The sacking aspect is the proof that this is nothing to do with minimum cover by ambulance staff, as the Secretary of State likes to tell us. It also ignores the fact that section 240 of the 1992 Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) keeps saying, allows for preserving life and limb, and that unions have their own practices to comply with that legislation. For fire services, the Secretary of State could also utilise the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, if he felt the desire to do so.

It is crystal clear that this legislation is not required. It is an attack on democracy and the right to strike; it will prolong industrial disputes, not resolve them; it will allow individual workers to be targeted through work notices; and it is politically stupid. We have to wonder why this Tory Government are looking to antagonise something like 7 million workers across these sectors. It also shows an astonishing level of incompetence to bring in legislation that potentially allows them to sack essential workers in vital sectors where there is already a shortage of skilled workers.

The public can see through a Government who partied while clapping the nurses and now threaten them with the sack. They should follow the lead of the Scottish Government and get around the negotiating table. The resolution of the ScotRail dispute has been commended by both the RMT and ASLEF. There are no strikes planned in the health service in Scotland and the pay deal being implemented by the Scottish Government is one that the UK Government should replicate as a starting point when they get around the negotiating table.

It is outrageous that the Scottish Government, who have been negotiating in good faith with the unions, will now have this legislation foisted upon them—legislation that Westminster could use to force work notices through in Scotland against the wishes of the Scottish Government and that could ruin otherwise good working relationships in Scotland. Employment law should be devolved to Scotland, but even that would now just be a sticking plaster. It is perfectly obvious that what Scotland now needs is the full powers of a normal, independent country.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

It looks like being quite the week for the use of draconian anti-democratic powers by this Government. The restrictive anti-trade union legislation they pushed through in 2016 clearly was not enough for them, so now we see an unprecedented attack that will undermine the most basic of workers’ rights—the right to withdraw labour. The right to strike is essential for fairness in negotiations with employers and to protect workers from having appalling pay and conditions imposed on them. It is what differentiates modern Europe from the medieval serfdoms of the past.

Turning their backs on the fundamental tenets of democracy really is something this Government are getting far too used to doing. The more they get a taste for it, the further they want to go. We saw them illegally prorogue Parliament and push through Brexit, and now we see plans for a bonfire of thousands of EU regulations that protect our rights. We saw the attack on devolution through the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and now we see them block a democratic decision rightly taken in Holyrood, cranking up the disrespect yet another notch. We see their anti-protest laws becoming even more authoritarian, with plans for the police to arrest campaigners before they even have a chance to commit a crime, and now we have their anti-trade union agenda being taken to the next level with these blunt powers being brought forward to stop strikes.

The sweeping Henry VIII powers in the Bill, enabling Ministers to amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation not yet passed, should chill the heart of any democrat. It is ironic that a Government so keen to turn their back on Europe lean so heavily on their excuse, “But that is what other countries do”. It is also deeply disingenuous, and as Unison has rightly pointed out, countries being cherry-picked by the Government, such as Italy and France, come to voluntary agreements through collaborative processes and have far less restrictive measures in place than we currently see in the UK. They do not have unspecified minimum service levels imposed on them by an Executive, as this Bill would enable this Government to do. Strikes are not the cause of the problems we face here; they are a symptom of the deep-rooted damage that has been done to our public service by this Government. The fact is that nobody downs tools without very good cause, especially during a cost of living crisis.

Whatever motivation workers may have, they are under attack on all fronts by this Government, and I commend the unions for taking action to protect their members. If the Government continue to be determined to go down this destructive path, further damaging industrial relations, they must devolve employment law now, so that the Scottish Government have the powers they need to protect the rights of the people of Scotland from the damage of this Government. Workers are not just striking for themselves. They are striking for the very future of public services, which they witness being run into the ground. They are protecting the cohesion of our communities, the standards of living we should all be able to enjoy and the rights of all workers. I stand in solidarity with them, and I will always fight to protect the right to strike from irresponsible attacks such as this. This Bill should be refused any further consideration, and I urge every Member here tonight to stand against it and vote it down.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call Gagan Mohindra.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

May I first welcome you to your place, Mr Deputy Speaker? I place on record my thanks to all public sector workers for the excellent work they have done—not just during the pandemic, but for many years prior to it.

