Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is right; rapid and fair compensation is exactly what we are seeking to deliver. It has to be seen to be fair. We also need an easier route to overturning convictions, and we are determined to take that forward, as well as individuals being held to account. He raises an important point on the judicial system, and potentially the trust we place upon computer records seems to have played a part in this case. That is a lesson we potentially need to learn across the legal framework, and I know the Justice Secretary has that in mind.

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

The Minister is aware that this is not just about those who were wrongly accused and convicted; it is also about those who were falsely accused, were not prosecuted but who still experienced consequences. I have a constituent who believes she was a victim of Horizon false accusations. She lost her post office franchise as a consequence, but the associated pressures led to her losing her main business as well. Can the Minister confirm whether she would be eligible for compensation? How does she go about accessing compensation? For similar victims of false accusations without prosecution who sadly have died, how does the deceased’s family access compensation?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There are three compensation schemes for good reason—it is not ideal to have three different schemes, but we are where we find ourselves. We have the Horizon shortfall scheme, the group litigation order scheme and the overturned conviction scheme, and it sounds as though the hon. Gentleman’s constituent would fit into the Horizon shortfall scheme and should be able to apply to that. I am happy to make sure that he is aware of the route that his constituent can take. In assessing financial loss, consequential losses are a part of that assessment, and it sounds as though there is a case for consequential loss in that particular case. It can certainly be something that financial compensation takes into account. With regard to the families of deceased individuals, they can still claim to the same compensation schemes and should be compensated in exactly the same manner and to exactly the same degree.

Autumn Statement Resolutions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned on this for some time and I have great regard for the work he does. It is worth him reading the “Payment and Cash Flow Review”, which was published yesterday alongside the autumn statement. It includes some references to retentions, to which he refers. There are other measures from the small business commissioner as well as more transparency on late payments. I am happy to engage with him further on this issue.

Although taxes pay for vital public services, this Government are clear that they must not stifle business owners’ ambitions. Quite simply, our economy relies on those ready to take risks and to innovate. Time and again, these entrepreneurs tell me that a simpler tax system would make life easier for them. This autumn statement will not just reduce tax but reform it, while putting more money into employees’ pockets.

The abolition of class 2 national insurance will save the average self-employed person £192 a year. Alongside the 1% reduction in the rate of class 4 national insurance, some 2 million self-employed people will be saving an average of £350 a year from next April.

In addition, from next year we will merge the existing research and development expenditure credit and the small and medium-sized enterprise R&D scheme. This will allow companies to claim back a proportion of their spending in this area through their tax bill, further simplifying the system and boosting innovation.

Finally, and very significantly, we have unveiled game-changing plans to make full expensing permanent. As the Chancellor set out yesterday, expensing aims to stimulate investment by giving larger companies £250,000 off their tax bill for every £1 million they invest. It was introduced, as hon. Members know, by the Chancellor in the spring and was set to last for three years, but it has been such a success, and the calls for it to continue have been so loud and clear that yesterday the Chancellor made it a permanent policy. This is the largest single tax cut in modern British history. It means that we now have not just the lowest headline corporation tax rate in the G7, but the most generous capital allowances too. That is hugely appealing to any business looking for a home in a global market.

The Office for Budget Responsibility tells us that this move alone will increase annual investment by around £3 billion a year, and by £14 billion over the forecast period. We are able to do this only because we have met our borrowing rules early, have more than halved inflation, and are seeing our debt go down every year.

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

Going back to the tax regime in general, one of the measures in the autumn statement—line 50 of table 5.1—was entitled “HMRC: Investment in Debt Management Capability”. According to the statement, investment of £160 million into the debt management facility of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will somehow unlock £1 billion a year in debt recovery. What is that investment, why was it not undertaken previously and how will it realise an extra £1 billion of income for HMRC?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

HMRC has a responsibility to be understanding and compassionate when it comes to business difficulties, but if debts are owed to the taxpayer it is only right that we seek to return them. Many more businesses may have that difficulty because of difficulties in recent years, but if the hon. Member is implying that we should not chase debts owed to the taxpayer—

[Alan Brown]

indicated dissent.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Perhaps we should have a conversation offline about that. I think it makes perfect sense to invest in reclaiming debt owed to the taxpayer.

I wish to turn now to another of my Department’s spending measures: the advanced manufacturing plan. The UK is a global advanced manufacturing hub. Recently—this is not a statistic that is often quoted in the media—we overtook France to become the world’s eighth-largest manufacturing nation. What is not to like about that? While we have a strong story to tell, there is fierce global competition. Already my Department has been instrumental in attracting significant global investment to our key future-leaning industries, including Tata’s £4 billion gigafactory and a £600 million investment to build the next generation of electric Minis.

Our £4.5 billion advanced manufacturing plan will help to safeguard the sector’s future and seal our reputation as the best place to start and grow a manufacturing business and to invest in this industry. It includes over £2 billion for the automotive industry—the single biggest Government investment ever in the UK sector—alongside £975 million for aerospace and £960 million for a green industries growth accelerator to support clean energy manufacturing. In short, the plan will ensure that our manufacturing success story can begin its most exciting chapter yet.

This is a Government who know business. We are for business because we are from business. This is a Government who believe in business. This is a Government who back business. Our autumn statement could not be a clearer illustration of those facts. Have no doubt that it will provide our most promising companies with the capital, certainty and support that they need to thrive long into the future. That is why I commend its measures to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will not mind me saying, as someone born and raised in the north-east of England, not too far from Stockton, that it is unequivocally a beautiful part of this country. Anyone on the Government Benches who is not aware of that should visit it for themselves.

Yesterday’s autumn statement felt a bit like the season finale of this Conservative Government. While we might have been hoping for an uplifting twist in the tale, sadly what we were left with was a pitiful ending to an underwhelming story. It was an autumn statement made of pure fantasy: the Government Benches cheering a tax cut, when in fact taxes are higher than they have ever been; a Chancellor claiming to have delivered for working people, when in reality living standards face an unprecedented fall; the Conservatives desperately trying to address business investment, when in fact their chaos was what caused business investment to collapse to begin with.

I understand that it is tempting for Conservatives to buy into the Chancellor’s fiction, but in the real world people can see the cost of the Conservatives in their bank balance, mortgage bill, high street and public services. This country desperately needs hope for the future and a change of course. For all the spin from the Chancellor, people know that they are worse off after 13 years of the Conservatives. The statement confirmed that nothing that the Government will now do will change that. The Conservatives promised that it would be a statement for growth, but the reality is that growth will be down next year, the year after that, and the year after that. The Chancellor said that we have turned a corner, but all we got was confirmation that Britain has hit a brick wall.

Let us get one thing clear at the beginning of this debate: when inflation went up after the invasion of Ukraine, the Government said, “It’s nothing to do with us; it’s all global pressures.” Now, when some of those pressures have reduced and the Bank of England has operated monetary policy in the way we would expect, the Prime Minister wants personal credit for inflation falling. Do the Government really think they can get away with that?

