Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill (First sitting)

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th December 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 19, at end insert—

“(6A) The Flexible Working Regulations 2014 are amended as follows.

(6B) For Regulation 3 substitute—

‘3. An employee is entitled to make a flexible working application from the day on which they start work.’”

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Before I talk about the amendment, I want to spend one minute paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East, not just for her relentless campaigning on flexible working, which she started doing even before she came into the House in 2010, because she is a barrister by trade—everyone knows the working hours for barristers—but for her campaigning on Primodos, for the Rohingyas and on community pharmacies. She is the kind of MP who is needed in opposition, because she holds the Government to account. I am really pleased to say that she has had cross-party support on flexible working, which is such an important topic for all of us, especially after the pandemic.

In 2019, the Government committed to consulting on flexible working. We learned a lot of new things from the consultation, but we knew a lot of the points about how flexible working benefits older workers, carers, parents and disabled workers. The document for the consultation that the Government commissioned went as far as to say that

“flexible working is a key part of the Government’s ambition to build back better, ensuring that our flexible labour market is primed for the opportunities and challenges of the post-Covid-19 economy.”

It also put forward some important recommendations on areas for improvement—most notably, to the 26-week qualifying period before a new employee can make a flexible working request.

When I tabled my amendment, I wanted to suggest that we make it a right for all workers to be able to request flexible working from their first day in a job. That would mean that employees would not have to wait the current 26 weeks to make a request, and it would do more to ensure that flexible working becomes something that everyone can enjoy and to which everyone has the right, not just a privileged few. I was therefore very pleased to see that the Government had obviously listened to me, because they are planning to introduce measures through secondary legislation that will give employees the right to request flexible working from the moment that they start a job. I welcome that wholeheartedly, as it will make a huge difference to employees across the country.

I seek a couple of clarifications and answers from the Minister, as I have him in front of me. Most importantly, when does he expect the measures that I mentioned to be introduced, and through what legislative mechanism does he think they can be introduced? Also, have the Government considered that workers might want to know what flexible working arrangements are available in a role before they start or to put in a request before the first day, and will the new legislation reflect that? I am sure that the Minister has seen the survey by Timewise that found that just three posts in 10 are advertised as offering any form of flexible working. That is despite the Government’s own consultation finding that 97% of those asked said that having flexible working options in job adverts would help them to apply for the job.

This is an important step in the right direction. I applaud the Government for supporting it. However, it clearly is not enough, because too many requests for flexible working arrangements are turned down. I have heard that at first hand from constituents. Also, for my sins, I am part of a group called West Hampstead Mums. At the mothers’ group meetings, there was always talk about how people would not even bring up the subject with their bosses because they were worried about being discriminated against or overlooked for positions if they asked about flexible working, which is their right. Will the Minister comment briefly on that culture that means that mothers, women, disabled workers and others do not feel that they can even ask their employers for flexible working?

When I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill on the same topic, I looked at how employers have the right to turn down requests for flexible working on a whim. There are very few solid, good reasons that they have to give for turning down flexible working requests. Will the Minister comment on that? Do the Government plan to deal with the fact that too many such requests are rejected? I am sure the Minister is aware that one in three requests for flexible working arrangements are turned down for no good reason, as I mentioned.

If we want to make flexible working a reality for everyone in this country, which is why we are all here today, we must go further. Employees should be aware of what kind of flexible working is available in every role before they apply and of whether they can challenge their bosses if they are told that their flexible working request has not been granted without good reason.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East and the Government, but will the Minister clarify those few important points? That will enable us to put the amendment and the legislation into practice to benefit women, disabled workers, carers and particularly working mothers across the country.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I rise to speak in support of the amendment.

I was successful in the private Members’ Bill ballot and at my first meeting with departmental officials, many of whom are present in the Committee Room, I raised the issue that flexible working should be a day one right that should be enshrined on the face of the Bill. However, we have now been promised that that will be done in secondary legislation. Will the Minister confirm that?

We need to make it clear to everyone that flexible working will be a day one right. From conversations with pressure groups and campaigners, I know people are saying, “Well, the words ‘day one’ are not on the Bill itself.” I have explained to them why that is the case, but I seek clarification from the Minister about that.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn for tabling the amendment and for her ten-minute rule Bill, which came long before my private Member’s Bill. She has campaigned tirelessly for flexible working. I thank her for that and for the kind words she said about me.

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies.

I thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn for drawing the Committee’s attention to an important point that I was going to address in my main speech, but I am happy to address it now. The good news is that we are in violent agreement about the day one right. As she will know, last year the Government consulted on a range of measures to support the uptake of flexible working arrangements, including whether to remove the existing 26-week qualifying period and make the right to request flexible working a day one right. We published that consultation on Monday. The response explains that the Government will give the right to request flexible working to all employees from the first day of employment. Indeed, we made that commitment in our 2019 manifesto, so we agree that it is the right thing to do.

