Employment (Allocation of Tips)
Debate between David Linden and Rosie Winterton(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Linden
I am absolutely willing to acknowledge that some recommendations from the Taylor review have been progressed, but no significant action has been forthcoming. A lot of MPs have said that; indeed, even the hon. Member for Watford said it was regrettable that there was not an employment Bill. I am simply pointing out the fact that an employment Bill was promised in this Parliament. We found time to legislate on a whole manner of other issues, some of which have, frankly, been with a view to creating a wedge at the general election, whereas we know that the legislation framework we have around employment law is not necessarily fit for the 21st century and the kind of economy we now have.
The UK exited the European Union in January 2020 to the cheers and trumpets of Brexiteers who promised that Britannia unchained from Brussels would lead to an improvement in workers’ rights. In reality, and from what I can see in Glasgow, all that has happened is that employers in the hospitality and tourism sectors now just have fewer workers.
In citing the briefing from Unite, I want to thank it for the work it has done to engage with employees and to gauge their opinions about tipping policy. For context, those who have responded are already engaged trade unionists with a track record of activism and a decent understanding of policy. That is what makes the answers particularly striking. When asking whether an employee’s workplace passed on all tips to its staff the answers were: yes, 63%; don’t know, 21%; no, 11%; and some 5% indicated that tips were only accepted by card on an employer-operated tronc that employees paid tax on. Those statistics paint a picture of the sheer scale of the issues workers face, especially when it comes to tipping in hospitality.
On tipping policy, some other issues need to be ironed out and considered further, namely whether backroom staff, such as those who are integral to preparing and producing a meal, not just delivering it to the table, be tipped, and whether the tips are being distributed equitably. All workers need to be eligible to receive tips, whether they are on a zero-hours contract or are permanent. Progress has been made on extending tips to agency workers, but in reality we now operate in a gig economy. It is vital that the legislative framework that comes from this place reflects that.
From the Government’s response to the consultation, 40% of employers admit that they do not issue tips to agency workers despite that being an obligation under section 27H of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The hon. Member for Watford was spot on when he said that the comms to employers and employees must be very clear in the run-up to October this year. There must be something that can be done, for example, with employees who still receive a payslip. Could the Government bring forward measures to require all employers to put some sort of small note on payslips to make clear that the laws on tipping will change in a couple of months?
The legislation we are piloting through the House today makes the point that our legislative framework does not reflect the reality of the UK economy and labour force in 2024. More needs to be done to protect workers, especially those on zero-hours contracts. Arguably, that point should weigh heavily on the minds of shadow Ministers who, if polls are to be believed, might shortly be assuming red boxes and Whitehall offices in the coming months.
As we approach the cigarette end of this Parliament, attention turns to the incoming Government and their ambitions for workers’ rights. It would be fair to say that the small c conservative approach to workers’ rights from the official Opposition has not necessarily been wholly welcomed by those in the Labour movement. Only last week, Unite’s general secretary, Sharon Graham, was on record as saying:
“It looks like all the warnings Unite made earlier about the dangers of Labour rowing back on its pledges for the New Deal for Workers have been proved right. This new Labour document on the New Deal, issued to the unions on Monday, is a row back on a row back. It is totally unrecognisable from the original proposals produced with the unions. Unrecognisable. Workers will see through this and mark this retreat after retreat as a betrayal. This new document is turning what was a real new deal for workers into a charter for bad bosses. Labour don't want a law against fire and rehire and they are effectively ripping up the promise of legislation on a new deal for workers in its first 100 days.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I assume the hon. Gentleman will be coming back to the motion before us.
David Linden
I am very happy to inform you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am talking on employment legislation, which I believe is germane to this debate.
Unite’s general secretary goes on to say:
“Instead, we have codes of conduct and pledges of consultation with big business. Likewise, the proposal to legislate against zero hours contracts is watered down to almost nothing…In truth this new document is not worthy of discussion. All unions must now demand that Labour changes course and puts the original New Deal for Workers back on the table.”