On inflation, the Government oppose the single most important thing they could do, which is to reduce our exposure to volatile fossil fuel prices so that we are never again so vulnerable and exposed. Labour has a plan for energy independence and security so that Britain is never again so badly exposed to those volatile fossil fuel prices. That is the lesson we need to learn.

Let us also not forget that, while we all welcome lower inflation, it is still high, particularly food inflation. When I do the big shop in my local supermarket in Stalybridge, I wince when I see the price of some food items. Families are working harder than ever before, only to have to put the little things that they treat themselves with back on the shelf, or to cut back on what they would once have considered essentials. This is no time for Conservative Ministers to go around asking for a pat on the back.

On the Chancellor’s central claim that lower inflation means he can now spend money, he is simply not being straight with people. The public finances have not meaningfully improved. It is high inflation, not a stronger economy, that has led to higher tax receipts. It is the fiscal illusion of higher tax receipts caused by high inflation, but rather than using that to meet higher costs in the public sector caused by that inflation, he has chosen to spend it. The Minister mentioned his own business career and, as he knows, I personally admire him very much for that career, but if he had run his businesses in the same way that this Chancellor is running the national finances, I think he knows he would have gone out of business very quickly indeed.

There has to be a reckoning for what that will mean for schools, the NHS, the police and the criminal justice system. While the Prime Minister and the Chancellor may live in a different world, our constituents can see the public realm literally crumbling around them. That is the reality of Conservative Britain, and some fiscal trickery will not be enough to convince people that everything is fine. It is also important to say that the Chancellor’s fiscal headroom is now entirely dependent on things such as a large rise in fuel duty next year—and I imagine that very few Conservative MPs have come to the debate today to say that they support that.

Another major focus of the Chancellor’s speech was business investment, and I welcomed that. I enjoyed that bit of the statement because, as I have made clear, I believe that is a fundamental weakness that we must address. The UK, as the Minister knows, has the lowest business investment in the G7. When British innovation is so abundant, that is an appalling effort from this Government. Full expensing is not perfect, because there are issues with the scope of what is covered by the policy as it stands, but not making it permanent would have been untenable and our relative position in the ranking of attractiveness as a place to invest would have fallen off a cliff.

However, if the Government think that is enough to restore the business confidence that they have frittered away over the last 13 years, they are mistaken. The No. 1 thing that business leaders tell me they need is stability. I have been our shadow Business Secretary for two years, and in that time I have shadowed five different Business Secretaries, we have had four Chancellors and I think we have had three Prime Ministers. In the last 13 years, by my count, we have had 11 different growth strategies, and now it appears we are on to the 12th. We see that lack of consistency across every bit of Government.

Take HS2, which is a national embarrassment: billions of pounds wasted, businesses let down, regeneration plans lost, and a flagship Government policy that goes overnight when Parliament is not even sitting and is unable to ask the most basic of questions by way of scrutiny. Or take the phasing out of new petrol and diesel vehicles from 2030. There was a major announcement on the headline date, one not made at the request of business, that hugely undermines investment certainty, but without a corresponding change to the rest of the policy environment—the zero-emission vehicle mandate—that leads up to 2030. Therefore they lose the certainty and credibility of keeping the target, but do not gain any flexibility from moving it either. Businesses say to me time and again that they cannot rely on a word any Conservative Minister says, and they are right. What businesses need is a real industrial strategy that gives them certainty and co-ordination. They need real commitments on planning, to get Britain building again. They need politicians who are willing to say, “We need new homes and infrastructure, and we are willing to commit our political capital to deliver it.” They need reform of the apprenticeship levy, so that they have more flexibility over skills and training. They need a better trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union than the one we have at present.

On the energy transition, the Chancellor and the Minister spent some time attacking what Labour call our “green prosperity plan”—our policy commitment to ensure not only that the transition happens, but that the UK gets maximum economic benefits from it. We on the Labour Benches love wind turbines, but we are sick of seeing them built overseas. We love cars and vans, but we know that unless we build batteries for electric vehicles in the UK, we will not have an automotive sector in the long term. We want green steel, but we are not prepared to close down our blast furnaces and import virgin steel from the far east, as the Conservatives plan to do.

The key point is that the Government do not entirely disagree with us. In the last year, £0.5 billion in subsidy has been allocated to Tata Steel in Somerset. Similar sums have been promised for other steel. But what we want to know is what the Government will get for it. How do they get value for money if those are just ad hoc bilateral negotiations? How is public money protected? The difference between us is not the principle that the state will need to co-invest to deliver some of that private investment; it is a huge difference of ambition, transparency and effectiveness.

Labour will not respond to the challenges that we face through such panicked ad hoc announcements. We will face the future with confidence and with a full plan that delivers for British industry. That is what our national wealth fund will do: manage the investments that we will make and ensure that the British people see their money being well looked after. Fundamentally, we want to get the transition right rather than repeat the mistakes of the 1980s and 1990s, which still haunt many parts of the UK today.

[Alan Brown]

I agree with the principle of a sovereign wealth or investment fund. Look at Norway, which has a £1.1 trillion sovereign wealth fund—the largest in the world. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Westminster has missed a trick for successive decades by not creating an oil and gas fund, and is that not a damning legacy?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Unsurprisingly, I agree with part of what the hon. Member said. We could have a lengthy and robust debate on the weaknesses of Conservative Governments in the 1980s and the consequences of their short-term decisions. I would—

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). I hope those on his Front Bench were listening to the contributions from him and some of his fellow Labour Members, because it is important that we talk about plans to remedy things and help the poorest in our society.

This is clearly a zombie Budget from a zombie Government —a Budget so good that, as others have said, the Back Benches on the Government side are practically empty. If it was meant to be a pre-election Budget, it is a pre-election Budget that is not generating any confidence among Conservative Back Benchers, because none of them wants to be here to debate it and try to talk it up.

It is a bold Chancellor who tells us that he is cutting taxes when we still have the highest tax burden in 70 years, with more tax rises on the way, and at the same time living standards continue to fall. Just today, Ofgem has announced that the energy cap will increase again in January—it will still be approximately double what energy costs were two years ago. It is little wonder that the OBR predicts that living standards this year will be 3.5% lower than before the pandemic.

The Chancellor was bold enough to talk about wage growth, but let us look at the detail. The Resolution Foundation confirmed that it will take until 2028 to get overall wages back to 2008 levels—two lost decades of wage growth. At the next general election, it will be the first time ever that household incomes have been lower at the end of a Parliament than they were at the start.

It is clear that the Budget does nothing for the approximately 6.3 million fuel-poor households. Ofgem has confirmed record cumulative energy debts of £2.6 billion, so we are still in the grip of a cost of energy crisis. The Tories tell us that we should be grateful for the energy support package, which cost in the order of £40 billion, but let us look at the example of Norway, which is drawing a further £30 billion from its sovereign wealth fund this year alone. That will not even make a dent in its £1.1 trillion sovereign wealth fund—yes, £1.1 trillion, which makes it the biggest such fund in the world. Energy-rich Scotland still exports six times more oil and gas than it consumes, and yet we are supposed to be grateful that the UK as a whole is planning to slightly reduce its £2.5 trillion debt. All those oil and gas revenues have been frittered away through short-term planning. Norway did not create its fund until the 1990s, so it is a disgrace that we do not have a North sea legacy to fall back on in these hard times.