The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn raised a number of points that I will cover in my main speech, but I am happy to address them now. On timescales, the legislation should pass through both Houses during the course of next year, taking effect in 2024 in order to give businesses time to adapt. On the number of requests granted, according to our research 83% of requests are granted and fewer than one in 10 are refused—that is the information we have.

The hon. Lady asked about adverts. Employers may well use adverts to promote a position that is flexible, and we would encourage them to do that. We see this legislation as key to getting people back into work, particularly those who have left their workplace and are considering returning. To us, that should be an option for the particular employer. Certainly, it is our intention that the right to request flexible working should become well known and therefore become a discussion point between employers and employees for any role, not just for jobs that may be advertised as flexible.

[Tulip Siddiq]

The Minister is reassuring me with all his clarifications. However, could I ask what his source is for saying that only one in 10 requests is turned down? Every piece of evidence that I have looked at, including when I did my ten-minute rule Bill, said that one in three requests was turned down. If the statistics are better, I am very happy to hear it.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The source was the post-implementation review of the 2014 right to request flexible working regulations, which was published in September 2021 and found that, in most workplaces, 83% of the time, where a request has been made, a request was granted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

I am very grateful for the information, but 2014 was a very long time ago.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, the review was of the 2014 regulations, but it was published in September last year, so the actual consultation was much more recent than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

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

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

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

[Tulip Siddiq]

I am still a bit uncertain about the statistics cited by the Minister, because the research I looked at by the TUC found that three in 10 requests for flexible working are turned down. Maybe there are different figures, but I have never seen such positive numbers in the surveys I have looked at. However, the Minister has given me a lot of reassurance on all the questions I have asked, and it sounds like the Government are serious about making flexible working a right for employees. I am grateful that the Government have taken the issue so seriously, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 2 stand part.

Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Friday 28th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to introduce the Bill, having come ninth in the ballot. I must begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), who is not currently in the Chamber. For some reason I saw him about three times during the day on which the ballots were being carried out, and on each occasion he asked me, “Have you put your name down for the ballot?” I have been a Member of Parliament for 12 years. In every one of those years I used to put my name down, and of course I never came anywhere near the possibility of getting a Bill through, so I really must thank my hon. Friend for all his encouragement.

I also want to thank the Ministers with whom I have been dealing over the last few months—the Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who is no longer present, and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who represents my old home town—and to welcome the new Minister, hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), to his post. I also want to place on record my thanks to the ministerial team at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for all their help and support. I want to mention two names in particular, Matthew Wootton and Tony Mulcahy.

I know that some colleagues today may have a personal interest in flexible working, and I hope that they will contribute to the debate. This is an important issue, because flexibility in the workplace is no longer just a perk or a “nice to have”. For many it is a lifeline, because it offers a much-needed pathway into the labour market and allows those with caring responsibilities to save on childcare costs by “flexing” their working patterns.

Let me start by talking about the importance of flexible working from the employee’s perspective. Many Members of Parliament, including me, were fortunate enough to be able to work from home during the pandemic, and we may appreciate the benefits of flexible working more than most. When we plugged ourselves into our online meetings each day, it meant that we could carry on, and fulfil the demands of our job, by being virtually connected to this Chamber; to our constituents in virtual advice surgeries, or to meetings with charities and other organisations. Even before the pandemic, however, many of us enjoyed a certain degree of flexibility in how we managed our diaries. Constituents have told me that working from home made them feel much more connected to their children. Many mothers—and fathers—were relieved not to have to be late collecting their children from school each day. Working from home also made life easier for carers who, like me, were looking after a chronically unwell family member.

During the pandemic millions of people benefited from flexible working, and I think we all recognise that this is a good position to be in. However, in many jobs there are still invisible restrictions that hold people back—for instance, the need to live in high-cost accommodation close to the centre of cities, or to maintain working arrangements that are hard to combine with family or other responsibilities. Recent research conducted by the charity Working Families shows that three in 10 UK parents are working in jobs that are below their skill levels because they cannot find the flexibility they need elsewhere. That is a massive waste of talent.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important speech on an issue that I am passionate about. She will know that we as a country are in the midst of a mental health crisis that, in addition to destroying lives, is costing the UK economy about £100 billion a year. The evidence, which I am sure she has looked at, shows that flexible working brings mental health benefits as well as wellbeing to employees. Can she elaborate on whether she thinks the Bill contains benefits not only for public health but for the economic development of our country?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I acknowledge the sheer amount of work that she has been doing on the issue for many years, and I thank her for that. I will come on to the economic benefit of flexible working and how much we lose out by not doing so. Mental health is an issue that is becoming more a feature of our daily lives and in society.

It is important to remember that flexibility is far more than hybrid working. It covers job shares, reduced or compressed hours, flexitime, and even phased retirement. Offering flexibility to balance work and home life can be key to ensuring progression in the labour market and to opening up employment and promotion opportunities to everyone, regardless of their gender, age, disability or location.

