Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have about an hour left and eight Members wish to speak: they can do the arithmetic for themselves. I thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) for keeping to the informal limit, but I think it should now be nearer to eight minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Will he say how long the Prime Minister is going to be—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should not chunter from a sedentary position. We have to start the wind-ups at 9.40 pm.

[Jim Shannon]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I am quite clear on what my time is.

Workers in the UK are entitled to five weeks and three days of paid holiday a year, including public holidays. The Working Time Regulations 1998 guarantee four weeks’ paid leave as a European minimum, but for 35 years before joining the EU, the United Kingdom had legislation on paid holidays, so that is very unlikely to change or to be reneged on— indeed, my office staff would be the first to revolt if it were, and my life would not be worth living.

It is clear that we have the morals and the principles in terms of European law. At times, we have even furthered protections and enhancements. Such is the case with maternity leave. My parliamentary aide had a child and came off maternity leave after only six months, as she was expecting another baby. Although our law would have enabled her to have two years off—one after the other—and we have said that mothers should be allowed to take that decision, she felt she needed to return to work for a few months to keep her head in the game. However, the ability to take that leave is what we have enshrined in the law at present.

We have even enshrined it in law that mothers must take two weeks off work—or four if they work in a factory. That law will stand. It is the mother’s decision. I wonder at those who seem to say that mothers will have fewer rights if they decide to have another baby after article 50 is invoked. That is nonsense. The 52 weeks of statutory maternity leave in the UK are considerably more than the 14 weeks guaranteed by EU law, and of those 52 weeks, 40 are available for shared parental leave.

EU workers are important in my constituency, as they are in everybody’s constituencies. The agri-food sector in my constituency depends a great deal on them for the work they do in companies. We will enshrine their needs and rights and ensure that they are protected.

The issue of workers’ rights will differ from person to person. I have had small and medium-sized enterprise owners asking for the opportunity to have an input into any new regulations, and Brexit gives them that ability. If there is a need to change law, it will be done in the normal way in this place. That will allow people to sow into the legislation they harvest from.

The issue of small and medium-sized businesses needs to be re-addressed. It is sometimes argued that employment regulation is fine for larger organisations with human resources departments, which have the resources to deal with red tape, but it is much more difficult for small and microbusinesses to cope with it. The nuances of employment law will remain unchanged unless we act to change things in this place. I therefore ask the Minister for more help for the small businesses that do not have the HR budget or the resources, so that they can know their rights and help their employees to understand their rights as well.

For those who have told employees that they will lose their holiday, sick pay and maternity rights, it must again be underlined that, if anything, our rights have been more robust than the ones imposed by Europe. We take protection of our workers seriously, and that is highlighted by the fact that recent changes to the unfair dismissal qualification period, and the introduction of fees for employment tribunal applications, emanated from the UK, not Brussels, as did the introduction of shared parental leave regulations in April last year. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) talked about some of the issues we need to address, and there are issues that have been raised on the Opposition side of the House that need to be looked at.

There is uncertainty as to the practice in terms of primary and secondary legislation, but it has been made clear that any change in rights will come through legislation and not through a repeal of all rights that come from Europe—that cannot happen, and will not happen, in what we fondly call the highest seat of democracy in the world, which is right here, in this House. The scaremongering must stop. People should rest assured that, should article 50, by some miracle, be invoked on new year’s eve, new year’s day will still be a public holiday, they can still have their Easter eggs and summer holidays, and they can have as many children as they like without fear that they will be sacked from work. That is a fact of life.

I recently watched the film “Amazing Grace”, which shows Wilberforce’s journey to get this House to ban slavery. I do not believe that any Member here is interested in reinstating slavery for anyone in the world, let alone our own citizens. We have a history of protecting the little man and little woman, and that will not change because, in theory, there is a possibility that it could change. We are still interested in doing the right thing in this place, and we are still accountable to the public for the decisions that are made. Yes, the Brexit team will need to work on the nuances of the rights of our workers in Europe, but intimating that this will be the time to eradicate rights is mischief and nothing more.

Nissan: Sunderland

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is much interest in this subject, and I want to accommodate it. Single, short supplementary questions—preferably a single sentence without preamble—and the Secretary of State’s customarily pithy replies are required.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on his announcement, which is clearly very good news for Sunderland, but I think that he will understand Parliament’s desire to understand the terms on which these and other negotiations are conducted. May I ask whether he has discussed this matter with the International Trade Secretary, and whether he will be in the driving seat of future trade negotiations? We all think that he is rather good at it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I, too, thank the Secretary of State for his statement, although I think he may have said a little bit more to the BBC yesterday than he has to the House today. I hope that he is not joining the ever-growing list of Secretaries of State who have been slapped down by the Prime Minister for expressing their personal opinions.