We are also supposed to be grateful about the 2% cut to national insurance contributions, and that the Tories have—so they claim—reduced inflation from 11.4%, even though they were partly responsible for the high rate because of the disastrous mini-Budget and the impacts of Brexit. It is curious that the Government tell us that they are not responsible for high inflation as it is a global issue, and that high interest rates are set by the wholly independent Bank of England, but now that inflation is falling, we are to believe from the autumn statement that the Government’s actions have brought it down. The Government appear to be responsible for inflation rates only when it is good news and they are going down—that is quite a trick.

Let me return to household energy. It is a scandal that about a fifth of UK households are living in fuel poverty. It is a bigger scandal that energy-rich Scotland has fuel poverty at all, as well as the highest energy bills and some of the highest standing charges just to access the energy grid. Those standing charges mean people cannot afford to heat their homes properly. Indeed, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that 2 million people are switching off their fridges and freezers intermittently to save on energy costs. This autumn statement will do nothing to help those people—or, if it does, any money that goes into their pockets in January will quickly be removed in April as the tax threshold freeze means more people become liable for income tax. Households are paying on average £800 a year more on energy costs than two years ago, but the warm home discount scheme has increased from £140 to £150 a year. It is plain: the sums do not add up. However, the Government have also reneged on their pledge for a social tariff to help the most vulnerable with their energy costs.

Let us look at the national insurance cut in the round. Although hard-working people, especially those on the eligibility threshold, will of course welcome having to pay less, it is unfortunately no coincidence that the £19 billion package to support the cut will be offset by £19 billion of public spending cuts that are still to be determined. Who is most affected by public spending cuts? Of course, it is the lowest paid and the poorest in our society. Such spending cuts make a further mockery of the Government’s so-called levelling-up agenda. The budget of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities was halved in the statement, which says everything about levelling-up targets. If the Government introduce a tax cut via emergency legislation, only to pay for it through future departmental cuts, they cannot possibly claim that that is part of responsible Government taking long-term decisions for the economy. It is quite clearly a gimmick to capture headlines.

In Scotland, of course, we are also meant to be grateful for the Barnett consequentials, which have already turned out to be lower than was announced. The Scottish block grant itself is being cut in real terms in the autumn statement. Next year, the grant increases from £35.8 billion to £36.9 billion, but if we compare that increase with headline inflation from September, it is clearly a real-terms budget cut of about 3.5%, or £1.3 billion, for Scotland.

Then there is the capital budget allocated to the Scottish Government, which is being cut outright from £6.2 billion to £5.6 billion in two years’ time. That is not even a real-terms budget cut, but a hugely damaging slashing of the budget, at a time when the Scottish Tories demand that the Scottish Government invest in all sorts of infrastructure projects. I am sure that the Scottish Tories will recognise this conundrum of a cut budget, demand that the capital budget is restored, and recognise the pressures on the Scottish Government, let alone the inflationary pressures on projects that are already under way. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) points out, no Scottish Tories are even here to talk about the statement.

On infrastructure, we are yet again being let down by the lack of progress on agreeing an electricity cap and floor mechanism for pumped storage hydro. That means further delays to SSE’s Coire Glas scheme and Drax’s Cruachan dam extension. We keep hearing that the Government want to unlock private investment. In pumped storage hydro, private investment in the order of £2 billion to £2.5 billion would be unlocked by agreeing an electricity export mechanism for those schemes. That would create jobs in the highlands of Scotland and, importantly, provide better balance for the grid, reducing bills overall. Why the continued intransigence from the Government on pumped storage hydro?

Despite talk of investment in green energy, the statement and the Green Book do not mention energy storage even once—that is a dereliction of duty. Tidal stream, in which Scotland leads the way, is not mentioned either. Looking at the statement in detail, the so-called £4.5 billion manufacturing investment and the £960 million green growth accelerator do not have corresponding budget lines, so those announcements are clearly recycled announcements, in the finest style of this Government.

As we have heard, the indicative blank cheque for nuclear was mentioned once again. We have the fantasy of small modular reactors, but they are not actually small. First, they exceed the industry definition in terms of generation capacity, and secondly, they are the size of two football pitches, which is not exactly a small footprint. The terminology is designed to make them sound small and cosy when they are anything but.

Let us look at the evidence on the development of these projects. The most advanced SMR project in the world, NuScale in Utah, has just been shelved because capital costs have increased to $9 billion—the equivalent of over £7 billion. That is evidence that SMRs are too expensive to progress, but the UK Government are pretending they can deliver them for about £2 billion per reactor. That makes no sense, especially when nuclear technology is generally more expensive in the UK anyway.

We now come to my hobby-horse: Sizewell C. Despite the cost of Hinkley Point C increasing from £18 billion to £33 billion, the rampant inflation we still have and Sizewell C being built on an area subject to coastal erosion and flood risk, we are told that it will magically provide value for money and be cheaper than Hinkley Point C. It is truly delusional. No pension funds want to invest in Sizewell C, and the Government have the begging bowl out. Despite introducing the regulated asset base model and transferring further risk to bill payers, they are still struggling to raise finance.

It is time that the Government ended this charade. It is bad enough that over £1 billion has already been spent just on design development for Sizewell C. That is £1 billion that could have been spent on energy efficiency measures, infrastructure or even further energy support schemes.

[Peter Grant]

Is my hon. Friend surprised or disappointed, or is it purely to be expected, that there is not a single word about insulation or energy efficiency measures anywhere in the autumn statement?

[Alan Brown]

All of the above. It is infuriating. If the Government were to listen, even the energy supply companies want them to invest more in energy efficiency and insulation. Right now, in the ECO4 scheme—energy company obligation 4—the companies cannot even find the requisite number of properties to upgrade. As that goes on, we are losing the supply chain instead of building it up.

If we really want green growth, green jobs and lower energy bills, it is perfectly obvious that more money should be spent on energy efficiency. Ironically, the Government never listen to that, but they should listen to the third sector and the energy companies who praise the Scottish Government for their direct investment in support of energy efficiency programmes. In contrast to the Government’s blank cheque for nuclear, Scottish renewable projects still have to pay the grid charging penalty, making it harder for them to compete in the contract for difference auctions.

This autumn statement means that we still have an incoherent energy policy. It does nothing for Scotland. Hard-working families are still going to suffer, living standards are still falling, and the disabled are now threatened with losing support unless they are forced into jobs not of their choosing. It is not difficult to choose a different path for Scotland—it is a path that other smaller countries in western Europe are already on, so why not Scotland? It is time we took that different route.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now come to the winding-up speeches. I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I want to paint a clear picture of the economic landscape facing families and working people across our nation—a landscape marked by challenges and hardships under the current Government. This reality is not just my opinion but has been highlighted most starkly by the Resolution Foundation. Households are expected to be £1,900 poorer because of the policies implemented by this Tory Government. As the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), eloquently explained, this is the first Parliament in which real household disposable incomes have fallen. This confirms what people feel in their pocket and see on their bank statements.