In the last few months, I have met a number of charities and organisations that represent thousands of members who are affected by flexible working—or rather, the lack of it. For example, the Multiple Sclerosis Society shared numerous cases of how flexible working has benefited people with MS. I learned about Trishna, who lives with MS and has found that having good, flexible working policies from her employer means that she is able to stay in work longer. Flexible working means that she can work from home with flexible hours and can manage her workload around her fatigue. She can start work early and finish early when she needs to, and can bank hours for days when she does not have the energy or strength to work.

Although more people have been able to work flexibly since the start of the pandemic, some have not been able to work in that way despite wanting to, even though there is often no good reason for the employer not to let them. That has serious consequences for women and families in particular, and for those with childcare commitments.

I recently met an organisation called Pregnant Then Screwed, which shared a large volume of shocking cases where women had been affected by the lack of flexible working opportunities. In one case, a mother shared:

“I had to leave my job after maternity…because my job didn’t support flexible working and I was unable to find another suitable part-time role in the company.”

She says that, to her detriment, it meant that she had to leave her career and it affected her mental health. She

“became a stay-at-home mum, putting huge pressure on my husband to pay for our household on one income”.

That is really unfortunate, because statistics show that if women can access flexible working, they are twice as likely to stay in that job and continue with their careers while having children and a family life.

Men’s ability to access flexible working is just as important. The statistics show that women are twice as likely to excel in their career if their husband is helping with the childcare. Younger families, single parents and lower earners were hardest hit financially during the pandemic and again now we have the cost of living crisis. In a recent survey, the charity Working Families found that 60% of those who took part said that it is financially harder to raise a family now than it was three years ago. That makes it more urgent than ever for people to have access to flexible working.

[Tulip Siddiq]

As my hon. Friend says, this issue is close to my heart and I am glad she has cited the work of Pregnant Then Screwed, which has done valuable research on this topic. She will know that one in three requests for flexible working is turned down. Will she elaborate on the fact that we need to change the legislation, but also the culture of the workplace so that employees, especially mothers who are trying to look after their children and go to work at the same time, feel they can ask their employers for flexible working?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

My hon. Friend anticipates something I will touch on in my speech relating to the financial side. In fact, I was just about to come on to the point that flexible working is good not just for employees, but for employers and the wider economy. By removing invisible restrictions, flexible working fosters a more diverse workspace. The evidence shows that that leads to improved financial returns for businesses. McKinsey points out that by fully utilising women in the UK economy, we would be adding £150 billion to our economy by 2030. Therefore, widening flexible working is very important for employers, too. It has also been shown that workers who have more flexibility are more motivated at work and are more likely to stay with a particular employer.

Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 21st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here today, and to follow the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart).

Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). As I am sure everyone will agree, private Members’ Bills are very much sought after, especially by Opposition Members, who do not have much opportunity to change the law—and I think the reason all of us came into politics was our wish to make a difference. My hon. Friend could have chosen any topic for his private Member’s Bill, and I was particularly pleased to note that he had picked this topic, although, cynically, I thought, “Is he going to benefit from this in some way?” I actually texted him last night to say, “Are you planning to have another child?” He was very quick to reassure me, saying that three was enough. He said that he was planning to get another dog, but, no, he was not planning to have another child, so there is no vested interest. I am very proud that a male Member of Parliament is bringing forward a Bill that will protect so many thousands of women who face maternity discrimination. He has earned the right to wear a T-shirt that says, “This is what a feminist looks like”, and I shall be sending him one in the post.

Although I am proud that my hon. Friend has brought this Bill to the House, I also feel a bit disappointed that this important legislation had to come through a private Member’s Bill. There have been many missed opportunities. It could have been brought to the House earlier and made into legislation. It could have been included in an employment Bill, which was mentioned in 2019 in the Queen’s Speech. Hopefully, this private Member’s Bill today will rectify an injustice that has survived for a very long time in our country.

I am passionate about this topic because I witnessed at first hand what maternity discrimination can do to people. After I had my children, I formed a close friendship with eight women locally whose children were around the same age as mine. Out of the eight women, four faced maternity discrimination, which, ultimately, ended up in redundancy when they went back to work. I watched what it did to their lives. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) mentioned that this was a family matter—that it was not just about the women. I saw that the effect was not just the financial hit to the family, but the mental health implications for the woman herself, for the husband and for the child. One of the babies started losing weight and not feeding properly because of all the stress that his mother was having to go through trying to deal with lawyers, trying to deal with the courts and trying to deal with, frankly speaking, a horrible employer.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

The hon. Member is speaking very powerfully. What she says about how this affects the family is so true. Part of that stems from the outdated idea that women are the supplementary breadwinner from a family perspective. I refer back to what the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) said about women being older now before they have their children, which means that they have progressed further in their career. Actually, in many families, the women in the partnership—obviously we have same-sex partnerships as well—are earning the most money, so the financial impact of redundancy discrimination can be even greater for the family.