That was a warning shot to the Labour party that it, too, must be more ambitious and not leave the task of protecting workers’ rights to the valiant efforts of Back-Bench MPs who happen to be lucky in the private Members’ Bill draw.
I am sure that you will be glad to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will draw my remarks to a close, and say, yes, the measures before us today have the potential to put up to £200 million a year back into the pockets of hospitality staff and could benefit more than 2 million workers across the hospitality, leisure and service sectors.
That is a legislative achievement to be rightly celebrated in this place but it comes against a backdrop of increasing legislation that restricts the rights of trade unions to exercise functions of collective bargaining. It is no surprise, therefore, that the UK now has some of the most restrictive trade union laws in western Europe—something that has worsened over the past decade. Workers deserve better, and today is another baby step to improving things, but it largely goes against the grain of Westminster policy formulation when it comes to workers’ rights. And it is frankly little wonder that the Labour movement in Scotland, so ably represented by the Scottish Trades Union Congress, has now concluded that legislative competence for employment law should be devolved to Scottish Ministers. Failure to do so—be that by Labour or the Tories—will lead Scots to conclude one thing and one thing only: that Westminster is not working for working people.
Social Security
Debate between David Linden and Rosie Winterton(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I clarify whether we are taking motion 3 on social security and motion 4 in one debate, or will we scrutinise the orders separately? It would be helpful for the House to have clarity on exactly what is happening.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We are debating motion 3 on social security. We will then debate motion 4 on pensions.
Work Capability Assessment Consultation
Debate between David Linden and Rosie Winterton(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Scottish National party spokesman.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The big difference between the SNP and the Conservative and Labour parties is that we do not approach this from the point of view that people are somehow on the make and on the take; we do not assume that when somebody comes for an assessment they are somehow trying to cheat the Government. That is why it is important that the Select Committee on Work and Pensions noted in its recent report the concerns that disabled people are still experiencing psychological distress as a result of undergoing these health assessments.
Let me show just how perverse some of those assessments are. One of the first constituency cases I dealt with as an MP involved someone literally being asked at an assessment whether they still had autism. That gives us an idea of how fundamentally flawed this whole process is. Has the Secretary of State read the Institute for Public Policy Research report that came out today? It makes a specific recommendation to:
“Limit conditionality to facilitate person-centred support on universal credit.”
It says:
“People with health conditions, single parents and parents of young children on universal credit should be exempt from requirements or financial penalties under any circumstances.”
Has he seen that?
Will the Secretary of State also agree to look again at the Access to Work scheme? Far too often, the Government’s own Committee has received evidence that shows that Access to Work simply is not working. I come back to my fundamental point: will the Government change their philosophy—this deep suspicion that somehow claimants are on the make and on the take? All they actually need is support from their Government.
Cost of Living Support
Debate between David Linden and Rosie Winterton(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I too thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, although in reality it is a nine-page press release rehash of previous Government announcements. The only new thing today is the £150 disability payment. Will the Minister reflect on the excellent report from Scope, “Disability Price Tag 2023: the extra cost of disability”, which shows that, on average, disabled households have expenditure that is £975 higher per month? We know that, for example, as a result of specialised diets, higher transport costs, higher energy costs and higher insurance premiums, there is a cost to disabled people.
Unfortunately, the Government do not have a good record when it comes to disabled people, particularly the 2.5 million legacy benefit claimants who were so cruelly overlooked during the pandemic and did not get the equivalent of the £20 uplift. I welcome the £150, but I ask the Minister to reflect on the wise words of Scope, which says that that will not touch the sides. To that end, as the Government are not quite getting this, may I invite the Minister to come to Glasgow to meet me and the Glasgow Disability Alliance, where he will hear the message, loud and clear, that this simply does not go far enough and that far too many people are going to struggle unless the Government up their game?