Today, as I close this debate on an issue of paramount importance for not only our economy but the lives and livelihoods of millions across our country, I am reminded of two words: thirteen years. The last 13 years have been not just unlucky for some but devastating for millions who are finding it harder to get by and for everyone using public services, which have literally been run into the ground. After 13 years of Conservative Government, this is where we find ourselves.

Globally, in the last 13 years we have seen technology leap from flip-phones to virtual reality, witnessed three World cups and three royal weddings, and seen humanity land a rover on Mars. Perhaps it is easier to explore other planets than it is for this Conservative Government to get our economy growing and improve the living standards of working people. Over the last 13 years, the Conservatives have weakened our national health service, made working people worse off, increased our rates of relative poverty, reduced opportunities and hampered economic growth.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) rightly said, this statement reveals the scale of Conservative economic failure. Household incomes are set to be 3.5% lower next year in real terms than they were pre-pandemic—the biggest hit to living standards on record, as elucidated by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). Real wages are set not to rise but instead to fall this year by 0.7% and are almost flat next year. Real average earnings, according to the Resolution Foundation, are not forecast to return to their 2008 peak until 2028, marking a totally unprecedented 20-year pay stagnation—a point hammered home by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon).

Worse still, the highly respected independent Office for Budget Responsibility confirms that the worst is yet to come for mortgage holders, with rates peaking at far higher than previously expected. The Government’s economic recklessness means a Tory mortgage penalty right across the country now and in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) lamented the dire predicament faced by her constituents. Likewise, in my Slough constituency, families with a mortgage are now expected to find £290 more per month. I ask the Minister quite simply, where are they meant to find that in their already stretched budgets?

This Government’s rhetoric is at odds with their tax-raising reality over this Parliament, as explained at length by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who spoke with great passion and experience. Sadly, people cannot pay the bills with the boasts and hot air from Conservative Ministers. Let us not forget that in this autumn statement, despite their pledge to cut taxes and reward hard work, the Conservatives have introduced 25 tax rises—yes, 25—hitting working people and business. Are this Government the proud parent of this 13-year-long project? Growth has stagnated and opportunities have dwindled. As the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), remarked, growth has been revised down for next year, the year after that and the year after that as well.

While Ministers try to explain away their failures, let us look at our international standing. The UK economy currently stands in sharp contrast to the dynamism and potential seen in other sectors globally. The UK is set to have the weakest growth among the G7 in 2024, according to the International Monetary Fund. It is as if those on the Government Benches have entered the race but are still stuck in first gear. This failure to get a grip of our economy has serious consequences, including poverty, which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) described in painstaking detail.

Under the Conservatives, the tax burden has risen by a staggering £4,300 per household. Despite the rhetoric of tax cuts, the reality is that this autumn statement has failed miserably to alleviate the burden placed on people by this Government. Going into the autumn statement, the Conservatives had already put in place tax increases worth the equivalent of a 10p increase in national insurance. Yesterday’s much-hyped 2p cut clearly will not compensate for the Government’s tax increases; neither will it compensate for higher monthly mortgages or for worse public services, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) highlighted at length, have been decimated. The Conservatives are like a burglar who empties your entire home, but then expects you to be grateful when they give you back your toaster. The public will rightly see through what the Chancellor has presented in this autumn statement.

In an era where innovation should be flourishing, we are instead witnessing a climate of hesitancy and stagnation. Businesses—which are the backbone of the economy—feel this, and Labour rightly understands it. From my personal journey of building and growing a start-up construction business, I know full well the challenges that need to be faced in order to reach success. That experience in the growth economy contrasts starkly with the current economic climate under this Government. Yesterday, for example, the Institution of Civil Engineers highlighted the National Infrastructure Commission’s call to make faster progress on long-term goals for infrastructure. The ICE’s verdict on the Government was that

“for those looking for direction from the chancellor on how the UK will pick up the pace, today’s autumn statement was disappointing.”

It is right to be concerned.

The OBR projects that long-term business investment will continue to fall, with gross fixed capital formation by corporations now significantly lower than under the last Labour Government 13 years ago. That trend is only exacerbated by the autumn statement’s lack of a coherent industrial strategy—indeed, where is the Government’s industrial strategy? Their myopic policies fail to inspire confidence or stability in our business sector.

Some important and powerful contributions have been made in this debate, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), who encapsulated exactly why the British people have had enough.

[Alan Brown]

On the topic of construction and the hon. Gentleman’s connected point about industrial strategy, does he agree that instead of spending £30 billion to £40 billion on Sizewell C nuclear power station, that money would be much better invested in renewable energy, accompanied by an industrial strategy to create a proper UK-based supply chain?

[Mr Dhesi]

The Labour party believes that we must see a focus on renewable energies as we transition the economy, which includes investment in the nuclear sector. The hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted the construction industry; from my various conversations with leaders in that industry, I know they have been put in a very difficult position by this Government’s lack of direction, especially with regards to the building of housing. As many hon. Members have rightly highlighted, we have a housing crisis, so where is the Government’s investment to deal with that crisis and ensure that our construction industry grows, thereby providing more jobs for the hard-working British people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies]

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman raises that point, as I looked into it, and there is zero evidence for what he suggests. If he has evidence, he should provide it. We know that inflation was caused by two major factors, and I am happy to go through that in detail at another time. Global inflation was caused by global factors caused by the impact of a global pandemic. Supply chain shortages have caused prices to rise across the world, and then we had the war in mainland Europe, caused by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which caused energy prices to spike, and gas prices went up around the world. We in the UK are particularly dependent on gas, which is why inflation increased. It is also why we stepped in with the energy price guarantee to cut every constituent’s bills in half.

[Alan Brown]

rose—

[Peter Grant]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies]

I simply point out that that did not stop the Scottish Government accepting our energy price guarantee for Scottish households, where we paid half of energy Bills. However, the hon. Member makes a broader point about energy supply. We on the Government Benches fully support the Scottish oil and gas industry. We believe that we will need oil and gas for years to come, and we will support the 200,000 jobs that the industry supports.

[Alan Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

[Gareth Davies]

I will make a bit more progress, if that is all right.

I also want to address the comments of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on France. It is a great country, but I have to tell him that since 2010 the UK has grown faster than France. Indeed, the IMF has forecast that the UK will grow faster than Germany, France and Japan by 2028, so I do not recognise his comparisons. However, he is right that productivity is a problem in this country, which is why we are investing in our businesses to grow and improve productivity, but in order to boost growth sustainably we need to focus on business investment, and that is what this statement does.

This statement backs business to create jobs, to innovate and to ensure that as a country we can go from strength to strength. That is why I will be proud to vote for its many measures to support the entire country.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Joy Morrissey.)

