Draft Code of Practice on Dismissal and Re-Engagement
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Graham; I suspect that this Committee sitting is a lot more sedate than some others that you have chaired recently. It is also a pleasure to follow the Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, whose speech I agreed with in its entirety.
The Minister said that most employers want to do the right thing by their employees. I think most of us would probably agree, but too many employers do not. Sadly, that includes some of the UK’s biggest and best-known companies. The draft code is largely useless; it is a lamentable waste of parliamentary time, and I dread to think how many civil service hours were wasted on its drafting. Other than the possible—I stress “possible”—increase of up to 25% in any successful employment tribunal claim following an incident of fire and rehire, the 3,819 words in this document can be distilled to nine: “Please don’t fire and rehire…unless you have to.”
Further to the point that the Labour spokesperson made, paragraph 12 states:
“A failure to follow the Code does not, in itself, make a person or organisation liable to proceedings.”
All it does is potentially beef up the amount awarded to an employee when a tribunal finds that their employer acted outwith the law. That is no comfort whatever to someone who has just been brutally sacked, paid off and forced to claim the pittance of jobseeker’s allowance that the Government like to pretend is enough to live on.
According to the latest figures, it takes nearly a year from the employment tribunal receiving a claim to the first hearing. The 25% premium that breaching the code of practice might add to an award will be welcomed by a successful claimant, of course, but they will have had to wait longer than a year to get it. They will have been forced into alternative employment in the meantime, if they are lucky. It is toothless and a missed opportunity, to say the very least.
As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston noted, paragraph 15 states:
“Where this Code states that a party ‘must’ or must not do something, this indicates that that party is subject to a legal requirement. Where this Code states that a party ‘should’ or should not do something, this indicates a recommendation”.
Other than in paragraph 15 itself, the word “must” is used 10 times in the code, of which nine uses reflect existing legal obligations; the only use of the word “must” in relation to the code itself is in the provision stating that tribunals must take the code into account in relevant proceedings. On the other hand, “should” is used another 38 times.
The truth is that the code is little more than a wish list—a tick-box exercise so that it can be said that something has been done about fire and rehire. Moreover, as has been alluded to, a code of practice will have little effect on the likes of P&O Ferries. It, and future employers, will simply factor in the 25% increase in employment tribunal awards into the costs of doing business.
I was at the joint meeting of the Select Committees on Transport and on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy when we had the chief executive of P&O Ferries, Peter Hebblethwaite, in front of us. Many will remember his contemptible attitude to the law as it stood: he happily admitted that his company willingly and knowingly broke the law when it sacked 800 workers with no notice and no consultation. At the same time that P&O Ferries was evicting staff from ships and shoving their belongings into binbags on the quayside, its parent company DP World was forking over tens of millions to sponsor golf tournaments and was shoving $378 million into the pockets of shareholders, so the Minister will forgive me for being sceptical about the idea that a slightly beefed-up code of practice will make the next Peter Hebblethwaite think twice before dumping hundreds more workers in the skip to save the company a few bob.
When British Airways’ parent company, International Airlines Group, pulled the trigger on a fire and rehire action aimed at tens of thousands of staff in 2020, it could only do so in the UK. In Ireland and Spain, it was precluded from taking similar action because those countries have employee protections that stop employers treating their staff like chattels.
I welcome any action or progress that improves the lot of workers, particularly given the removal of so many of their bargaining rights over the past four and a half decades and the attempted defenestration of trades unions in this country—policies that have undoubtedly contributed to the UK falling further and further behind our European neighbours economically and socially—but the Government’s draft proposals are basically a sop to those of us across the House who have highlighted the egregious practices of fire and rehire and pushed for real action. This is not real action; it is a press release that will do nothing to stop the perpetrators carrying on as before.
Many of the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that this draft code hangs on to provide for criminal offences where the Act is breached. Perhaps it is time to bring the actions of the likes of P&O Ferries and the issue detailed in the draft code under those kinds of auspices. After all, it seems only fair that employers should be subject to the same potential consequences as employees. Mr Hebblethwaite’s attitude a couple of years back may have been somewhat less arrogant and cocky if he knew that his actions would result in him facing some time at His Majesty’s pleasure in Belmarsh.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has a private Member’s Bill that would ban fire and rehire—that is the position that he has adopted, and I respect it—but with P&O it was not fire and rehire; it was simply fire. What further measures is he suggesting that the Scottish Government or UK Government put in place to stop that happening in the future? P&O already broke the law. Is he proposing criminal sanctions connected to employment law?