[Tulip Siddiq]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. The cost of living in my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn is extremely high, and those families were very worried about what would impact them financially. Moreover, parents are meant to enjoy the time after they have a baby, but instead, these four women were fighting court cases and going to their employers. What really shocked me, as I was helping them and supporting them through it, was that it felt like the onus was on the women to prove maternity discrimination, whereas the employer did not seem to have much of an obligation to prove genuine redundancy. That worried me. I felt that there was more and more pressure on new mothers to say, “Actually, this is maternity discrimination. This is what happened when I left, and then when I came back, my job wasn’t there. You are not offering me another job.” That is why I feel so passionate about this Bill. If it shifts the onus on to employers to prove that they are not indulging in maternity discrimination, that would be a huge win for the country.

I wish to mention briefly the godmother of my children. She had a child and took only four months off—she had shared parental leave because she loved her job so much. Four days after going back to work, she was told that she was fired. Members of this House sit on the board of the organisation in which she worked. I went with the godmother of my child to her hearing. I felt frustrated that I could not stand up for her and prove maternity discrimination, because I did not have the law on my side. I felt like I failed her. The case was swept under the carpet. When I spoke to her later, she told me that when she eventually found a new job, she discovered that she was pregnant with her second child—this goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. She said that her first feeling when she found out was “total panic”—those were the words she used. She thought, “What’s going to happen? Am I going to be fired again? Should I tell my employer that I am having another child?” She said that she was so traumatised by what had gone before—dealing with lawyers, having to go back to her employer and fighting with her friends in the workplace—that she would not even take a lunch break in her new job, because she felt like they might discriminate against her when she told them she was pregnant.

[Jane Hunt]

Does the hon. Member agree that it is so short-sighted of that business to have done that? These women are hard-working, and they will be on maternity leave for a short period in comparison with the rest of their career. That business will lose skills and knowledge because of what happened.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the hon. Member for her point. I do not just say this because she is the godmother to my children, but I have never met someone as hard-working and dedicated to her job as Anne. Her employer fired her mostly because she had taken the time off—they essentially penalised her for having a child—and that is why I am so passionate about the Bill. Penalising women for having children is not what our country should be focused on.

I will not speak for much longer, because I know there is a lot of interest in the Bill, but I want to touch briefly on covid. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central said, covid exacerbated every inequality. The TUC brought out a report about what had happened to expectant mothers and pregnant women during the covid pandemic, which found that 25% of new mothers and pregnant women said they had faced some sort of discrimination during covid, whether that was being made redundant, being forced to go on furlough or being told they should take sick leave because they were pregnant. Being pregnant does not mean someone is ill, but these women were being forced to take sick leave.

That report from the TUC is really important, as is all the analysis that has been done by Pregnant Then Screwed, which shows how we as a country have failed new mothers and pregnant women. By passing this legislation, we are signalling to the employers that we will not put up with this any more and that things have to change. In a situation where there is soaring inflation, childcare costs are rocketing and there is a cost of living crisis, we owe it as a House to new mothers to give them job security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I remember being pregnant with my first child, aged 35, holding down a full-time job and attempting to be elected to Westminster City Council. I was elected when seven months pregnant with my second child. Believe me, that was an interesting time. I do not think I would have been able to that without the support of my employer at the time Bradford & Bingley, and my group leader Sir Simon Milton, the late leader of Westminster City Council. I was very well supported but, sadly, not all women are. That is why this legislation is needed.

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that women in leadership roles—and men, but women in particular—must support women in the generations below. We have been fortunate to get to a certain place in our careers, and it is our duty as feminists and human beings to support women—and men—coming through their careers.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I applaud the hon. Lady for having been a councillor and leader while having children, because if I had had children while I was a councillor, I could not have done it, given the hours we were doing. On the fact that her employers were good at letting her take time off or working around her pregnancy, is the problem not that we rely so much on good will? It should not be based on good will; there needs to be legislative change to achieve equal opportunity for everyone. Does the hon. Lady want to comment on that?

[Nickie Aiken]

To be perfectly honest, it is really sad that we have to legislate. We have to because we must ensure that women have those rights, but I would prefer it if we did not have to. As part of my private Member’s Bill, I am trying to achieve a voluntary workplace pledge to ensure that employers support their employees who are going through fertility treatment. I wish that I did not need to do that, but I have to.

Returning to this brilliant piece of legislation, we have heard some excellent interventions and speeches from colleagues across the House. I am pleased that the Bill provides guarantees to women and their partners—there is an important clause in the Bill about partners during pregnancy. The Bill does not just cut off support at the birth of a child; vitally, women and their partners are supported during maternity leave, shared family leave and adoption leave.