Debate to be resumed on Monday 27 November.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Alan Brown Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 17th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I have said, we intend to consult with all parties to make sure that they have a chance to comment on what reasonable obligations a union might be required to take. I think that it is pretty straightforward, and, indeed, unions will be familiar with the code of practice on picketing that was issued under section 203 of the 1992 Act. This code will be subject to statutory consultation, including consultation with ACAS, and to the approval of Parliament. The consultation will give trade unions, employers and any other interested parties an opportunity to contribute to practical guidance on the steps that a union must take in order to make it as practicable, durable and effective as possible.

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

If the Minister is so willing to consult, why is he rejecting an amendment which confirms that there should be a consultation?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We are not happy with a number of other parts of the amendment. We are proposing a measure that we have already proposed in earlier debates. It is, of course, up to those in the other place to decide how they take their amendments forward, but we believe that this is fair. We are satisfied that it is an effective way to provide for clarity, and that the individual consultations for specific minimum service levels in relevant services required by Lords amendment 2D are not needed. The real impact of the amendment would be a delay in the implementation of minimum service levels, given the additional and lengthy consultation and parliamentary requirements which we strongly suspect are its purpose. Unnecessary delays in the protection of the lives and livelihoods of those whom we have been elected to represent cannot be justified.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson

[Alan Brown]

It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). I agree with all his comments, but I hope that Labour stays resolute on this. If it comes into government, we do not want to see another U-turn, given what we heard at the weekend.

The Minister put forward the myths again about how this Bill is about saving lives and livelihoods. I do not know how he can talk about saving livelihoods, as he is bringing forward a Bill that is going to allow workers to be sacked more easily. Workers’ livelihoods are at stake because of the Bill and the intentions behind it. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Lords for the fight they have brought on this, but I am a wee bit disappointed that the Lords amendment is only about the consultation. Even if we manage to defeat the Government tonight, the Lords amendment does not provide any additional proper protections for the unions or the workers, because it is all about consulting. At least consulting would draw out some transparency, because the Government would need to publish responses and allow the House or a Joint Committee to debate those. In itself, however, the amendment does not provide any additional protections.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Does it not speak volumes about the way in which this Government conduct their business that they go through a consultation process and are not prepared to publish the results of that consultation? What have they got to hide?

[Alan Brown]

That is a fair point. Obviously, I cannot answer on what the Government have to hide, other than to say that we know about a raft of answers that show how unworkable and prejudiced this Bill is.

Subsection 5(b) in the amendment is about consulting the ILO. The Government keep telling us that this Bill brings the legislation in the UK into line with international norms, but it clearly does not; the ILO has said that the UK already has some of the most draconian strike legislation, even before this Bill. So there is no doubt that the Government are frightened to consult the ILO because they are frightened about the answers that will come back and the evidence about how draconian this really is that will be put into the public domain when it is published.

As I say, it looks as if the Lords are going to back down after this. There is no more scheduled business to allow further consideration of the Lords message, which suggests they are not going to push the amendment beyond that. That is disappointing, especially given that the Government have tried to argue before that this is a manifesto commitment. The actual manifesto commitment was to require a minimum service for transport. That commitment is not as wide ranging, so the Lords would be completely justified in continuing to resist for as long as possible.

As the shadow Minister said, because the amendment is to consult, as opposed to what was set out in previous amendments, unions are still at risk of facing big fines. Unions are still going to comply, effectively helping employers disrupt strikes and single out workers. Worst of all, workers can now get sacked for not complying with a work notice that they have not received.

Why the Government would not even consult and publish an impact assessment on that is beyond me. Again, they know that it allows employers to unfairly discriminate, pick out the awkward squad, then discipline and sack them, with no recourse to a tribunal. Welcome, Madam Deputy Speaker, to 21st century authoritarian Britain, where sacking workers like that brings the UK in line with Russia and Hungary, not the international norms, although the Minister and Government try to tell us otherwise.

I will be voting against the Government motion to disagree with the Lords. I hope the Lords do not give up the fight, but I am frightened they will. That is why we want away from this Union, because it is certainly not working for anybody.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The Minister has let the cat out of the bag in relation to the Government’s attitude to this dreadful Bill and to amendment 2D from the other place. The Minister objected to Lords amendment 2D because it would delay the implementation of the Bill. Let us be clear: the Bill makes history for all the wrong reasons. It is the biggest attack on the role of our trade unions in our democracy for many a long year. Why are the Government so desperate to rush the Bill through? One almost thinks they cannot stomach the idea of even a small delay because they want it to be presented at the Conservative party conference as a bit of red meat to the party faithful—classic anti-trade union politics and trade union bashing.

Let us think about where we are in terms of industrial relations. The Bill, which the Government do not want to consult on properly, comes shortly after over 100,000 nurses in this country voted to take strike action—the result in that recent ballot was that 84% of nurses who cast a vote did so to take strike action. However, because of the Government’s dreadful Trade Union Act 2016, an 84% vote in favour of strike action does not count, is worthless and does not result in strike action, because the turnout was 43%.

The Government helped drive down the turnout by not allowing people to vote by electronic ballot. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), who made such a mess of this country in her short tenure, was elected by electronic ballot of Conservative party members. Not allowing people to vote by electronic means reveals the contempt the Government have for the biggest voluntary organisations in our society—the trade union movement. They will not even give workers in our country the modern dignity of being allowed to vote online or in the workplace.

The Government object to Lords amendment 2D and do not want to consult on it. Is that any wonder? The greater the consultation that takes place in relation to this abhorrent Bill, the more it becomes clear that the Bill is a complete offence. Let us be clear: the Bill, which the Government do not want to have a proper consultation on, requires trade unions to take reasonable steps to get their own members to break trade union picket lines. This Bill requires trade unions to completely change their function in our democratic society. It is the job of a trade union to persuade trade union members to honour a strike vote, not to break a strike. We see the hand of this authoritarian Government attempting to extend into our trade unions, trying to try to use them as a tool of the state to do the bidding of a Conservative Government, or the bidding of employers. The Bill is rotten and it is no wonder that the Government do not want to consult on it. Any fair-minded person, whatever their politics, would realise that that is not the function of trade unions in our society. We have heard Ministers boasting about how this will result in people being sacked if they do not comply with the requirement to go to work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

The hon. Lady will know that we do not count the number of companies specifically in our modelling. The modelling happens at a very high level—it is macro-level modelling. What she should know is that rules of origin will benefit people who export to that region, particularly auto manufacturers, who are very pleased about the deal.

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

7. What steps her Department has taken to ensure that the free trade agreement with Israel complies with the UK’s obligations in section 5 of United Nations Security Council resolution 2334.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for International Trade (Nigel Huddleston)]

The UK’s position on settlements is clear: they are illegal under international law, present an obstacle to peace and threaten the physical viability of a two-state solution, as set out in the UN Security Council resolution 2334 and restated recently by the UNSC presidential statement in February 2023. We repeatedly call on Israel to abide by its obligations under international law and have a regular dialogue with Israel on legal issues relating to the occupation.

[Alan Brown]

The Minister is clearly aware then that resolution 2334 states that countries must

“distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.”