Gavin Newlands
Of course I would suggest criminal sanctions to end such practices. The Minister is right to say that P&O did not use fire and rehire in the strictest sense, but there were elements relating to fire and rehire. In a sense, it was fire and replace. Those staff members were replaced by cheaper foreign workers. That is the truth: the jobs were not redundant. If I were to bring forward another law, I would ensure fire and replace were also made illegal in circumstances such as those at P&O. As it happens, fire and replace is not new; it was actually proposed back in 2002 by one Tony Blair during the firefighters’ pay dispute.
We have a real problem around employment rights in the UK. The balance has been tipped over the last four and a half decades far too far towards employers and away from ordinary women and men who need the protection of the law against what is thankfully the minority of unscrupulous employers. Forty-five years of continual assault on workers’ rights has left millions essentially at the mercy of bad bosses, or subject to the gig economy and classed as “contractors” by multinational corporations desperate to avoid taking any responsibility for them and their or anyone else’s welfare.
Those lost decades need to be reversed. Sooner or later, the UK parties have to realise that workers’ rights are a fundamental part of building a stronger economy. It is no coincidence that virtually every country in Europe has stronger workers’ rights and better protections for their workers, and also enjoys higher living standards and a more robust, more diverse economy and social infrastructure.
Unfortunately, I do not hold out much hope for an improvement after the next general election. I know that there are many, many good people in the Labour party—including in this room—but the Leader of the Opposition has shown little interest in workers’ rights. I am still waiting for a response to my letter asking for his support of my Bill to ban fire and rehire, and the slew of shadow Ministers proclaiming their admiration for Margaret Thatcher do not inspire much confidence that they will roll back her and her descendants’ attacks on workers’ rights.
The Chair
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman takes the intervention, let me say that we are here to debate the draft code, rather than what may or may not happen after the general election or what happened 45 years ago.
Justin Madders
I understand what you say, Sir Graham, but I cannot let those comments go without a response. I just want to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the leader of the Labour party has promised that legislation on employment law will be introduced within 100 days of a Labour Government taking power. If his party is so keen on employment law, why did less than half of his colleagues vote for the private Member’s Bill to devolve employment law to Scotland?
Gavin Newlands
I thank the shadow Minister for that intervention, which did not surprise me. Nor did your point, Sir Graham—God forbid a lot of the politics enters the fray. It is a bit rich for the Labour party to talk about devolving employment rights when, as members of the Smith Commission, it was the Labour party that vetoed the devolution of employment law to Scotland. It would be devolved to Scotland if it were not for the Labour party, so it is unbelievable that that would be cast up in this way.
I say this in all sincerity: I genuinely hope that I am wrong about the lack of enthusiasm from Labour and the Leader of the Opposition for radical change of the status quo if they come to power. But I do know that I am right about the lack of ambition shown by the current Government and this code. Support is far too strong a word, as perhaps the Committee can gather from my remarks, but we will not oppose the code on the basis that it is slightly better than nothing. It would be nice to come to one of these Committees one day and be pleasantly surprised by the Government’s ambition, rather than despairing over their lack of it.
I was going to conclude with questions for the Minister, but the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, asked all my questions and more. For the benefit of Committee members I will not repeat them, but I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North for their contributions. I will start with P&O because that has dominated most of the debate, despite the fact that it was not a case of fire and rehire. It was a disgraceful case and it broke the law. I am interested to understand what Members are proposing when we already have a law against this. The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, said that he would criminalise employment law. His proposal to criminalise some of this stuff might send a shiver up the spine of many employers in this country.
P&O Ferries broke the law, dismissing its workers without warning, which is completely inappropriate, and brought in agency staff to replace them. We have taken action in response, including legislating through the Seafarers Wages Act 2023, and there is an ongoing live investigation by the Insolvency Service into P&O’s conduct.
Gavin Newlands
The Minister talks about criminalising employment law or being aghast at the potential for criminalising employment law. I think there are certainly aspects that perhaps should be. How would he describe a business leader who knowingly and willingly broke the law to sack 800 workers and said he would do so again? Does the Minister not think that that person should face a criminal sanction?
Kevin Hollinrake
What that business leader did was disgraceful. We impose criminal sanctions on employers very cautiously because we want people to invest in our economy. That is hugely important. We make changes in employment law at our peril. It needs to be balanced between the needs of employers and employees.
Sport: Gambling Advertising
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
This has been an excellent debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on securing it and starting us off in his own style—it is always fun to sum up his speeches. He questioned whether some of the Conservative Members might be at Cheltenham, present company clearly excluded. He spoke about puppy dogs and toilet roll, and then got to free bets, but he was absolutely right. He also mentioned the hypocrisy—I would not say “rank” hypocrisy—from MPs who seek to advertise. He mentioned that he will be seeking to encourage folk to vote “Cowan” and vote SNP. Hopefully, that will be made easier by the fact that he is stealing a significant chunk of my constituency at the next election, so there are some SNP voters waiting there for him.