I am a mother of two; my children are much older, in their late teens. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) that we parents never stop being parents; we never stop worrying or trying to do the best we can. I am sure that one day he will have the honour of being a parent. I have gone through pregnancy and the stress of being pregnant. I had a miscarriage before I successfully had my first child and I know the stress of that second pregnancy, worrying whether it will be successful.

As I said, I worked for Bradford & Bingley and was very supported. That was an example of good practice. Before I was on maternity leave with my first child I was a public relations manager; when I came back, they promoted me to head of PR and gave me support. I worked three days a week, but I felt I could not do my job effectively in three days, and the other two days I was trying to balance being a mum of a young baby and work. It was my decision to go to my line manager and say that I wanted to work four days, so that I could do my job properly and be a full-time mum on the other days. It supported me in that, and crucially Bradford & Bingley realised how dedicated I was to my job and, even though I was working four days, it chose to pay me for full-time work. That is an example of an exemplary employer. Sadly, it was a victim of the banking crisis and I lost my job. But that was 15 years ago and an example of how employers can support women through pregnancy, and support mothers—or fathers—of young children.

Home Energy Efficiency: North of England

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered energy efficiency of homes in the north of England.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am delighted to bring this debate to Westminster Hall. At the outset, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on housing and planning and of the all-party parliamentary group for housing market and housing delivery. I also place on the record my thanks to North Star Housing, the Conservative Environment Network, the Northern Housing Consortium and the National Housing Federation for their insightful and helpful engagement with me on this important issue in preparation for today’s debate.

Twenty-six per cent. of the north’s carbon emissions come from our homes—26%. If we are to tackle climate change and meet net zero, we have to do something about that 26%, in addition to all the other things that we are doing. Despite all the house building going on around the country, the UK’s housing stock is generally older than that across the rest of Europe. And in the north, we have a higher percentage of older properties than the rest of the country: 24% of all homes in the north were built before 1919, and 41% were built before 1944. These older homes are largely beautiful, characterful properties that provide us with the backdrop to much of our northern constituencies, but they pose serious issues when it comes to energy efficiency. Solid walls prevent the use of cavity insulation, and planning constraints require buildings to retain their character, making exterior work harder. That is alongside many other issues. Our Victorian terraces have proved particularly difficult to treat. However, we must find solutions to ensure that these homes are fit for the future. Future generations will thank us for our foresight in preserving these homes and doing our bit to save the planet.

The poor energy efficiency of homes in the north only serves to make our higher rates of fuel poverty even worse, compounding the problem. In my region, the north-east, we have the third highest levels of fuel poverty in England. Even before the price cap increased, 14% of households in Darlington and 15% in County Durham were classed as fuel-poor. Decarbonising homes and making them more energy efficient has the potential to offer part of the long-term solution to fuel poverty. Insulating homes better and reducing the reliance on fossil fuels to heat homes means less money spent on wasted energy, less money spent. It is a win-win for our homes, their residents and the environment.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I recognise the argument that the hon. Member is making about the north of England. I hope he will not mind my saying that my constituents in the north of London face similar problems and issues of fuel poverty. I am sure that all MPs here would say that emails on those issues are clogging our inbox. People up and down the country have been left uniquely exposed to the global gas crisis, because of the slashing of gas storage, the failure to regulate the market properly and the failure to invest in nuclear and renewables. Does the hon. Member think that we need a radically new approach to energy efficiency from the Government, and does he agree that they should seek to match Labour’s pledge to insulate 19 million homes over the next decade?

[Peter Gibson]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. If she is referring to homes in her constituency, I can well understand and imagine that they have the same issues as homes in the north of England. My objective in calling this debate was to have a constructive and non-partisan debate in order to raise the important issues that are relevant to my constituents and to concentrate on what the Government can do on top of what they are already doing. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister will do in his summing-up.

Energy efficiency also presents an opportunity to improve health outcomes in the north. Each winter, there are around 30,000 more deaths due to inadequate heating in homes. Retrofitting homes has the potential to seriously improve the health outcomes of those who currently live in poor housing. Health and wellbeing rightly have a prominent place in our levelling-up missions, and I want to impress on the Minister the real need to look closely at the benefits of retrofitting northern homes for that purpose. It is not cheap, but we all know that if you buy cheap, you buy twice.

Now, Darlington is a beautiful town, rich in heritage and filled with many traditional homes. We are, of course, the birthplace of the railways, and it is indeed the railway heritage and engineering industry that caused the expansion of our town. In Darlington, 65% of energy performance certificate ratings given to our homes are band D or below. That piles the extra cost of wasted energy on to the residents of those homes—at current energy prices. Merely upgrading homes from EPC band D to band C would cut heating demand by 20% for millions of households and would represent an estimated £2.9 billion bill saving per year in the north-east region.

However, with 62% of homes—around 4 million—in the north below EPC band C, that is a huge challenge. Currently, many stakeholders feel it is simply not financially viable to achieve. I want the Minister to know that I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge. The complexities of private ownership, private renting, and social housing in the mix make it a difficult puzzle to solve.