As we all know, the country is facing a difficult period of economic hardship. Yes, it is partly because of the war in Ukraine, and yes, it is partly because of our active response in the fight against the pandemic, but we need to be conscious that we are here to support workers, and not all workers are members of unions. It is fair and reasonable, and I always come back to the theme of being fair and reasonable, to suggest that some of this legislation—and I will be supporting the Bill—is about making sure there is a correct balance between those in the unions who wish to strike and those, who are a majority of my electorate, who continue either to run their own small companies or to work in smaller industries that rely on public services, such as the railway network.

As many Members will know—I have said this in this place before—while I represent quite a lovely constituency, public transport very much runs north and south, and when there are rail strikes, my constituents can get around only with extreme difficulty. While that may not necessarily hurt those who have the ability to access a car or, in extremis, pay for a little cab, those who we should be supporting the most are actually the ones most affected by this—the ones who are not able to use the bus to send their kids off to school or to get to their GP surgery for a doctor’s appointment.

Reference has been made to the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, which I know has had a really tough time over many years. I would like to place on record my thanks that it was not one of the bodies that had a strike over recent weeks. Unfortunately, I have had to use its services over the last few weeks and months, and I know that it is literally saving lives in doing the excellent work it does in very difficult circumstances.

One of the things I want to make the public aware of is that, post pandemic, we have adapted the way we work. Yes, we are very supportive of people such as rail workers, but the general population will adapt. I am a firm believer that we should be encouraging people to get back to work, which may mean commuting to London, as it does for a lot of my constituents. However, if that proves too difficult, they will just turn around and say, “Actually, we’ve already adapted, post pandemic, to working from home”. That means we will hollow out the urban areas of our country such as central London, where instead of a vibrant high street, as we have had with Victoria Street, we will very quickly have high street retailers, such as the Pret A Mangers of the world, closing up shop because they do not have the footfall to support them.

Reference has been made to international comparisons. I for one think we have got the balance right with our support for workers, but also, counter to that, for wealth creators. As someone who comes from a small and medium-sized enterprise background, I know that I was fully reliant on one, two or three workers in, in my case, a furniture retail shop, to make sure the business could run, and I could not have done it without them. They were not part of a union, but 80% of our economy is reliant on SMEs, so while unions are excellent in the work they do for large public sector bodies, other workers out there are not members of a union.

Finally, my great friend my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) mentioned that our armed forces and the police have not been able to strike for over 100 years. That system has worked, so I am not necessarily worried about this particular piece of legislation.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order.

Industrial Action

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. May I gently remind Members that Mr Speaker has determined that anybody who came in five minutes after the start of the session will not be called?

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I know that the Secretary of State likes to fly around in his own private plane, but I can tell him for a fact that while he has been doing that, many nurses in my constituency have been accessing food banks. This Government seem very uncomfortable with nurses standing on picket lines but totally relaxed about them lining up to get food for their families at food banks. If this Government are serious about stopping the strikes, surely now is the time to pay these essential workers properly.

Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Consumer Ombudsman Scheme

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

In a half-hour debate, the hon. Lady or Gentleman in charge may give way to interventions as they please, but any speeches must be cleared with the owner of the debate, the Minister and the Chair.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Consumer Ombudsman Scheme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank hon. Members for attending. I thank the House of Commons digital engagement team for its contributions to this debate, in which I want to highlight a failing in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and to call for its unambiguous enforceability in the future.

I have previously raised the 2015 Act on behalf of my constituents in a public petition more than two years ago, highlighting that it does not do enough to protect consumers against rogue traders who do not comply with the terms of the Act. To recap, the changes made by the Act give consumers the right to reject goods within 30 days and to receive a refund when the goods received are not as described or faulty. However, there is nothing built into the legislation to enforce the right to reject. Moreover, consumers cannot act against companies that do not participate in the consumer ombudsman scheme. Therefore, if the company does not co-operate, the only recourse for the consumer is to undertake the laborious and protractive process of raising legal action, either in a small claims court in England or via what is known as a simple procedure in Scotland, which is essentially the same process.

