Royal Mail

Paul Scully Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) for securing today’s important debate about the performance of Royal Mail.

I echo all the thanks and admiration of the important role that postal workers have played in serving customers and supporting local communities right across the UK, in normal times and, clearly, during the coronavirus pandemic. Their willingness to maintain deliveries and do their day-to-day work at a time of increased social isolation, when many people could not leave their homes, has been vital. The Government have relied on their continued service to keep people connected across the country, delivering the letters and parcels that are so important to everyday life and supporting the economy in these unprecedented times.

My hon. Friend talked about the importance of post, as did the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), whether it is cards for life events— celebrations, commiserations and condolences—or important issues around tax, insurance and hospital appointments. I hope that his constituents who celebrated their 65th wedding anniversary—please pass on my best wishes to them—got their cards in the end. I suspect, having reached their 65th wedding anniversary, they know how to practise patience and forgiveness, so I am sure that they were in good stead while waiting to get to that point.

I want to talk a bit about the situation of the service, and the context of where we are at the moment, before I answer some of the points that have been raised. Royal Mail has well-established contingency plans to mitigate disruption to postal services. As we have heard, those plans are overseen by Ofcom, which is the independent regulator. It is important to remember that it is an independent regulator, because that independence is key to ensuring that Ofcom keeps Royal Mail on its toes and does its job as an effective regulator.

Royal Mail has reassured the Government that it has been doing everything it can to maintain service levels during this period and that it continues to keep Ofcom informed, but as we have heard, there are issues that still need to be addressed. We will continue to challenge Royal Mail, and I will expect Ofcom to be doing exactly that under the framework, but I will talk a bit more about the regulatory framework in a second, in response to some of the questions that have been raised.

The changes made to Royal Mail’s operations due to disruptions are an operational matter for Royal Mail. Therefore, it is up to Ofcom to monitor those service levels in the first instance. In November 2020, Ofcom published its user needs review of postal services. In that report, Ofcom noted that the majority of users are satisfied with the postal services that they receive from Royal Mail. Among residential users, overall satisfaction has remained over 80% in the past few years. Among SME users, overall satisfaction with the quality of services they receive has increased markedly since 2012. That is the important thing. I understand the ideological debate about privatisation, but studies of postal services around the world considered Royal Mail to be 40% less efficient than other national equivalents at that time. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) said, we have seen £2 billion invested since then, and an extra £1.8 billion has been promised for further investment.

In 2010, a mere 8% of post was sorted by machine, compared with 85% for leading EU operations. The figure is now 90%. Imagine having a nationalised Royal Mail at this point in time, when it is competing for the funds its needs against schools, hospitals and all the other services that the public sector has to provide. The extra money that has come in for investment is clearly to be welcomed.

The regulatory conditions that require Royal Mail to deliver letters six days a week as part of the universal postal service also provide that Royal Mail is not required to sustain those services without interruption, suspension or restriction in the event of an emergency. Ofcom has acknowledged that, in the context of the covid-19 pandemic, it is indeed an emergency. As such, the regulatory framework allows Royal Mail to modify its obligations. That includes the temporary reduction in the frequency of the delivery of letters, which Royal Mail implemented for six weeks in 2020 without formal authorisation, because it considered it necessary to respond to the challenges faced in maintaining the postal services at the height of the pandemic. Ofcom published a statement on its website in April 2020, and a further statement in January this year, clarifying that the regulatory framework supported Royal Mail’s actions.

Throughout the pandemic, Royal Mail has been transparent with the public about any changes to the services it provides, and the information can be found on the Royal Mail website. We have heard about the dangers of the digital deficit, and clearly there is always more that we can do to ensure the information gets to people, rather than people having to find it. We will always work on that, and it is incumbent on all of us, as elected leaders in our communities, to ensure that we get the information to colleagues across the House, so that we can help amplify those messages to our constituents. These are clearly areas that we can look at.

It should therefore come as no surprise that when Royal Mail published its quality of service results last month, it had not met the universal service obligation targets for the delivery of first and second-class mail. Royal Mail reported that that was due to high levels of covid-related absences and shielding; the introduction of social distancing in its operations, as we have heard; no shared vans; and the increase in parcel volumes, which went up an incredible 32%. As has been said, the change in postal services over the past few years is that parcels are driving profits among Royal Mail’s competitors. Indeed, that is a main contributing factor to the financial performance of Royal Mail in recent months.