I think it important that action has been taken to protect parts of the economy from the potential negative impacts of Brexit. It may constitute more than just a quarter of the issues that were on Nissan’s agenda, but that is for the Secretary of State to answer. He said to the BBC yesterday that

“our objective would be to…have continued access…without tariffs and without bureaucratic impediments”.

That has not been said today, but I think that it is correct. If that objective is not realised, however, what will be the cost to the taxpayer of a deal with Nissan? How much will it cost to make good those tariffs should they be imposed? That is the key question.

SNP Members will welcome the fact that an area of the country that voted overwhelmingly to leave the European Union has been given a special deal, and we look forward with gusto to the deal that will be given to Scotland in recognition of the fact that we voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. The Government are giving a flexible Brexit to the City of London and the north-east of England; I hope the Secretary of State will bring forward a flexible Brexit to protect Scotland’s economy and the 80,000 jobs that rely on our access to the single market.

The Secretary of State must recognise that the game here is a bit of a bogey: “Brexit means Brexit” will not cut it while he is going behind closed doors cutting deals with others without making this House or the public aware of what they are. While Nissan received a letter of comfort, the devolved Administrations got a hotline—a hotline that is so hot to handle that it does not get answered for 36 hours.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but we must press on.

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman started well, Mr Speaker, although I certainly have not been slapped down, up, sideways or any other way by the Prime Minister, I am pleased to say.

The approach I have set out to the House and stated previously simply reflects what I would have thought is common sense: in an area—we have been talking about the automotive sector—in which there are substantial exports that come from Britain to the EU and from the EU to this country and components go backwards and forwards, there is a clear common interest in having arrangements that are free of tariffs and the bureaucratic impediments I mentioned. So it seems to me that when we embark on any negotiation, it is about finding the common ground and having a positive volition so to do. That is what I set out and that is what I described to Nissan, and indeed would do to any other manufacturer. It is on that basis, along with the other points I have made, that Nissan felt able to make this fantastic investment not only in the north-east, but in the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)]

I should declare an interest as a driver—albeit not a very good one—of a Nissan Qashqai. For years, we have had calls from across the House for an activist, interventionist Business Secretary who is prepared to do everything possible in order to secure jobs for working-class people in disadvantaged parts of the country. Now we have one, can my right hon. Friend explain why Opposition Members will not take yes for an answer? Was Oscar Wilde not right that there is only one thing worse than not getting one’s heart’s desire and that is getting it?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Secretary of State has no responsibility either for Opposition policy or for Oscar Wilde—although we always enjoy the poetic licence of the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove).

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I welcome the announcement, but I want to ask the Secretary of State about the duties and rights of this House. Last Monday, the Prime Minister told the House that

“the Government must not show their hand in detail” —[Official Report, 24 October 2016; Vol. 616, c. 27.]

to Parliament in advance of the Brexit negotiations. At the very same time, however, we now know that the Secretary of State was telling Nissan the Government’s detailed negotiating stance for the automotive sector, including that there would be tariff-free trade and no bureaucratic impediments. Will the Secretary of State explain how those two positions are consistent?

BHS

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Relevant document: First Report of the Work and Pensions Committee and Fourth Report of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, BHS, HC 54.]

[Mr Speaker]

I should inform the House that I have selected amendment (a), in the name of Mr Richard Fuller and others. In a moment, I shall ask the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) to move the motion. May I just emphasise that there are 14 Back-Bench Members who wish to contribute to the debate, and so even those who are not subject to a time constraint in any formal sense will doubtless wish to tailor their contributions to take account of the level of interest in the House?

Hinkley Point C

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the 13 minutes’ advance notice of his statement. Let me be clear that this is an important project that must now go forward without any further interruption or delay. The Secretary of State is aware that by intervening on 28 July, after EDF’s final investment decision, the Government put at risk 25,000 well-paid and well-qualified jobs. He knows that delaying not only risked the £18 billion of investment in UK jobs and infrastructure, but rocked confidence in investors who now believe that the Prime Minister does not understand the significance that companies attach to taking a final investment decision. He is aware of the Ernst and Young index that shows that Britain has fallen from fourth to 13th in attractiveness for low-carbon investment. The delay has only unsettled investors further.

I have a number of specific questions for the Secretary of State. First, in her meeting with President Xi, did the Prime Minister attempt in any way to isolate the building of the Hualong One reactor at Bradwell from the deal at Hinkley Point C? Secondly, if she did, what was the Chinese response?