I welcome his comments confirming that the Government’s belief is that the settlements are illegal under international law. How will the Government ensure that goods and services from these illegal settlements—in effect, stolen land—are excluded from the benefits of a free trade agreement?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Under our existing agreement, Israeli goods from the state of Israel receive tariff preferences under the UK-Israel partnership agreement. Palestinian goods, from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, benefit from trade preferences in the interim UK-Palestinian Authority bilateral agreement. To be clear, only goods originating from the state of Israel are covered by our current FTA, and that will not change in the upgraded FTA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman has ever had a positive story to tell about his region, let alone his constituency. We have a positive story on steel, and we have the same challenges as most countries in trying to deal with decarbonisation. We have issues around energy costs that we have been providing all our advanced manufacturing sectors with, and we want to ensure that we diversify our access to different forms of energy.

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

Going back to Brexit, can the Secretary of State name one Scottish sheep farmer who is happy with the Brexit deal, or any seafood producers and exporters that she spoke to who are happy with Brexit? Can she name any Scottish farming sectors that are happy with Brexit?

[Kemi Badenoch]

It is not my job to memorise names of Scottish businesses, and just as I said in response to a previous question, SNP Members are not serious. Perhaps if they stood up and actually represented their businesses in trying to make use of all the opportunities we have, they would be in a better place.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Alan Brown Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There are three motions before the House. I am grateful for the fact that both Houses have reached agreement on the appropriate territorial application of the Bill, but I regret that we have not yet reached agreement on some remaining issues. I must once again urge the House to disagree with the Lords amendments before us. Again, the Bill has been amended in ways that would delay implementation or seriously limit the operation of minimum service levels. That would mean that we could not provide the all-important balance between the ability of unions and their members to strike and the ability of the wider public to access, during periods of strike action, the key services that our country needs. I will briefly summarise for the House the reasons why the amendments remain unacceptable to the House.

First, through Lords amendment 2B, the noble Lords seek to introduce additional consultation requirements and new parliamentary scrutiny processes. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the public, employers, employees, trade unions and their members are all able to participate in setting minimum service levels. That is why we ran consultations on applying MSLs to ambulance, fire, and passenger rail services on that basis. The Government maintain that the Bill enables the appropriate consultation to take place, and we are confident that the affirmative procedure will allow Parliament to conduct proper scrutiny of secondary legislation.

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

Proposed new section 234F of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, inserted by the schedule, says,

“the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

Does that not mean that there is no obligation to consult at all? The Secretary of State can decide that no one needs to be consulted. Does that not show the importance of the Lords amendment?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

If there is anybody whom the hon. Gentleman thinks was not able to contribute to the consultation, I ask him to please let me know, but it was open to anybody to make a submission to the consultation, and all those submissions will be properly assessed by Ministers and officials.

I turn now to the Lords amendments that would restrict the ways in which we can ensure that minimum service levels are achieved, Lords amendment 4B still leaves employers powerless to manage instances of non-compliance when workers strike contrary to being named on a work notice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will make a little progress, but I will make sure that both the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) get a chance to make their points.

The Bill takes the same approach as to any other strike action that is not protected under existing legislation. Lords amendment 5B may suggest that the other place accepts that trade unions should have a role to play in ensuring that minimum service levels are met, but in reality under, that amendment, whether and how the unions encouraged their members to comply with work notices would be at their discretion. Unions would be able to induce people to strike as normal and take steps to undermine the achievement of minimum service levels. That is clearly directly counter to the objectives of the policy.

[Alan Brown]

The Minister has said that the consultation has already closed, but the whole point of the Lords amendment is to oblige the Government to consult on draft regulations when they bring them forward and to publish impact assessments. If the consultation has already closed, that proves that there will be no transparency going forward, does it not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As always, I entirely agree with all the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. Of course strikes should be a last resort, and workers should be able to take industrial action when they feel their voices are not being heard. I do not think there is anything in the Bill that cuts across that. Hon. Members may disagree, but that is our position, and it is a position we have maintained throughout the passage of the Bill.

[Alan Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, I have given way twice to the hon. Gentleman.

The Government maintain that there must be a responsibility for unions to ensure that their members comply. Without that, and without any incentives for employees to attend work on a strike day when identified in a work notice, the effectiveness of the legislation will be severely undermined. Unfortunately, I do not consider that these amendments are a meaningful attempt to reach agreement. I fear that we are having a somewhat repetitive debate that is delaying us getting on with the important business of minimising disruption to the public during periods of strike action, and I encourage this elected House to disagree with the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Alan Brown]

I want to start by simultaneously condemning and praising the Lords, because although I still disagree with the premise of unelected peers for life, I respect the work ethic of some of those who have been trying to improve this God-awful Bill. It also shows that, while the Tories can stuff the place with their cronies and donors, the issue with cronies and donors is that they cannot be bothered to turn up, do their work and vote accordingly, as in the case of Baroness Mone, who is absent after pocketing millions of pounds for selling dodgy personal protective equipment to the NHS. On the Lords as an institution, we have a perfect illustration of the Labour leader’s continued flip-flopping. Overnight he has gone from wanting to abolish the Lords to now planning to stuff it full of Labour peers when he gets into government. It is pretty shameful.

I am disappointed that the Lords did not hold out on an amendment to restrict the Bill’s extent to England only, which would recognise the position of the devolved Governments.

I commend the Lords in their consistency on other matters pertaining to the Bill. Lords amendment 2B would require the Government first to publish draft regulations, and then to undertake impact assessments on their effects and to consult with representatives of trade unions and employees. That is hardly an onerous request—in fact, it is just putting in place basic transparency. Throughout the Bill’s passage, the Tories have been eager to tell us that it is about health and safety, minimum service levels and allowing the public to get to work. If that is the Bill’s real intent, and it is not a draconian attack on the rights of workers to strike, surely the Government should be willing to comply with the requirements of Lords amendment 2B.

Paragraph (c) of the amendment perfectly encapsulates the rhetoric of the Tory Government about balancing the impact of regulations on the general public with complying with workers’ rights to strike. Given all the quotes and speeches from Tory Ministers and Back Benchers, surely they should be content with the amendment and be confident that they can comply with it and set out the aims of any draft legislation, allowing the public to understand its intent and impact. If the Government were true to their stated aims, the amendment could mean them backing trade unions into a corner with transparency. At a stroke, the amendment would take away claim and counter-claim on the impacts of any regulations, as the impact assessments and consultations would be crystal clear to everyone involved. What is it that the Government are objecting to, because the Minister certainly did not make that clear earlier? The Minister said that the consultation is already closed, which means there is no transparency going forward.

In voting to disagree with the previous Lords amendments, the Government said that it was because the Bill already contains adequate consultation requirements. I have already illustrated that the Government are completely at it with that statement. If we look at proposed new section 234F of the 1992 Act, the Secretary of State is required only to consult such persons that he or she considers “appropriate”. That clearly leaves the door open to consult nobody at all.