Corporate Transparency and Economic Crime

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

This issue has been raised already, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary, who is absolutely focused on making sure that our education system is not abused in the way that our legislation on property and companies is.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I, in my role as shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, requested a meeting with Companies House to discuss its role in tackling illicit finance. It initially agreed to the meeting, only to cancel it at the last minute. In the email it wrote to us, it said that it had spoken to its sponsor Department, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, about the meeting and that BEIS was of the view that the issues that we wanted to discuss are best raised with the responsible Minister. Is it the Government’s policy to block Companies House from meeting shadow Treasury Ministers? Or does the Secretary of State agree that it is in the national interest for all of us to work together, across the political spectrum, to tackle dirty money and illicit finance?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I have been very clear that it is the responsibility of every Member of this House to engage with these issues. I have not been informed about that interdiction by my Department and I would love to hear more about it. However, as I have said, every Member of this House has an obligation to engage directly with those tackling these kinds of abuses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

We will bring forward changes to the employment framework in due course. While we are working on that, and when parliamentary time allows, we are working on employment. That is why we have record numbers of people on payroll—men and women and people from all backgrounds, abilities and situations.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

9. If he will make it his policy to make flexible working the default.

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

The Government strongly support flexible working. Only by championing a flexible and dynamic labour market will we grow our economy. I would like to thank the hon. Member for her response to the consultation we closed in December and I look forward to publishing our response in due course.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said and I am pleased that the Government are talking about making flexible working the default, but their proposal merely makes the existing right to request flexible working available from day one in the job. I am sure the Minister knows that that will do nothing to address the fact that a third of all requests for flexible working are rejected, which puts single parents and carers at a considerable disadvantage in the workplace and affects the recruitment process as well. What legislation will the Government undertake to address the fact that unscrupulous employers can pick on a range of often pathetic, unfair and broad reasons when they want to reject a request for flexible working? Will the Government be introducing any actual legislation, because that is what the Opposition want to support?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Member has reflected her consultation response in her questions. The consultation stuck to the principle that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to flexible working. We support the “right to request” framework, which facilitates an informed two-sided conversation but ensures that employers have the right to refuse requests that are unworkable within their business operations. Clearly, that will need to be robust if they feel that they need to reject a request because of the business situation.

Rolls-Royce (Redundancies)

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I thought that we had just had the Adjournment debate, with the last petition from my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson); it has certainly eaten into the time available.

Following its announcement in May of a potential 6,000 job losses around the UK, Rolls-Royce last week proposed what it says is the first tranche. Some 3,000 posts across the UK are under threat, including 700 at the site in Inchinnan in my constituency. Inchinnan is a key site for the company’s maintenance, repair and overhaul—MRO—operations, as well as manufacturing compressors and seals. Such businesses provide parts and support for Rolls-Royce engines used around the world. Their output is world-class, and recognised throughout the business and the industry at large as first-rate. Under the proposals, Rolls-Royce will close the MRO business completely, and the rest of the plant will be downgraded. A total of 700 jobs are threatened, which is over half the total workforce in Inchinnan.

These plans would be a hard blow to the economy in my constituency and across the west of the Scotland. Its impact will also be felt across the supply chain, which goes right across Scotland and the UK. Just yesterday, Wyman-Gordon in Livingston announced 72 redundancies, blaming a drop in orders, including from Rolls-Royce. These are the high-value and highly skilled jobs that we are all fighting to secure for our constituencies—the jobs that Government Ministers promote so often it is almost a cliché. These jobs are the cornerstone of manufacturing in this country and have the potential to grow it further. Yet UK Ministers have been quiet—nay, silent—about what they intend to do to support the workforce and the high-value manufacturing that is so often the subject of press releases and photos of Ministers wearing hard hats.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the International Air Transport Association does not expect air travel to recover to last year’s levels until 2023. This sustained drop in demand is one reason why companies such as Rolls-Royce are considering large-scale redundancies. He may also be aware that British Airways has threatened to cut 12,000 jobs, citing reduced demand. Many of my constituents who have worked loyally for BA over many years have written to me about the fact that they are now being treated as expendable. I am deeply concerned about that. The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful argument; does he agree that we need an urgent Government intervention to ensure that jobs affected by reduced air travel are protected for the long term?

[Gavin Newlands]

The short answer is absolutely. I completely agree with the proposal that the hon. Lady outlines; in fact, it is a proposal that we have been making to the UK Government for months now. There are many estimates as to how long the industry will take to recover but, as I shall come on to say, there is no denying that the industry will face a long and slow recovery. The industry will face redundancies, but the issue is the nature of some of those redundancies. I shall certainly touch on British Airways a little later, although Rolls-Royce is the focus of my speech.