My hon. Friend made a good point about the consent of spectators and viewers. Those images and adverts are everywhere; not everyone wants to see them, but they are in their face regardless. He then spoke about all the moments in sporting history when we were not subject to such adverts. I can understand Torvill and Dean, the battles between Coe and Ovett, and of course Andy Murray, but I found Ian Botham to be a stretch too far. That is at least two Tories that a younger Mr Cowan idolised, and I am not sure that will go down well. [Laughter.]
I am being a bit flippant about the very serious issue that lies beneath today’s debate: problem gambling and how we end it. I remember very well when, I think in the first year that I had been elected, a chap came along to my constituency surgery in Linwood. He was there for the whole surgery, essentially 45 minutes, talking to me about his story, his gambling past and how he had been at death’s door; he had ruined his life, ruined his family, and so on. He had been offered no real assistance in trying to stop, certainly nothing from the gambling industry, and he was looking to try to help others from going down the same path. Fixed odds betting terminals were certainly part of his path, and we have legislated on those, but it progressed into all sorts of different forms of gambling. He manged to turn his life around, but that is not the norm.
The former Conservative leader, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), the quiet man who once said he was turning up the volume, turned it down today, due to his voice trouble. I was going to say that he had my sympathy, but he is a Spurs season ticket holder, so things are looking up—I will come on to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) in a minute! The right hon. Gentleman made a very good point about subliminal messaging through advertising that says, “If you gamble just a bit more, then you’ll win.” All of us have probably been suckered into something at some point or another, whether it is gambling, a purchase, or something else, by of subliminal advertising. He mentioned that there was a reference to gambling every 21 seconds in premier league matches, but I think the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said it was every 16 seconds. I do not know whether those are conflicting figures or I just misheard, but either way, it is a significant number; I just wanted to recognise that there were two figures there for Hansard.
The hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) mentioned that she might put a bet on the grand national, and that her partner puts on an acca on occasion. That makes me think back to my younger days and how much gambling used to play a part in my pre-rugby rituals. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde, I used to play rugby, and my friends and I would meet on a Saturday morning and “put lines on”, as we said —that would be called an acca now. Then we would go and play pool, at which we invariably gambled a bit against each other, and then go downstairs to play the puggies, which is a term for fruit machines in western Scotland. I had not given that any thought until the hon. Member for Luton South said that. I very rarely do any gambling these days, but in my younger days, we thought nothing of gambling as a matter of course. For the benefit of Hansard, the hon. Lady is pointing to her phone, and she is absolutely right that it is so much easier to access the internet on phones these days as well. She also said that two thirds of fans said that the voluntary regs have not prevented children from being able to access or see TV advertising, and I think we all see that. She mentioned Luton Town, one of the very few teams in sport to ban gambling from not just its shops, but its stadium, which is to be commended.
Yesterday morning, I said that Westminster Hall should be named in the honour of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), because he is always here and always puts in a shift. He praised Luton Town, and said that all teams should perhaps reflect on its gambling ban, including his own. He neglected to mention which team that was, but we might hazard a guess. One of his better points—or best points; better points sounds as if he did not make any good points, and he made some excellent ones—was on the fact that we teach our young people and young adults about excessive drinking, smoking, excessive speed in cars, and so on, but we do not seem to talk about gambling as much, which we should.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central noted that this was the first time he had been called after the hon. Member for Strangford in all the time he had been here. If it had been anybody else, that might have sounded like a moan or a challenge to the Chair, but having worked with the hon. Member for Sheffield Central a few years ago, I know it certainly was not that. He mentioned that he was a Sheffield United season ticket holder. I have to say that I do not think they have troubles to seek this season in a footballing sense, but as a St Johnstone fan, I share his frustrations, given that St Johnstone is near the lower end of the table for the moment. He also mentioned the study by the Universities of Sheffield and Glasgow, and their findings that the more people are exposed to advertising, the more likely they are to gamble, and the more likely people are to gamble, the more likely they are to fall into problem gambling, seem obvious. He also mentioned big tobacco. It fought advertising bans, and so on, but a lot that we have done about smoking has paid dividends. If we put in the work on gambling, we can see dividends there as well.