Subsection (5) of proposed new section 234F advocates that any consultation requirements can be satisfied before the passing of the Bill. How is that even logical? According to the Government, adequate provision takes the form of consulting who they decide they want to consult, and in the absence of any doubt, any past consultation, past Government rhetoric or past announcements will count as satisfying these non-consult requirements. That is certainly a much easier pathway for the Government than having to bother to undertake impact assessments, proper consultation and parliamentary scrutiny in the form of a Joint Committee to review these impact assessments. The reality is that, with Lords amendment 2B, Parliament has a choice to take control or to cede unlimited powers to a Secretary of State.

Turning to Lords amendment 4B, I refer to the Government’s response to Lords amendment 4, which shows their real intent. They have said that the reason for objecting to Lords amendment 4 is

“in order for the legislation to be effective, it is necessary for there to be consequences for an employee who fails to comply with a work notice.”

The Government rationale is clear that the legislation is intended to be the “sack the workers, sack the nurses, sack the doctors and sack the train drivers Bill”, plain and simple. Forget the pretence that this legislation brings the UK into line with other countries that the Government keep telling us have minimum service levels legislation on the right to strike, because this legislation brings the UK into line not with other democracies, but with Russia and Hungary.

Lords amendment 4B provides some protection for workers—protection from malicious employers and protection for individual workers and, in particular, union representatives to stop them being targeted by employers. Surely the Government must agree with proposed new subsection (1) under Lords amendment 4B that a person is not subject to a work notice if they have not received it. This Government demand that people prove who they are before they can exercise their right to vote, but at the same time they seem to believe that a worker can be sacked for not complying with a work notice they have not actually received. It is preposterous. Proposed new subsection (2) confirms that the employer has to prove that the work order was served and received in compliance with subsection (1). Any decent employer would do that anyway, but it makes sense for an employer to have to prove that to ensure no unfair dismissal claims. Otherwise, I return to the point that the sacking of workers is clearly a key outcome and sanction that this Government intend.

No longer is there any need for illegal secret blacklisting, because all employers now have to do is the sack awkward squads for not complying with notices they did not receive. That is how open to abuse the legislation is in its current form, and it is outrageous that the Government are moving against Lords amendment 4B. They are bringing in legislation to make it easier to sack workers when we do not have enough workers to fill vacancies. It is truly perverse that the Government are sticking with such draconian legislation to make it easier to sack key workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Any person who is legislated for in these measures should be able to go on strike, subject to minimum service levels. It is quite clear, and we have been consistent all the way through.

In response to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), our objection to the amendments is the delay that they will cause. We want to ensure that people can go about their daily lives. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised some points about reasonable steps. Unions will not somehow have to compel people to go to work; we are asking them to undertake reasonable steps to ensure that people comply with a work notice. In fact, we were willing to set out in the Bill what those reasonable steps would be, but the right hon. Gentleman’s counterparts in the other place rejected such measures.

The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) talked about the independence of unions; of course we respect that. It is true that if a union fails to take reasonable steps, the strike would be unprotected, as it would if the trade union failed to meet other existing requirements in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, such as balancing requirements. This is not a departure from the existing position.

[Alan Brown]

The Minister keeps talking about wrecking amendments, but how is obliging an employer to ensure that an employee has received a work notice a wrecking amendment?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to other points in Lords amendment 4B: proposed new section 234CA(4) of the 1992 Act is a wrecking amendment because it says there is no contractual obligation for someone to comply with a work notice. That drives a coach and horses through the Bill.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) talked about how other jurisdictions deal with requiring people to go to work under a work notice. He may be aware that in France, people can be subject to criminal charges if they do not comply with a work notice. These are proportionate measures. We must make the view of the elected House as clear as possible, and avoid any further delay to fulfilling our duty to protect the lives and livelihoods of those we represent.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2B.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Alan Brown Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

This Bill was introduced with the intention of balancing the ability to strike with the rights and freedoms of the public, by applying minimum service levels on strike days to protect the lives and livelihoods of the public. We should not ignore the fact that the economic costs of these strikes have been estimated at around £3 billion, and much of that impact falls on business sectors that are already facing difficulties, such as the hospitality sector.

The Bill brings the UK into line with many other countries: Spain and France have statutory minimum service levels in ambulance services and they also, along with Belgium, have statutory minimum service levels in fire services. In some countries, such as the United States of America, Australia and Canada, some services are prohibited from taking any strike action altogether. However, the Government are not suggesting we go that far.

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

In the European countries the Minister mentioned where there is minimum service provision, is it not the case that that minimum service provision is agreed by negotiation, and that workers there do not get sacked for striking?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

All jurisdictions differ, and the way that minimum service levels are set differ. Some are set by the Government; we have done that, through consultation with stakeholders, and we will decide what the right level of minimum service will be. All jurisdictions differ somewhat, but the key point is that in many jurisdictions there are restrictions placed on the ability to strike.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. He has raised it with me offline. I am of course very happy to have a proper discussion with him about that, and I know that Transport Ministers would also be happy to.

[Alan Brown]

On making unions responsible for forcing workers to comply with work notices, does the Minister not understand that unions work for and on behalf of their members, and reflect their wishes? If their members wish to go on strike, how is it just or moral to force unions to make their workers break that strike?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There is a balance to be struck, and what I think is just and moral is ensuring that public services are maintained. That is the balance that we are trying to ensure. We are not at all saying that people cannot strike; we are saying that a minimum service level should be maintained during the strike.

Lords amendment 5 would mean that there were no consequences for trade unions that failed to meet their responsibilities. If we remove the consequences for trade unions that fail to take reasonable steps, we will be far less likely to achieve minimum service levels, as trade unions might attempt to persuade workers not to comply with work notices, and to take strike action instead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree. How will threatening key workers with the sack in the middle of an unprecedented recruitment and retention crisis do anything to provide the level of services that the public deserve?

We will also hear tonight that the Bill brings us into line with international standards, but what does the Minister have to say to the ILO’s director general who slammed down the Bill in January? The Minister did not effectively answer the questions that were put to him during his opening statement. What does he say to President Biden’s labour Secretary, who also raised concerns?

We are going to hear that the Bill is the only way to bring strikes to a close. We are now in May and there is no end in sight to the current wave of industrial action, harming the public, small businesses and, not to mention, the workers who lose a day’s pay. Might I give the Minister some friendly advice? Strikes are ended by getting round the table, not by insulting the very workers who kept the country going during the depths of the pandemic.

The Bill is one of the most sinister attacks on working people I have seen, and I speak as a trade unionist, an employer and a Member of this House. It gives Ministers the power to threaten every nurse, firefighter, health worker, rail worker or paramedic with the sack. Other Government Members wanted even more people to be in scope. I do not think they want anybody anywhere to have trade union rights in this country. This is being done at their whim. They have literally gone from clapping nurses to sacking nurses.

In the words of my noble Friend Baroness O’Grady, Lords amendment 4 is about

“the individual freedoms, dignity and livelihoods of workers.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 April 2023; Vol. 829, c. 1242.]

Labour is proud to support that amendment. We ask any Government Member—there are not many of them here—who believes in the right to protection from unfair dismissal to vote with us tonight.