The petition I presented in December 2017 urged the UK Government to review the 2015 Act to ensure better protection for consumers. It also asked for a review of the terms of the Act, to make membership of a professional body compulsory for traders, thereby giving consumers the ability to pursue a complaint with the consumer ombudsman. In response the Government stated that

“if a consumer has a complaint and is not satisfied with the company’s response to it, they can go to an ombudsman or other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provider.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2017; Vol. 632, c. 6P.]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I call Margaret Ferrier to make an intervention.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Martin Lewis, the money saving expert, has done a significant piece of work on this issue in his 2017 report, “Sharper teeth: the consumer need for ombudsman reform”. Does my hon. Friend agree that membership of ombudsman schemes, which can legally enforce decisions, should be mandatory of all organisations, and that that is at the heart of the problem? Those ombudsmen would be answerable to Parliament for how they enforce decisions on behalf of consumers, thereby protecting everybody from the kinds of mistakes highlighted by my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should not be fiddly, disguised excuses for speeches. The Chair takes a rather dim view of it.

[Martyn Day]

I agree with the course of action suggested by my hon. Friend. It would benefit consumers and traders.

As I have pointed out, membership of an ombudsman scheme is voluntary, and a company can refuse to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process. Even though it may be in the best interest of consumers and companies to deal with problems quickly, effectively and amicably, I am sure no one will be surprised that unco-operative companies prefer to be obstructive, to prevent a quick, effective and amicable resolution. That was the experience of a constituent of mine with one such company, which I will come to shortly.

The Government response conceded that

“there is no mandatory requirement to use ADR although it is available for any dispute should the business decide they want to use it.”

This debate and my prior petition are about the Consumer Rights Act 2015, so it does not compute that businesses can decide whether they want to use an alternative dispute resolution while customers’ wishes are overlooked. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain how that relates to consumer rights. The production of the consumer Green Paper—a positive outcome of my petition—was meant to

“closely examine markets especially those which are not working fairly for consumers.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2017; Vol. 632, c. 6P.]

The example I will give is a good case of that. As my constituent’s experience will show, there are markets that are not working fairly for consumers. Despite the Green Paper, no amendments have been made to the 2015 Act to address the situation.

Among other things, the Green Paper consulted on two matters directly related to my constituent’s case: how to improve the system of alternative dispute resolution, and how to support local and national enforcers to work together to protects consumers. I draw Members’ attention to “Creating a successful enforcement system for UK consumers”, a policy report published a year ago by Which? Among other things, it directly addresses those two relevant matters. It proposes seven changes to create a regime that will protect consumers effectively, because the current system is, unfortunately, too weak.

The report proposes:

“A robust and accessible ADR system is vital for people who have been unable to resolve their complaint directly with the business concerned.”

It further states:

“Key to a successful system is… fair and enforceable decisions by ADR bodies”.

I fully endorse and agree with those points. The report goes on to address the proposed obligation for an ombudsman scheme to be compulsory, stating that

“an obligation on sectors (particularly where significant or essential purchases are involved)”

should be “part of a scheme”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martyn Day]

I fully agree. I hope the Minister will address that.

The Green Paper consultation closed on 4 July 2018, some 19 months ago. Despite the Which? report being published 12 months ago, the UK Government’s website advises me that the feedback is still being analysed. I ask the Minister: when is the analysis of the “Modernising consumer markets” Green Paper expected to be completed?

That brings me on to my constituent’s situation, which exemplifies the ambiguity of the 2015 Act and the failure to enforce it. In March 2017, my constituent Mrs Johnston and her husband purchased a new leather living room suite from R&J Leather (Scotland) Ltd, which is based in Uddingston. The suite duly arrived on Friday 30 June 2017 while Mr and Mrs Johnston were at work. A third party was at home to accept the delivery. However, when my constituents came home, it was evident that the type of leather used was not as agreed and the workmanship was unsatisfactory. Therefore, it fell far from meeting their expectations after making such an expensive purchase.