It is fairly clear that gambling regulations must protect vulnerable people from harms, regardless of where they are exposed to gambling adverts. The time has beyond passed for action to tackle the shocking rise in gambling advertising. The Government have been praised for the work they have done in some areas hitherto, but we need to look pretty sharpish at their failure to address this problem, because advertising revenue has grown massively since the passage of the Gambling Act 2005. The National Audit Office estimated that there was a 56% increase in advertising spend by gambling operators between 2014 and 2017, driven primarily by online and social media advertising. If that was the proportion in 2017, goodness knows where it is now.
The Government’s White Paper on gambling is obviously to be welcomed. Its proposals include tougher restrictions on bonuses and direct marketing; making advertising smarter and safer; a new approach to safer gambling messaging; and socially responsible sport sponsorship—which is one of the main issues we are here to talk about. The Premier League has announced that front-of-shirt advertising for gambling is to end by the end of 2025-26 season, but the Culture, Media and Sport Committee said, as we have discussed, that:
“The withdrawal of gambling sponsorship from the front of Premier League players’ kit is welcome, but it will not significantly reduce the volume of gambling adverts visible during top-flight matches.”
It is pretty clear that there is a need for the Government to regulate gambling advertising, and we need to have a comprehensive conversation about how, if at all, gambling adverts should be allowed. Ultimately, this is a policy debate about the reduction of harms, and what is the point of us being here if we are not going to try to reduce harms for all of our constituents? We call on the Government to actively consider legislating to restrict the amount of advertising that gambling firms can procure in public broadcasting and sporting events.
The only slight caveat—not to that previous point, but in general terms—was to something that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said. He said that there is absolutely no need for this form of advertising in principle—I agree 100%—and that there is enough money in football so football does not need that money. The only slight caveat I have, having met Scottish clubs and umbrella bodies, is that the Scottish game is not awash with the same level of money as the game in England. Advertising revenue is much harder to come by in Scotland, with it being a much smaller market in comparison with England, so restrictions could cause problems. That does not mean we should not address and tackle this issue, but we should put on the record that it is not as straightforward in Scotland, Wales and so on as it perhaps is south of the border.
In 2018-19, gambling companies yielded more than £11 billion, which raised about £3 billion for the Government in gambling duties. The industry has been transformed by social and technological changes, and licensed gambling has grown by 57% in real terms in the last decade. But British gamblers lose £14 billion a year, according to the Gambling Commission, and Britain is home to the world’s largest regulated online betting market, with £14.2 billion in profits each year. Other countries, such as Germany, have introduced limits on how much customers can deposit. In our view, the 2005 Act must be modernised and made effective for the digital age, to provide adequate protection against gambling-related harms for problem gamblers and children.
To conclude, for problem gamblers the impact of gambling can be harmful and massively addictive. We have heard already that more than one person a day commits suicide in the UK because of gambling-related harms. Sadly, as we heard, that includes Jack Ritchie, who lived in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central. Two million families are blighted by problem gambling, and more than 55,000 children between the ages of 11 and 16 are addicted to it. Those are pretty shocking statistics.
I will finish with this: according to a YouGov survey of 18,000 people, commissioned by GambleAware, gambling addiction rates may be nine times higher than the betting industry claims. GambleAware estimates that 1.4 million people are being harmed by their own gambling, with a further 1.5 million at risk. Although this debate’s attendance has not been as good as it perhaps should have been, we have had five Back Bench speeches, and now one Front-Bench speech, all speaking with one voice on this issue. It is time for the Government to act, or indeed for a new incoming Government to do so, if one is elected at the end of the year.
Future of Horseracing
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie, and for a change, I actually mean that this time around. Can I start with an apology to Members for being a little late for the start, and particularly to the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) for missing the opening couple of minutes of his remarks? From the Australian jungle with Ant and Dec to the Vietnamese jungle with the SAS to plain old Westminster Hall, it is indeed a pleasure to see him here. I agreed with a chunk of what he said, but I have to say that I disagree with what he and many others on the Tory Benches said about affordability, which I will come to later.
The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and I seem to have found ourselves on different sides of just about every argument since I was elected in 2015. He made a comparison between spending on gambling and spending on suits and shoes and other forms of expenditure. The contribution from the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), who spoke of how severe the issues are with problem gambling, shows how ridiculous that analogy actually is.
In my first year as an MP, one of the first cases I took was from a chap in Linwood who had lost absolutely everything because of his problem gambling. He then spent a long time campaigning to try to improve the lot of others and some of the safeguards around gambling. I very much remember that case and have obviously stuck up for that.
Philip Davies
Given that he is particularly concerned about the damage that certain things do, and affordability checks are therefore important in that, does he believe that affordability checks should be brought in for people who buy alcohol, since alcohol does far more damage to people than gambling?