We also stand by the provision in Lords amendment 4 to require employers to serve work notices and to prove that individuals have received them. The Government’s proposal not only threatens workers, but burdens employers, including our overstretched public services and small businesses. That only goes to show the Bill’s complete unworkability and proves the point of all employers who have condemned it.

The Bill also represents an almighty attack on trade unions—unions made up of ordinary working men and women. We are all grown up enough to acknowledge the integral role they play in our economy and our democracy. I think we can all agree that attempts to attack their ability to represent their members is morally, economically and democratically wrong. In its original form, the Bill would require them to take “reasonable steps” to ensure compliance work with notices, without any clarity on what that means. The Government have effectively conceded the flaws in their drafting of the Bill in their concession on Lords amendment 3. That is welcome, but not enough. The Minister asks us to vote tonight for vague and unclear wording that gives us no idea of what they actually require trade unions to do. So we will vote to keep Lords amendment 5 and by extension, Lords amendments 6 and 7.

[Alan Brown]

The right hon. Lady has not really mentioned Lords amendment 1, although I note that she said that Labour Members would vote to retain it, and that is welcome. Given that Lords amendment 1 would limit the territorial extent to England, does that mean that Labour now recognises the need to fully devolve employment law to Scotland to completely protect us from Westminster?

[Angela Rayner]

We want a Labour Government for the whole United Kingdom, but we also appreciate Lords amendment 1 and the devolved powers. We believe in devolution. We were the party of devolution. We were the ones who gave devolution because we absolutely believe in it, but we also believe that we need a Labour Government to get rid of the Conservative Government in Westminster so that we can change the whole United Kingdom for the better.

Another one of the most troubling aspects of the Bill has been the profound lack of scrutiny. The Bill presents the Secretary of State with huge and unchecked powers to set, impose and police minimum service levels and to amend, repeal and revoke primary legislation. This is about not just laws that the Government already have passed, but even those we pass in the future, yet we have no real idea why they would need that power nor how they intend to use it.

Where there has been measly scrutiny, the wide-ranging consensus has been that the Bill is a total disaster. The Regulatory Policy Committee called it “not fit for purpose”. The Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Joint Committee on Human Rights sounded the alarm. The impact assessment was also published late, finding that this legislation could lead to more industrial action and have unknown knock-on consequences. Consultations have been launched in a haphazard way and only for certain sectors, without any explanation. There has been no meaningful consultation on the Bill as a whole, not least with the very people that it will have an impact on. If the Government had nothing to hide, they should have nothing to fear. Labour Members will vote to keep Lords amendment 2 and to protect the democratic scrutiny that the House is meant to provide.

There are serious concerns about what the Bill will mean for devolution. I have mentioned the unprecedented Henry VIII powers, which allow Ministers to make decisions about services that are entirely run by the devolved Administrations, including the elected Governments of Wales and Scotland. The Bill sets a dangerous precedent, using powers reserved to Westminster in one area of law to interfere in other areas that have been devolved. Perhaps the Minister has noticed that the Welsh Senedd and the Scottish Parliament have refused legislative consent. There has been no attempt to seriously engage with them or with devolved Administrations with powers over sectors listed in the Bill, including not just London, but my patch of Greater Manchester. This is a question not of changing the devolution settlement, but of defending it from the threat of the Bill. That is why we will vote to uphold Lords amendment 1.

This is one of the worst pieces of legislation in modern times, and looking over the last 13 years, that says a lot. But it is not just Labour Members who think that. The Bill has been widely and routinely condemned by: the Regulatory Policy Committee; the Equality and Human Rights Commission; the Joint Committee on Human Rights; NHS providers; the rail industry; the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development; the CEO of the confederation of recruitment companies; the CEO of the NHS Confederation; President Biden’s labour Secretary; the ILO; all UK trade unions; the TUC; the Welsh and Scottish Governments; the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg); the right hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland); the Transport Secretary; the Education Secretary—what a shambles! If it was not so serious, it would be a joke. This is from a Government who are desperately trying to distract from the 13 years of their own failings and who are playing politics with key workers’ lives.

The Bill is shoddy, unworkable and unnecessary. For the sake of every nurse, teacher and firefighter across the UK, and for the sake of our British democratic institutions, I urge the whole House to join us in supporting the thoughtful and sensible amendments from the other place and to vote down the Government’s vindictive motions tonight.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesman.

[Alan Brown]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). I agree with what she said, and I welcome her comments on devolution protecting the devolved Parliaments. I also welcome the commitment from Labour to repeal this legislation if it is in Government, but I would point out that there have already been a number of Labour U-turns recently, and now we have heard the mantra that Labour is not going to be in power to do the job of repealing nasty Tory legislation, so there is a concern that Labour will not do what its representatives have promised at the Dispatch Box. It is also amazing that in an earlier intervention from the Tory Benches, we heard the mantra that the Tories are the party of workers. The party of workers will not even have one Back-Bench contribution to today’s debate on the Lords amendments—that is how interested they are in the workers in reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine]

I rise to support the Lords amendments and to oppose the Government’s intention of rejecting them. I am no longer a trade union member, but I was, so a lot of this Bill offends my belief in the right of the individual to withdraw their labour and the rights of the trade unions.

Lords amendments 4 and 5 would tackle the unfair obligation on the trade unions to ensure that members comply with a work notice. The thought of sacking anyone for going on strike is particularly difficult for me, because I actually have experience of that. I have experience of my husband being sacked, in 1989-90 in Aberdeen, because he went on strike. I know the damage it did to us and to a lot of people’s careers. To take away the right to object to what people believe is an unfair practice or to ask for better pay is, to me, a contravention of rights that people have fought long and hard for in this country. So I will be voting no on those two motions, as will the other Liberal Democrats.

On Lords amendment 1—

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Member is coming on to Lords amendment 1, and I hope she will support that amendment on the Bill’s territorial extent. Has she had time to think further about the earlier point that the logical extension of the Liberal Democrats supporting amendment 1 is the devolution of employment law to Scotland?

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but remind him that we are here to discuss this Bill and its implications, which are very serious. Yet again, there is an attempt to divert us on to the constitutional issue, which in this particular instance is not appropriate. Yes, I will be voting against—

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I refer the hon. Lady to my answer earlier on part of that question. With our friends and allies, including who we trade with, we raise issues and concerns of interest to our constituents and to the British Government on an ongoing basis, not just in trade and business discussions but through other channels and Government Departments. We are happy to have robust conversations with our friends.

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

Unlike other alcohol producers, the Scotch Whisky Association and industry are having to put up with a 10% increase in duty, making the cost of whisky 75% tax. Spirits are effectively excluded from the draught support scheme, and distilleries cannot access the energy-intensive industries support that other alcohol producers can. When will we get a level playing field for the Scottish whisky industry?

[Kemi Badenoch]

This Government value and support the Scotch whisky industry. Just last year, we helped to liberalise tariffs on Scotch whisky in the USA. My Department and I are in continual discussions with the Scotch Whisky Association and industry to see what we can do to support them.