The very next morning, Mr and Mrs Johnston visited the showroom where they had purchased the suite, to say that they rejected it. They were asked to intimate their rejection to R&J Leather’s head office, which they did by telephone and email, including pictures of the faults. Subsequently, on 3 July R&J Leather telephoned my constituents to say that a driver would be sent to their home. My constituents believed this meant the suite would be removed. It did not. Instead, the employees of R&J Leather had been sent to correct another fault—a defective mechanism in the suite—so they left the home without uplifting the suite, fully knowing it had been rejected, while Mr and Mrs Johnston were on the telephone to their employer’s head office.

Mr and Mrs Johnston wrote again to R&J Leather on 6 July intimating rejection under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and seeking an uplift of the suite and a refund of payment. R&J Leather rejected this letter on seven separate occasions. Frustrated by the lack of response, Mr and Mrs Johnston sought my intervention on 17 July. I sent a recorded delivery letter and two emails to R&J Leather but received no acknowledgement. My constituents sent another recorded delivery letter to R&J Leather on 22 August, offering alternative dispute resolution. Again, the company declined to accept.

My constituents were, therefore, left with no alternative but to raise a court action. R&J Leather did not defend the claim. The sheriff court made an order for payment in Mrs Johnston’s favour on 14 December 2017, some six months after the suite was delivered.

It would be understandable to think that that was the end of a stressful process, but that was not the case. Mr and Mrs Johnston still had possession of the defective suite, which was unused and restricted the use of another room in their home. Mrs Johnston had asked the court to order R&J Leather to remove the suite, but the order made was purely for her to receive a refund of her moneys. Believing that the matter had now ended in her favour, Mrs Johnston gave away the offending suite, so that her home could be restored to its normal living capacity, which I think was a perfectly reasonable position to adopt.

R&J Leather proceeded to lodge an application to recall the order. The order was duly recalled and led to a court hearing that took place over two days spanning June and July 2018. The decision held in favour of the Johnstons. R&J Leather then appealed against the order for payment, based on the point that my constituents no longer had the suite and therefore could not return it. As a result, the company questioned whether Mrs Johnston was entitled to a refund for rejection of the goods.

The subsequent sheriff appeal court hearing took place on 14 December 2018. R&J Leather’s legal representation argued that, based on a proper construction of subsections (5) and (8) of section 20 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the buyer was obliged to make the rejected goods available to the seller without limit of time, and that that applies irrespective of any intervening developments or actions of the seller. In other words, it was argued that R&J Leather was not obliged to make a refund if the suite was not available for return.

My constituents argued that they had done everything that they were required to do in exercising their right of rejection and had given R&J Leather many opportunities to uplift the suite. The sheriff appeal court decision refused R&J Leather’s appeal and held in favour of the Johnstons. The ruling stated that having properly exercised their right of rejection, my constituents were entitled to the original order granted by the sheriff, and that that right was not undermined by the unavailability of the suite.

Interestingly, when reaching that decision, the sheriff appeal court made several observations. The first was that the argument that there is an unqualified duty, without limit of time, to retain the goods has a superficial attraction, given the wording of the Act, but such an interpretation has the potential to lead to both unfairness and absurdity. Secondly, when a consumer exercises a right to reject faulty goods, there is no duty for them to return the goods to the seller; all the consumer needs to do is make the goods available to the seller. This imposes an onus on the seller to come and collect the goods. Thirdly, the duty to make the goods available cannot be construed as being without limit of time or unqualified. In considering the nature and extent of the duty to retain goods that have been rejected, the court is entitled to take account of several factors, including the timescale within which rejection was intimated; the nature of the goods; the practicality of providing storage; the nature, extent and frequency of communications sent by the buyer to the seller; any response, or lack of response, by the seller; the length of time for which goods were retained; and whether proceedings have been raised. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the sheriff appeal court judgment remarked that R&J Leather had

“only themselves to blame for their inability to recover the item”.