Gavin Newlands
When we talk about gambling, we often compare it with alcohol and tobacco, so that is a perfectly fair challenge. The Scottish Government have tried to recognise the harms of alcohol, with our minimum unit price on it.
Gavin Newlands
But it is a problem, so that supports my argument, not the hon. Gentleman’s, I would suggest. I will come on to affordability checks later and if he wants to intervene then, he is more than welcome to do so.
With that all being said, the Scottish Government obviously recognise the benefits of racing to the economy and the positive impact that it has had on employment in communities across Scotland. The 2018 annual review highlighted that the sport generated more than £300 million to the Scottish economy, as well as sustaining nearly 3,500 full-time equivalent jobs. Who can forget that, yet again, Corach Rambler brought home the grand national to Scotland earlier this year? According to Scottish Racing, by 2025, the impact of Scottish racing is projected to rise from just over £300 million to half a billion pounds of revenue for Scotland’s economy, with £50 million in tax revenues. Each year, most of that goes to the Scottish Government.
Racing remains the second most popularly attended sport in Scotland after football. It attracts a diverse section of society, with nearly nine out of 10 racegoers comprising people from both middle and lower socioeconomic groups. Females account for over half of all race-goers in Scotland, and it is set to support 3,700 jobs, including in employment across Scotland’s racecourses and tourism activities supported by race-goers. It also supports or sustains jobs through the development of racehorses such as Corach Rambler, media coverage of race days and off-course betting.
From time to time, all of us will receive, particularly around the grand national and what have you, a number of emails about animal welfare in relation to horseracing. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) can speak better than the rest of us combined on this issue, given his depth of knowledge, so it was good to have his input, too.
Animal welfare is covered by devolved legislation, which makes the keeper of an animal responsible for its welfare and permits the prosecution of those who do not ensure such welfare, such as the need for a suitable environment, and so on. The British Horseracing Authority, which I have met a couple of times over the years, assures us that it complies with all aspects of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 through its rules of racing and the licensing and inspection of participants. It works closely with a range of animal welfare organisations, such as World Horse Welfare, to maintain and promote horse welfare. The BHA also seeks to minimise the risk of injury and fatality to thoroughbred horses on racecourses, and it records and analyses such incidents.
Much of today’s discussion has been about the gambling levy and affordability. We in the SNP think that the gambling levy should go further to tackle gambling-related harms, such as by dealing with advertising, regulating online bookmakers and ensuring that the levy funding is allocated properly. As the Minister will know, this is a completely reserved matter, and a review took place that generated some 16,000 responses. Forty-seven per cent of people surveyed in the UK had gambled in some way in the four weeks before the survey. Most gambling—I am happy to admit that I very occasionally dabble, although it has been a number of years since I have done so—is done without any harm. However, for those who face problem gambling, the impact can be harmful and addictive, with one person committing suicide in the UK every day because of gambling-related harms. Thankfully, the Gambling Act will be modernised and made more effective for the digital age by providing adequate protections, notwithstanding a lot of the very good points made about some of the overseas websites, which we need to do more to address.
Philip Davies
I think I heard the hon. Gentleman repeat the figure of one person committing suicide every day as a result of gambling. He should know that that figure is not accurate but has virtually been plucked out of thin air. If he wants to give a quote for the basis of the figure, I would love to hear it. The figure, which has often been quoted by Gambling with Lives, has been debunked, not least by the Gambling Commission. I hope he will not rely on that dodgy information.
Gavin Newlands
That is the other side of the argument. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I am happy to write to him with the source of the figure I am using.
Two million families in the UK are blighted by problem gambling, and more than 55,000 children aged between 11 and 16 are addicted to gambling, with 60% of the gambling industry’s profits coming from 5% of gamblers. A poll by Clean Up Gambling found that 72% of the public supported affordability checks for those who want to bet more than £100 a month, and 74% supported limits on how much money can be staked on a single online bet. Without affordability being addressed, individuals suffering from gambling harm will switch between online operators and continue losing money, with potentially catastrophic consequences, as I outlined by mentioning my constituent and, indeed—
Matt Hancock
I bow to no one in my support for tackling problem gambling. I went toe to toe with the gambling industry by introducing FOBTs as Secretary of State, to its great unhappiness, but is the industry not right on this? The hon. Gentleman just said that the public want action on online gambling, but it comes down to this point: gambling on horseracing is materially different from gambling on games of pure chance, whereby people know they are going to lose over time because the technology is designed in such a way that there is no fluke, no luck and no skill. The two are materially different. If we do not understand that, we will simply end up destroying a sport to try to protect people from something completely different.