Thirdly, of course every Member of the House agrees that the Government’s primary responsibility is to safeguard our national security, but neither the Secretary of State nor the Prime Minister has ever been clear about what they consider to be the security risks associated with the current deal. Will he now set those out so that the House and the public can decide whether the modifications that he is proposing adequately reflect the risks he believes exist?

Fourthly, can the Secretary of State specifically set out whether the Government were concerned about the security of the intellectual property associated with the EPR reactor? If so, was he aware that two such reactors are already under construction in China, in the form of the Taishan 1 and 2?

Fifthly, were the Government concerned with the potential for a cyber-attack? If so, did the Secretary of State not consider that, given the importance to the Chinese of having Bradwell as a kitemark for marketing their Hualong One reactor technology around the world, such an attack would undermine the very reason the Chinese wanted to be involved in the project in the first place?

Sixthly, if the Secretary of State wishes to dodge these questions by pleading that he does not wish to discuss security matters, I would ask how he can assure the House and the public that the efficacy of the amendments he is proposing are sufficient to meet the risks and challenges that justified a near-fatal delay in the project?

We must address the sole argument that the Government have actually presented as well as those that they have not. They claim that they have introduced significant new safeguards into the package, in particular that they will be able to require notification from owners or operators of nuclear sites of any change of ownership or part-ownership, but the Secretary of State already has such powers. Will he acknowledge that he can currently prevent the sale of any element of the UK’s critical infrastructure? That being the case, can he explain why he believes the proposed new powers add significantly to the public interest regulations in the Enterprise Act 2002, or are they merely window dressing to make it appear that the Government’s intervention has achieved something, no matter how much appearances may indicate to the contrary?

Is the Secretary of State aware of the House of Commons briefing paper entitled “Mergers & takeovers: the public interest test”? It highlights that energy security is already covered by national security, and that the Government already have the powers to prevent such a sale. Is he also aware that in the House of Lords, during the passage of the Energy Act, my noble Friend Lord Puttnam introduced an amendment specifically to introduce energy security as a new public interest term? Government lawyers then advised that:

“In cases where a merger posed a genuine and serious threat to what is described as societal needs, such as energy supply, this would be covered by the existing provision in the 2002 Act regarding national security—so ministers would be empowered to directly intervene.”

The Government created a commercial crisis. They sent shock waves through the industry and unions alike. They risked a diplomatic dispute with one of our key future trading partners, and in the end all they have done is pretend to give themselves powers that they already possessed. This statement is window dressing. It is face-saving by a Government who talked big and eventually backed down with a whimper.

The Secretary of State should explain whether he has reviewed changes to technology that have occurred in the past 10 years, particularly smart grids, battery storage technology and energy efficiency measures to manage our electricity supply in such a way as to reduce our need for the baseload power that Hinkley supplies.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has concluded his remarks, because his time is up.

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman raised a large number of points, and I will address them. I hope that we share the view that a confident, long-term energy policy is vital to ensuring that people have access to secure energy that is affordable and clean, and that we should be a world leader in these important energy industries. I hope that he will not think it churlish of me to point out the complete absence of a long-term energy policy during Labour’s 13 years in government, when our nuclear fleet was known to be coming to the end of its life, yet no decision was taken to replace it. It has fallen to this Government to make the long-term decisions for the security of this country. Instead of making like the ostrich and hoping that the problem would go away, this Government are looking to the future, providing the upgrade to our long-term energy security that we need.

With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s position today, I am afraid that I am as confused as ever. His position is no more credible. He seems to be criticising the Prime Minister and the Government for taking the serious decision to review the components of a very important deal—that seems to be the import of his remarks. He said that this had damaged confidence, but when the announcement was made on 29 July, he told the BBC:

“I’m hoping what they will do is take two to three months to seriously review it”.

So much for the suggestion that we should not have had the review in the first place—although I am not sure what the purpose of that two or three months would be, because the very same day he said that he had already made his mind up. He said that he would not scrap the proposal

“because I welcome the jobs and I welcome the 7% of electricity that this will produce for the nation.”

That is from the hon. Gentleman who was urging the Government to take longer to review something, the conclusions of which he had already agreed in the first place. The contrast between that and the seriousness and forensic approach of the Government is marked.

I will address the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. The powers under the Enterprise Act are subject to takeover thresholds. We are ensuring that any change in ownership or control, of whatever size, will be covered by a national security test. That seems to be sensible.