Even after that court ruling, Mrs Johnston still had to pay for the services of a sheriff officer to obtain a warrant before the money was eventually refunded on 15 February 2019, which was nearly two years after the original purchase was made. No one should have to go through such a long, drawn-out process, which in this case involved spending four separate days in court and the associated stress and expense that that experience involved, and neither should anyone have to go to such lengths to exercise what are their basic consumer rights.

Furthermore, besides the direct financial implications for the consumer and the business involved, this single case used significant public funds—in the form of court facilities, time and staff—over four days. Those costs would not have been required if the Consumer Rights Act 2015 was clear about the consequences of non-compliance.

This single case that I have highlighted shows undeniably that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not do enough to protect consumers against rogue traders who do not comply with or seek to obscure the terms of the Act. My constituents were lucky, in so far as they had the intellectual and financial resources to see this matter through to a conclusion that forced R&J Leather to abide by the law. I suspect that many other people would have given up long before then, or would not have had the time available to spend days in court or the money to pursue the action. However, the Johnstons were still out of pocket, due to loss of work and other expenses, such as for the engagement of the sheriff officers. Can the Minister tell me what would happen to other consumers who do not have such assets?

If businesses were obligated to join an ombudsman scheme, the process would be simplified for both consumers and businesses. If that obligation was brought into force, an independent assessment could be made, which could rule in favour of either the consumer or the business, without the stress and the expense that my constituents had to endure to get what they were legally entitled to.

Such cases are brought every day throughout the UK, and the court costs must be astronomical. I do not know what the numbers are, but I dread to think. Yet a simple change to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, with an obligation for a business to participate in an ombudsman scheme, would substantially mitigate the need to bring such cases to court.

Of course, it is fortunate for other consumers that Johnston and Johnston v. R&J Leather (Scotland) Limited [2019] SAC (Civ) 1 is now a case in law and will set a precedent to help other Scottish consumers who find themselves dealing with an uncooperative company. However, my point is that people should not have to go to court in the first place.

I am a Scottish MP and this debate centres on my constituent’s Scottish legal case, which has no binding effect on English claims. However, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies throughout the UK, and given that the ultimate decision was made by the Sheriff Appeal Court, this ruling has the potential to be highly persuasive to county court judges in England and Wales, where similar issues are regularly raised.

To summarise, I find it deeply regrettable that the situation that I have highlighted, and the other situations that I have recently been made aware of through the efforts of Parliament’s digital engagement team, clearly indicate that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is not working fairly for consumers in some markets. Based on the case that I have discussed, I hope that the Minister will agree that the Act needs to be reviewed, due to its legislation being ambiguous and, I believe, unenforceable.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Before we proceed, I apologise to Ms Gibson for incorrectly identifying you when I called you for an intervention earlier.

Hospitality Sector: Tipping

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Going to the heart of the original consultation on this matter, there are two edges to that sword. One is that workers need to be getting the tips that customers feel are being given as tips, but the other is that customers need to understand what is happening with those tips. Often, when we pay bills in restaurants, that is in very small fine print and there is different use of language about administration charges and service charges. Some people do not know whether they are discretionary, and ultimately they do not know whether the tips go through to the staff who have provided them with an excellent service and whom they wish to tip. I hope the Government’s response today will pick up on some of those points from the consultation, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that point.

As with everything else, technology is changing the situation. One of my constituents in Bristol North West was recently in touch; she has started a company called Tip Tap, a mobile phone app that will allow diners to give their tips directly to the waiter. They can pay the bill to the restaurant, the waiter will get out their app and then they can pay the tip to the waiter directly. That seems an example of a good solution, but I still do not quite understand why restaurant owners and others feel it is a particular hassle to facilitate that process for their workers, who are often the lowest-paid in those businesses—as I say, on average, they earn only around £7.71 an hour.

This is a simplistic debate; I think waiters and waitresses should get 100% of their tips. If the Government disagree with me on that approach, I would welcome a commitment at the very least to revive the consultation from the ashes of the previous Parliament, respond to the submissions to that consultation and set out how they would seek to achieve those two objectives—customers to know where their tips are going and waiters and waitresses to get a fair share of those tips.