Points of Order
Debate between David Linden and Rosie Winterton
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. It is obviously a very worrying situation for the staff of the council. I am not aware of any intention to make a statement made about it. Those on the Treasury Bench and Ministers will clearly have heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I suggest he tables some questions, writes to the appropriate Minister or seeks a meeting with the appropriate Minister to find out whether there any ways in which this situation can be resolved.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, I was unable to catch the eye of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) as he was handing out some crib sheets in advance of the next debate. I know we are going to discuss minimum service levels, but given that crib sheets have been handed out, could that service be extended to those of us on the Opposition Benches as well?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Well, I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, but I am afraid I really have no responsibility for pieces of paper that may be handed out, unless of course they have gone through the Table Office.
Bill Presented
Relocation of the House of Lords (Report to Parliament) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Paul Maynard presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of the House of Lords meeting in a large ballroom in Blackpool.
Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March and to be printed (Bill 227).
Adviser on Ministerial Interests
Debate between David Linden and Rosie Winterton(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Linden
In short, yes I do.
The final point I want to make is that, while in many respects this is a very noble motion before the House and I will happily vote for it tonight, there must be a realisation in this place that with the current holder of the office of Prime Minister, politics has changed enormously, and we as Members of the House of Commons are going to have to get used to that. This is a Prime Minister who has defied all the norms of politics, who has now outlived Trump and may go even further.
I ask Members of this House to remember who the current Prime Minister is. I know I cannot refer to him by name, but on issues of racism he wrote:
“It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies”.
In 2018, he compared Muslim women to “bank robbers” and “letter boxes” and said he would ask a person with a niqab to remove it before speaking to him. He wrote that single mothers were to blame for producing a generation of,
“ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate children”.
In 2002 he said in a book:
“If gay marriage was OK…I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog.”
The point is that this Government can have all the advisers on ethics they like, but I am fairly sure that if another one is appointed, they will have to resign again. The issue here is not necessarily the role of an adviser for ethics; the issue is that we have a Prime Minister who has no ethics.
We find ourselves in a remarkable situation where, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) just mentioned, a majority of people in this House do not have confidence in the Prime Minister. Remarkably, members of my party are told we cannot have a second referendum on independence, but for hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, the only opportunity they have to remove the Prime Minister is a second vote in a year’s time. That irony is lost on nobody.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In order to give all the remaining speakers equal time, I need colleagues to stick to about seven minutes.
Social Security and Pensions
Debate between David Linden and Rosie Winterton(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Linden
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister may have inadvertently misled the House in saying that that sum was for the Scottish Government, rather than the devolved Administrations. I am sure he will want to correct that at the Dispatch Box.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Let me deal with the point of order. I do not really like points of order in the middle of debates, because the hon. Gentleman would have had the chance to respond. However, the Minister has heard what he has said, and I am sure that if there is anything further he wants to add, he will do so.
Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits
Debate between David Linden and Rosie Winterton(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman for their points of order. How the Government choose to vote is not a point of order for the Chair, but it might be helpful if I remind the House that on 26 October 2017 the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), set out the following:
“Where a motion tabled by an Opposition party has been approved by the House, the relevant Minister will respond to the resolution of the House by making a statement no more than 12 weeks after the debate.”
I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard that. To address the hon. Gentleman’s point directly, the resolution on an Opposition motion is not a binding resolution, hence my drawing attention to the fact that we assume that a Minister will come to the House within 12 weeks to respond.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that if the Government do not take action on the universal credit cut, in 12 weeks that £20 a week will be gone from the constituents who we all represent. On a broader point of consistency, the Government have clearly abstained on the vote on the first motion of this Opposition day. The subsequent motion is essentially a motion about House business and would instruct Mr Speaker to set up a Committee. How can the Government claim to have consistency when they abstain in the vote on the first motion and will almost certainly vote against the second motion this evening?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am afraid I am not really answerable for whether there is consistency in the choices that are made. Every Member has the right to decide whether they want to vote or not vote. I assume that these issues could well be addressed later in the debate, to which we now come.