Gavin Newlands
I accept the premise of the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but that is why the SNP is calling for a smart gambling levy that is scaled to the damage that gambling does. There has obviously been cross-party agreement on FOBTs over the past couple of years, but the levy would be higher. We can agree to disagree on many things, but we can certainly agree on others.
I have another couple of points that I would like to make, but time has defeated me. I should perhaps not be so generous in taking interventions next time around.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend raises a good point. Those sectors are critical for the UK economy. While we did have plans around sector deals, I would focus on the Chancellor’s five sectors that he thinks will drive growth in the UK. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend specifically about what impact those sectors will have in his constituency.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Kevin Hollinrake
I am happy to engage with the hon. Member. I missed the earliest part of his question, but we are providing an awful lot of support for small businesses in various ways. I cannot remember his amendment to the Bill, but I am happy to engage with him to see what we can do to help.
Football and Dementia
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford
I was going to come on to say that. I had the opportunity to speak with Amanda last week, and my goodness, what a stoic figure and what a champion she has been in making sure that the support that was sadly not there for Frank is there for those who followed him. Amanda has rightly campaigned to make sure that those aged under 65 living with disabilities and degenerative conditions such as this can get support. I am glad to say that after a long campaign, fought on a cross-party basis, support was extended in Scotland to those under 65 through the 2019 free personal care Bill—actually, we do not refer to it as that; we rightly refer to it as Frank’s law.
We owe that debt of gratitude to Amanda, who, despite losing Frank in 2014, kept the fight going so that others facing the same harrowing circumstances could get that support. As Amanda said to me last week, this came too late for Frank, but we can help others. Up until the sad passing of Frank, the couple had been a team for a long time, having become childhood friends in Falkirk in 1958 aged eight and 10. She told me that their first kiss as sweethearts came over a game of postman’s knock—a game only too familiar to those of us of a certain age, if I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] I was referring to myself!
Amanda has supported Frank all her life, but her efforts ultimately meant that so many others were able to get that support. There must be support through access to free personal care, but we still have to do more to make sure that we have early, effective intervention and that critical financial support is accessed through the recognition of these cases as industrial injuries.
I have talked about Billy McNeill and Frank Kopel, but we also recently witnessed the sad passing of Gordon McQueen—yet another legend of our game taken by vascular dementia, lost to his loved ones far too early. We all have our own first love. Mine was Hibernian football club. Dundee United used to be called Dundee Hibernian back in the day. The joy we all have in supporting our heroes leaves us with special memories. When we think of the likes of Peter Cormack and Alex Cropley—Hibernian legends we were blessed to go and watch—now suffering with this terrible disease, it has to act as a wake-up call to all of us. They gave such joy to those of us who went along to Easter Road, but every MP will be able to recount stories of their own heroes battling with this disease. All those players were from an age when, if they were lucky, they were on the same wage as the average worker. Many now face financial hardship while they battle a disease that will ultimately take their life.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
If I can take my right hon. Friend back to Gordon McQueen for one second, his first professional club was St Mirren in Paisley, Renfrewshire. I was contacted by many constituents at the time of Gordon’s passing who wanted to talk about and pass on their memories of Gordon. Another family blighted by this was the Ryden family from Dunbartonshire, with five brothers. John Ryden played for Spurs, among others; George Ryden played for St Johnstone and our deadly rivals, Dundee; Hugh Ryden played for Chester; and they had two other brothers. John, George and Hugh all contracted neurodegenerative diseases. The other two brothers did not. It is a very small sample size, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is yet more damning evidence of the link between heading footballs and neurodegenerative disease?
Ian Blackford
Yes, it is. I made the point that all of us who support football clubs can think of people we know. Sometimes they are in the public domain, but in many cases they are not. We are not just talking about those who played top-flight football; we are talking about those who played in the lower leagues and in the amateur game. This goes beyond the high-profile public cases we are talking about. The common link is a disease that we know is a direct consequence of heading a football in a game that we all love.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stuart Andrew
I join the hon. Lady in wishing the men and women’s England cricket teams all the very best, and thanking them for what they have done so far, as well as the Lionesses. I am very fortunate that I will be off to Australia on Monday to wave the flag in support of them. [Interruption.] It is a very difficult job, but someone has to do it.
On the serious point that the hon. Lady raises, she is absolutely right. On the day of the publication of the report, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met with the England and Wales Cricket Board. We have said that we will be following the development of its plan very carefully. The hon. Lady is right that we need to see more access to facilities for women and girls, not just at Lord’s but right across the country.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
The Government understand that cost of living pressures are impacting many in the charity sector, which is facing increased demand, reduced income and high running costs. That is why the Government announced a funding package of just over £100 million for community organisations in England.