I hope that in seeking to achieve simplicity in regulation, processes, policies, technical solutions and billing systems, we could quickly move to the position that says, “But for passed-through at-cost administration charges, waiting staff get 100% of their tips.” That seems to me a simple solution that would close this legal loophole, where no laws exist today, so restaurateurs can get away with it by relying on national minimum wage law. It would stop the exploitation of low-paid workers in Bristol and right across the country. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Before we proceed, I remind hon. Members that in a one-hour debate the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen each have five minutes and the Minister has 10 minutes. Therefore, I shall call the winding-up speeches as close as I can get to 10 minutes past 5.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. I wanted to wait until the Minister had finished, so I apologise to the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones). Some allegations were made in relation to hospitality establishments in this place. Could you remind us of what action you or other hon. Members can take to raise that with the Commission?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

That is not a point of order for the Chair. The Minister has wound up his speech, but I think he indicated during his remarks that he would address that issue.

South-west Growth Charter

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Once we have heard the opening speech, I will indicate whether it is necessary to impose a time limit. Nine Members are seeking to take part in the debate, so we are probably looking at around five minutes each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Streeter]

It is a sure-fire thing. The Western Morning News said in its editorial last week:

“The government listens to those who speak loudly and logically and can make a good case. Too often, parts of the West Country have seemed to be pulling in different directions. Faced with petty rivalries, it has been easy for Ministers to dismiss the needs of our region and divert funds and support elsewhere.”

Not today. Here, the south-west is speaking with a united voice, led by the region’s business community and with far wider support from MPs and many in local government. There is clear momentum behind the campaign. I am delighted to throw my weight behind it, as are my colleagues from across Cornwall, Devon and Somerset, from both sides of this House. Together, we will raise south-west growth up the Government’s agenda and secure our region’s place in the new industrial strategy.

Several hon. Members rose—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order Looking around the room at the number of Members who wish to speak, I reckon that given 10 minutes for each of the Front-Bench speakers and a couple of minutes for Mr Streeter to wind up the debate, we probably have about four minutes a head. I do not normally do this, but I will on this occasion, because this debate has clearly and rightly attracted a lot of interest from south-west Members of Parliament: I will give the list and batting order. Mr Bradshaw will speak for the Opposition next. After that, we have Oliver Colvile, Johnny Mercer, James Heappey, Kevin Foster, Sir Hugo Swire, Peter Heaton-Jones, Anne-Marie Morris and Rebecca Pow. I will not impose a time limit; I will impose a self-denying ordinance, on the understanding that those at the end may drop off the list if other colleagues are too greedy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I support regional economies that are strong and sustainable, where investment is in people, skills and infrastructure. I support economies that deliver high-quality jobs that enable his constituents to make plans for their own futures, rather than being at the whim of short-term, zero-hour, low-skill, low-value jobs. That is the vision for the future economy of the south-west, and indeed for the country, that I wholeheartedly support.

I look forward to the Minister setting out exactly what his industrial strategy is. The Prime Minister has created a Department with industrial strategy in its title—I have yet to hear what the strategy is. The Prime Minister’s speech yesterday did not set out how the Government will, for example crowd in investment from the private sector in innovation, new opportunities and skills. As a Member of Parliament for the north-east, I too regret the skills brain drain from our regions to the capital because of its stronger economy.

I particularly look forward to the Minister setting out how the Government’s industrial strategy is not simply an ever-growing reduction in corporation tax but one that takes our whole country with it to invest in increased industry, shifting the centre of gravity away from London to support our great regions, such as the south-west. The south-west growth charter is to be welcomed. I look forward to the Minister demonstrating that he will support its implementation.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the Minister, due to the incredible self-discipline exercised by colleagues, we have a reasonable amount of time. I congratulate you all on achieving that. We have called 13 Members in one form or another in addition to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I regard that as exceptional. Without wishing to incite insurrection, that does mean that the Minister will therefore probably be able to take interventions and still allow time for Mr Streeter to respond at the end of the debate.