Energy Efficiency Measures: Net Zero Buildings

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Philip Dunne]

I absolutely agree that retrofitting existing housing stock is one of the biggest challenges we face in trying to reduce fossil fuel use in our buildings. Much of my speech relates to that, so I will go on to talk about it. I will not talk about immigration status, but the hon. Lady makes an important point when she says that we need sufficient skilled people to do the work right across the Government’s infrastructure programme. It does not apply exclusively to retrofitting homes, although that forms part of it. If the skilled tradesfolk I know in my constituency are anything to go by, most earn considerably in excess of the Government’s threshold requirements, so skilled tradespeople may well still be able to come here as they meet the requirements of the points system.

I am pleased that there has been some progress in building more efficient homes over the past 30 years. Overall emissions from homes have been reduced by about one fifth since 1990, despite the fact that there are approximately one quarter more homes now. That is ostensibly due to policies to improve boiler efficiency and basic insulation in the early 2000s, but progress seems to have stalled in recent years. Now is the time for this energetic and committed Minister, whom I am absolutely delighted to see retaining this brief, to make his mark by re-energising energy efficiency across the built environment in Britain.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Minister’s energy and enthusiasm, because I want to ask about energy efficiency in social housing. I am sure he is aware that measures such as insulation, window glazing and low-carbon heating can be installed very easily and cheaply in larger buildings. There are some very good examples of local authorities building low-carbon social housing and slashing energy bills for tenants. In my constituency, Camden Council has been reducing carbon emissions in its housing stock, and it has used refurbishments such as Swiss Cottage library to make big energy savings and install solar panels. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it should be down to cash-strapped councils to carry out those innovations, or should the Minister and the Government be playing more of a part in investing properly in energy-efficient social housing?

[Philip Dunne]

I am glad that the hon. Lady has raised social housing, because I will touch on that in my remarks. I am sure the Minister will respond to that point, because there was a clear commitment in the manifesto on which we were just elected to provide funding for energy efficiency measures specifically in social and affordable housing. I think she will get some good news from the Minister when he responds to the debate.

What is the scale of the challenge? The built environment accounts for nearly 40% of national energy use and approximately one third of UK emissions, but progress in the decarbonisation of buildings has been limited. Enhancing the energy efficiency of the UK’s housing stock is therefore one of the critical steps in achieving our net zero target.

The future homes standard is focused on new builds. The Government have called on the industry to deliver a further 1 million new homes over the course of this Parliament, with a more ambitious target of achieving 300,000 new additions each year by the mid-2020s, so getting the regulations right will have a significant impact on the carbon footprint of millions of future homes. That is good news for the environment as we move to net zero, and for people who are fortunate enough to live in the more fuel-efficient buildings of the future. The homes we are building in this and subsequent Parliaments should last more than 100 years—way beyond the 2050 target date for net zero. We must ensure that the standard of homes being built now contributes to meeting that target. It would clearly be perverse and extremely costly to build homes now that require retrofitting to reduce emissions at a later stage. There should be plenty of opportunities from technical innovation in new build standards to incorporate in the future homes standard. I have no doubt that the Government, in their response to the consultation, will seek to address the challenges we face in ensuring homes become more energy efficient and encouraging new technology and innovation in house building. I would like to see them include the notion of embedded efficiency in the materials used for construction, and not just focus on the future annual running costs.

I have concerns about some elements of the proposals that were consulted on. There is, for example, the suggestion that the fabric energy efficiency standard will be removed, which would make it possible to build less energy-efficient properties and still get them to pass building regulations by fitting larger renewable energy systems; as a result, properties would become more expensive to heat, which could increase fuel poverty. Taken over a large enough area, additional renewable energy capacity might be needed away from the new housing, bringing additional cost. I hope the Minister will reflect on that.

The proposals explicitly remove local authorities’ right to set higher than minimum energy efficiency standards, as higher standards are likely to increase costs for home builders. That would restrict their ability to set their own ambitious targets to tackle climate change, with homes that are sustainable for the future, and remove the incentive for home builders to innovate and become market leaders in energy efficiency.

Budget Resolutions

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

As with previous Budgets from this Government, the measures outlined in this one will do nothing to reassure my constituents who are facing such financial difficulties. The cuts to local authority budgets, whether £169 million from Camden’s budget or £164 million from Brent’s budget, are resulting in the closure of police stations, fire stations and jobcentres in the most deprived parts of my constituency, as well as the closure of the children’s centres that are a lifeline for so many parents in my constituency. To top it all off, the roll-out of universal credit is coming. Of course, it would be remiss of me not to mention also the financial difficulties that Brexit will bring to my constituency—a constituency that so thoroughly rejected the idea that we have to leave the European Union: 75% of my constituents voted to remain in the EU.

These issues will dominate life in Hampstead and Kilburn for everyone, but the financial difficulties that I have outlined will have the most profound effect on the people in my constituency who are refugees, asylum seekers, and from migrant communities. As anyone who knows my constituency will probably acknowledge, there is a lot of divided opinion among lots of people, with differences of opinion that constituents like to email and write to me about—but one thing on which many of us are united is that the Government’s economic policy on migration should be underpinned by tolerance and open-mindedness, and that we should be helping new communities who are coming into our constituencies and our country to settle.