Gavin Newlands
As the SNP spokesperson, I am more than happy to swallow my principles and join the Minister on that flight to Australia on Monday.
According to the Charities Aid Foundation, more than a third of charities have had to make cuts to their services due to the harm that the Tory cost of living crisis has wrought on their finances. Three in five Scottish charities are worried about struggling to survive. Only this Government have the financial powers to intervene, yet they refuse to do so. Are the Government content to let charities, which all too often ameliorate the failures of the state, fail too?
Stuart Andrew
I simply do not recognise that situation. I have just announced that we have given £100 million, and some of it was Barnetted. I have not heard anything from the Scottish Government about what they are going to do for Scottish charities. Maybe they should follow our example.
Post Office Ltd: Management Culture
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir George. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) not just on securing this debate but on all the work she has done over a number of years campaigning on Post Office issues—particularly for sub-postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal. At various points, I have assisted her work; I will talk about that a little later.
My hon. Friend’s speech covered the bases very well. She spoke of the suffering of sub-postmasters, including those who have sadly died. She also spoke of the absolutely vital role that the Post Office plays in our communities. That has always been the case, but it is particularly so now that the banks have abandoned our high streets. She did not miss when she spoke of the horrendous management practices at Post Office Ltd. Moreover, there is no evidence that that management culture has changed. That sharp practice continues into the Post Office’s handling of the compensation scheme. I respect the Minster and I am looking forward to his answers to our questions.
The hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) spoke about the experience of her constituent Tracy Felstead, and the somewhat tainted apology that she received from Nick Read. The hon. Lady rightly compared the Horizon scandal with other shameful episodes in which there have similarly been secrecy, incompetence, institutional blindness—I thought that was a good phrase—and an overwhelming desire to protect the organisation at any cost.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the role of the civil service and the fact that Ministers—in fact, all elected representatives from local councils right up to Holyrood and Westminster—rely on information given to them by civil servants or our member on the Post Office board. We know about that all too well in my constituency, because a local school that has been built is two or three times too small, despite officers being told that information years ago.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) made the very good point that all businesses, including the Post Office, are built on their workforce, which should at the very least be treated with respect. She praised and thanked the sub-postmasters and their families for their campaigning and their extraordinary patience over the years, and I wholeheartedly second that thanks. She also made the very good point that many sub-postmasters thought they were alone when they faced these accusations and charges.
The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said that the Post Office board was rotten to the core, and that not a great deal has changed in that regard. He said that the board knew in 2011 that the Horizon system was flawed, and yet it pursued the prosecutions, one of which resulted in the imprisonment of a pregnant mother. He made the very obvious point—at least it should have been very obvious to the Post Office—that when the system was introduced, the instances and the value of missing money increased significantly, and yet the Post Office did nothing and pursued these prosecutions.
I mentioned my work with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, which was to do with the definition of community post offices, and about banking transactions. Sub-postmasters were paid 24p for every £1,000 of banks’ money that they handled. However, there was no distinction between notes and coins, so if someone was processing—this is not likely; it is the extreme—£1,000-worth of pennies, they would be able to keep 24 of those 100,000 pennies as payment for that work. I am glad that that was increased threefold after a lot of campaigning by many of us in this House and, more importantly, sub-postmasters themselves, but the levels that they are paid today are still, particularly in the light of the inflation that we have seen in the last while, not enough.
It has been said in this debate that not a single senior manager at Post Office Ltd has lost their job as a result of this shameful episode. Not a single highly paid executive has yet faced criminal charges for their role in this conspiracy. Many have quietly departed with golden handshake payments and their gold-plated pensions intact. When counterclaims were being lodged by the Post Office in court—at the behest of its senior execs—it knew full well that its own systems were dodgy and that those who were seeking redress for the ordeal that they had suffered were completely correct, yet still it went ahead with its counterclaims, seeking to drive the claimants off the case.
Virtually every Member will have experience of their constituents being victims of the conspiracy at the top of the Post Office, and I am no different. My constituent was accused of the theft of tens of thousands of pounds during her time as a sub-postmaster at a rural sub-post office. She was advised that going to court and defending her innocence would be futile and might result in a longer sentence if she was found guilty, because the Post Office had evidence of her “theft” in black and white—evidence taken from the flawed Horizon system. She took that advice: she pled guilty, despite knowing that the charges were utterly untrue. She ended up being sentenced to more than a year in prison and had her life ruined. Her name was plastered over the local newspapers as a common thief. Her house was repossessed as the Post Office moved on from its abuse of the criminal justice system to abuse the civil legal system and sought to recover the money that had been “stolen”. She lost everything—her family, her friends and her freedom. Thankfully, she has been able to move on somewhat and settle in my constituency, but she will never get back the years of being marked as a crook by a collection of spivs at the Post Office.