On Hinkley, until we proposed these changes to the contract, EDF was at liberty to sell its majority stake in that important investment without even needing the permission of the UK Government. Therefore, it seems sensible and prudent to have agreed straightforwardly with EDF that the UK Government’s consent should be required.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who I would have thought would take a prudent view of matters of national security, should suggest—again, it is not clear—that we should not make these changes. When we debate these matters, he will be able to set out whether he opposes the measures we are taking to safeguard and entrench the same regime for national security in this country that other advanced economies enjoy.

I was clear in my statement that this is the first of what we hope will be a series of new nuclear investments. Just about 20% of power is generated by nuclear. It is important that there is another contribution to a diverse energy mix from nuclear. In so doing, we create new jobs, new opportunities and major advances for the UK economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should try not to use the word “you” in the Chamber. Debate goes through the Chair. I am not expressing any view on these matters, but I think I know what the hon. Gentleman had in mind.

[Greg Clark]

Free trade courses through the veins of this country. It is one reason why we have been most successful. I was surprised to hear a commitment to free trade described as dogma last week. It is one of our strengths, and my hon. Friend has my absolute assurance that it will be very much to the fore of our reputation in the future as it was in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman came in on Question 1, which I have not forgotten, even if he has. We will save him up for later and keep him in the microwave.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate Express Reinforcements Ltd, based in my Neath constituency, on becoming the preferred supplier for 200,000 tonnes of reinforced steel provided by Celsa Cardiff from Bylor to Hinkley Point C. I am concerned that Hinkley Point C has been hit by multiple setbacks and is on hold. Will the Secretary of State please update us on the timetable? Do we need a plan B or even a plan C?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister help the leading manufacturer of laser pens, which is situated in my constituency? The company is—or was—a great supporter of the northern powerhouse and will be attending Thursday’s big conference in Yorkshire on innovation and creativity, supported by the all-party parliamentary group on Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire. It wants to know why Lord O’Neill was suddenly pulled as a speaker with no substitute offered. We hear that the Government will have nothing to do with elected mayors or the northern powerhouse. What is the situation now?

[Mr Speaker]

In relation to laser pens, rather than the speaking engagements or otherwise of Lord O’Neill.

[Mr Sheerman]

I mentioned laser pens.

[Mr Hurd]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in asking a question that he was frustrated about not getting answered previously. I reject absolutely any suggestion that the Government have lost any commitment to the northern powerhouse. As for the specifics of speaking engagements, if he would like to speak to me afterwards, I can try to throw some light on the matter.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is a well-known exponent of what I might call the shoehorning technique. Whatever he wants to raise, he shoehorns it into a question somehow. He could probably write a book on the subject—and probably will.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

11. Whether his Department has received a copy of the report by PwC and the Solar Trade Association, published on 25 July 2016, on the state of the UK solar industry; and what his plans are for the future of solar power in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

T9. The huge Hanjin Shipping line has gone into receivership, leaving between £12 billion and £16 billion-worth of goods at sea. The inability to dock is projected to have an impact on UK retail, particularly during Christmas trading. More importantly, UK seafarers—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. One sentence. Very briefly. We have got a lot to get through.

[Drew Hendry]

Seafarers such as Scots cadets are stuck at sea. What action is the Minister taking to assist retailers, and will he speak to his Foreign and Commonwealth Office counterpart to get help for our seafarers?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Does the Minister accept that the changes to subsidy for the biomass combined heat and power plants have been brought in too quickly, and that a longer grace period should have been granted before implementation? BSW Timber in my constituency, which is doing what the Government want by investing in renewable technology, stands to lose up to £3 million in support. Will the Minister meet me to discuss these changes and talk about what—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me say in all kindness and charity to the hon. Gentleman that he was at his best at the end of the first sentence. A blue pencil should thereafter have been applied.

[Mr Hurd]

I think the hon. Gentleman is a former treasurer of the Scottish National party, so he knows a bit about the challenge of cost control. He knows that in the context of these changes, our overriding priority is to provide better value for the taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a specific constituency case with me, I am happy to meet him.

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister is very good for colleagues’ knee muscles—or not, as the case may be.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

Brexit provides the UK with an opportunity to be the global leader in such energy technologies as offshore wind, energy storage, and carbon capture and storage. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will reset energy policy so that the country can take full advantage of this great opportunity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am genuinely sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues. I have extended the envelope rather substantially, but we must now move on.

Sellafield

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

In principle, yes.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the Minister and to colleagues.



Bill Presented

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr David Gauke, Jane Ellison, Gavin Barwell, Simon Kirby, Richard Harrington and Mr Rob Wilson, presented a Bill to make provision for, and in connection with, government bonuses in respect of additions to savings accounts and other investment plans.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 59) with explanatory notes (Bill 59-EN).