That is why I was so deeply disappointed that in his speech on Monday the Chancellor did not talk about reinstating the migration impacts fund. Conservative Members have said a lot about what the Labour Government did, no doubt as set out by the Whips. Let me tell them that the Labour Government introduced the migration impacts fund, in response to councils’ requests for relief from pressures on public services. Better yet, the fund was self-financing. It was financed by non-EEA migrants, with a compulsory £50 levy applied to application fees. For me, it was a statement of intent from the Labour Government that we wanted to express our values by welcoming migrant communities to come to this country. But the coalition Government decided to cut this fund because they wanted to take urgent action to cut the deficit, and because it was

“not a priority funding stream”.

That was typical of this Government, because they cut it first and then faced the expensive consequences later. Disgracefully, the fund was scrapped, but the financial levy remained on those seeking to make a life in Britain—again, very indicative of the punitive economic approach this Government take to migration.

Obviously, however, the needs of the new communities that were coming in remained, and the Government decided to bring in a new scheme, but it was wholly inadequate. Last year, the Home Affairs Committee said that this scheme—the controlling migration fund—suggested that the Government had lost the argument on this topic and that its scope was not

“sufficient to address the…pressures…on local public services”.

This should come as no surprise. The successor scheme that was brought in so hastily by the Government is barely more generous than the migration impacts fund introduced in 2008, and it cannot conceivably be expected to meet the much larger demands on public services a decade later.

The underfunding of the CMF is compounded by the fact that the scheme is split into two, with around £40 million being spent on immigration enforcement, rather than where it should be going, on projects to ease the process of integration across the country. It should come as no surprise that a More United survey of 17,000 people found that the restoration of the initial migration impacts fund would improve trust in our country’s approach to migration.

This is an historic time for our country, and we need a shake-up of our migration policy. We need a Government who think about building resilience in local communities, so that when there is an influx of new migrants and new communities, there are the financial resources to meet the challenges adequately. I represent 22,000 EU nationals in my constituency, and I want to welcome more. I expect the Government to be making provisions in the Budget to ensure that we have the resilience in our communities to handle the influx of migrants who will ultimately bring so many benefits to our country.

Office for Product Safety and Standards

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing this important debate. I congratulate her on raising this important issue, which matters to so many of us and our constituents. Also, a bit cheekily, I take this opportunity to congratulate her on her recent election as deputy leader, although I am not sure whether that is allowed.

The move to establish a new Office for Product Safety and Standards is welcome, but I will echo a few of the things that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) has said about how there will be only limited improvement should the Government fail to establish an effective product register site for all UK recalled products.

I am part of a group of mothers in my constituency who often talk about how we keep our babies, toddlers and newborns safe. We are usually awash with information about the best nappies to use, whether to use formula or to breastfeed, and which car seat should be used, but one of the things that we struggle with is finding out which products that we use for our newborns should be recalled: for example, tumble dryers, which most of us use; baby monitors, which are often fitted to the cots that children sleep in or are at least in their rooms; or bottle or milk warmers that in the past have been recalled, which we do not have much information about.

If we want to find out information about those products, we have to go through individual websites to try to find out which one is faulty and which one we should use, at the same time as trying to look after our young children, which is not the easiest of things to do. We found out that the communication from manufacturers about faulty products is simply not good enough. In a consumer survey carried out by Electrical Safety First, only 21% of people said that they had ever responded to a product recall, and 47% had never even seen a recall notice. That is certainly the experience that I have had, along with the constituents that I am speaking about.

Manufacturers often fail to be clear about what dangers their product poses. If they said more clearly what accidents, deaths and fires were linked to the product that they have recalled, more people would act on the recall notice. In fact, in a survey, 77% of consumers said that if they knew what exactly was wrong with the product that they were using and what dangers it could pose to them and their families, they would be more likely to take the product recall notice seriously.

It is shameful that recall success rates are rarely more than 10% or 20%. If we sincerely want recalls to be successful where necessary, we should not leave it up to consumers to hunt through thousands of websites to find out information. It is not reasonable to expect new parents who are already dealing with newborn children to check every website of every manufacturer from whom they have ever bought a product. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield talked about how many people actually know the product’s serial number or what is on the back of every product that they have bought: what make it was or in what year it was bought. It is simply not possible for consumers to have such information at their fingertips.

We must make sure that consumers are equipped with information about the products they have bought to ensure that they can keep themselves and their families safe. Will the Minister agree that it is vital that the OPSS outline the detail behind its commitment to establish a single national database for UK product recalls? In particular, we need to know what resources and funding the OPSS will have to publicise the site’s existence. After all, we know that public awareness is key to successful product recall.