That is in marked contrast to those involved at the heart of this conspiracy, who have been able to move on with ease to new roles and positions with other organisations—all of them generously paid and secure. That is to say nothing of those still with the Post Office, who continue the appalling track record of their predecessors and obstruct the work that Sir Wyn Williams and others are doing to lay bare exactly what happened at POL and Fujitsu over decades. Even this week, we have heard that the inquiry will be further delayed while the Post Office fails yet again to disclose documents that it has been ordered to provide. You would think, Sir George, that given the revelations and scandals of the past few years surrounding the Post Office and its responsibility for destroying the lives of thousands of people on the basis of a lie, it might be a little less cavalier with the facts. It saw fit to pay bonuses to senior management and executives and to boast in its annual accounts that it had supplied the inquiry with all the documentation that it required, but we all know that to be a complete lie—another pack of falsehoods that it thought it could get away with, but which fortunately has been stopped in its tracks. How many more lies will Sir Wyn’s inquiry uncover in the end? That is what Post Office management are afraid of and why they should not be allowed to delay or obfuscate for a single minute longer.
This scandal should also bring into sharp focus the idea that major IT projects should be automatically awarded to the private sector. Throughout this saga, Fujitsu has behaved deplorably, to say the very least, with some instances of behaviour potentially being criminal. Why is Post Office Ltd extending its contract? It makes no sense; it beggars belief that it is extending its contract, unless they are in cahoots. Horizon was manifestly unfit for purpose from the very start and continued to produce fundamental and systemic errors. Those errors should have been properly investigated and changes made. Instead, hundreds of innocent men and women paid the price for both organisations’ arrogant intransigence.
Why has Fujitsu escaped paying a single penny back to the Post Office for a contract that it clearly was incapable of fulfilling properly? Given its key role in this scandal from start to finish, why is Fujitsu still allowed to involve itself in contracts from the public sector when it is manifestly unsuitable, practically and morally, for that task? The accountability quite rightly has been focused on Post Office Ltd, but responsibility also lies with those it engaged, using public funds to commission the deeply flawed Horizon programme. They cannot and should not be allowed to escape their responsibility in this affair.
While all this was going on, Post Office Ltd was engaged in a programme of stripping our country of large parts of our post office network. Only 200 Crown post offices are left, out of about 11,000 offices. Most of the rest of the network has been contracted out to sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, which makes the company’s behaviour toward the very people who have ensured that we still have a post office network all the more appalling.
I want the inquiry to go through all the facts and events that led to such despicable behaviour. I want to see each of the former executives and managers brought in front of Sir Wyn and made to explain in detail their actions and the actions of those around them that led to these miscarriages of justice. Finally, those involved in the catastrophic errors made by the Post Office and Fujitsu, and more pertinently those who organised the cover-up, must be held accountable for their actions. That is the only way forward to restore public trust in the Post Office, an organisation that we expect to be proud of, but that is currently a byword for corruption, cover-ups and chicanery.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
We are supporting businesses in all parts of the United Kingdom through our export support service, including our innovative Export Academy, which helps build market export capability among small and medium-sized enterprises across the UK. We have also established trade and investment offices in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, increasing the visibility of the Department’s services in the nations, and channelling the benefits of our new export and investment strategies to the entire UK. I am sure the hon. Member is aware of those benefits in his own constituency, with businesses such as Lynkeos Technology winning a £100,000 contract last year in Germany with the assistance of the Department.
Gavin Newlands
I like the hon. Member, but that answer was nonsense, quite frankly. The Institute of Directors found in a recent survey that almost half—47%—of businesses are still finding trade after Brexit a challenge, with just a third envisaging any opportunities at all from Brexit. That report also found that 45% of SMEs are exporting less to the European Union post Brexit, with Scottish exports having already slumped by £2.2 billion because of Brexit. Does the Minister agree that Brexit is an act of state-sanctioned economic vandalism?
Nigel Huddleston
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is saying this is nonsense. I am sure that those businesses in his constituency and across Scotland who get support from the Department do not share that attitude. As well as focusing on the EU, which is and will continue to be an important trading partner of the UK, we are looking to the entire world, hence focusing on so many other countries. I hope he will be a little more “glass half full” in the future.