In light of all those factors, it acknowledges that at times its quality of service has not always been how it might have wished, especially in areas with higher levels of local covid infections. Despite that, clearly, postmen and women worked exceptionally hard to ensure that the delivery of covid-19 test kits were prioritised. Royal Mail implemented Sunday deliveries and collections, resulting in next-day delivery for covid-19 test kits exceeding 98%. In addition, it prioritised the delivery of NHS vaccination letters and election mailing, doing its best to ensure that service delays did not have an impact on those important communications.

Let me take some time to say something about the particular concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage about the delivery service in his constituency. I must admit that, in the lead-up to the debate, I spoke to my two-man focus group in Great Coxwell—my former parents-in-law—and they said they were sometimes a few days behind during covid. In general, it has been okay, and is now back to pre-covid levels. That goes to show that, even within a constituency, there are patches where things are seemingly okay and clearly patches where there are still significant issues, as my hon. Friend eloquently highlighted, and we need to tackle them. We cannot look at one area in isolation, so he is right to drill down into those areas.

I have been informed by Royal Mail that the service in the Wantage area was disrupted due to sickness absence levels in some parts of the operation remaining higher than normal. That was exacerbated by necessary changes to the business operations and difficulty with additional recruitment. There are 10 postcode areas in Wantage and 10 delivery offices to service them. In the Wantage area itself, sick absences peaked at 15%. I am pleased to report that, as of last week, that absence rate has gone down significantly and is at levels that Royal Mail expects at this particular time of year.

To provide a snapshot of disrupted service levels and how far more Royal Mail has come to improve them, let me cover three areas quickly. Per day, the Wantage delivery office covers 29 delivery rounds. In December, on average, seven delivery rounds could not be completed per day; in April, that was at most one delivery round per day. The Didcot delivery office, which my hon. Friend mentioned, per day covers 38 delivery rounds. In December, on average, 10 delivery rounds could not be fully completed per day; in April, that was at most three delivery rounds. The Wallingford delivery office has 39 delivery rounds. In April, there was a high level of sick absence, and that clearly had an impact on mail deliveries and deliveries were rotational, happening every other day. As of May, however, mail deliveries have been taking place six days a week to all addresses served by all three of those delivery offices.

In addition, Royal Mail continues to use agency support, as well as to hire vehicles to alleviate any pressure on staff, so that it can maintain the best possible service. At the Wantage, Didcot and Wallingford delivery offices, 14 permanent roles have been created and, to date, six of those new recruits are in post. Clearly, however, when I asked those questions, Royal Mail also assured me that if for any reason an address does not receive a mail delivery one day, it will be a priority for the next working day.

Royal Mail is open to engaging with the public and, indeed, with all MPs about delivery services in their respective constituencies and across the UK. I enjoy going to my local delivery offices whenever I can in Sutton. I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage is going on a site visit tomorrow in Didcot, so I hope that he finds that productive in following up this conversation and this discussion, because it is important that we scratch beneath the surface. Yes, we get the assurances, but it is only by going to see people with those further questions that I hope he will get the answers that he needs and that he will be able to put his constituents’ views—as I know he will, admirably —to the managers in that delivery office.

The postmen and women who serve Wantage and across the UK have continued to dedicate themselves to providing a key public service. Royal Mail more broadly, has done its utmost to deliver on its universal service obligation, while observing health and safety advice. Royal Mail has been transparent about changes to its service, as I said, but it acknowledges some disruptions to delivery, mainly but not solely—as we heard—due to the extenuating circumstances generated by the pandemic. However, we have also seen changes in consumer behaviour, including the rise in online shopping. Royal Mail’s financial report, published last month, highlighted that parcels represented 72% of its UK revenue in the previous financial year, increasing from 63% in the financial year 2019-20. That has largely been driven by changes in behaviour through the pandemic. Increases in e-commerce have further added to the demand for parcel delivery services: a study by Royal Mail found a 7% increase in company start-ups in March to July 2020, compared with the same period in 2019. Of 315,000 new companies, nearly 16,000 were e-commerce.

The pandemic is an emergency situation that has required Royal Mail to be flexible, make the necessary adjustments and respond effectively to demand. Royal Mail has clearly done its best to maintain service levels during a situation outside its control, but that is why the regulatory framework provides that flexibility to manage emergency situations, and why Ofcom indicated its support for the measures Royal Mail has taken to respond. Ofcom also noted that Royal Mail did not meet its quality of service standards in 2020, but that performance has improved considerably in recent months as covid impacts have started to recede. Ofcom considers that timings for a return to pre-covid performance standards are likely to align with further guidance on social distancing; indeed, I spoke to its chief executive about that just yesterday. Ofcom has reassured me that it continues to scrutinise performance closely, and that Royal Mail is actively implementing a recovery plan that includes operational changes and the use of additional frontline staff.

When looking at the future regulation framework, Ofcom clearly needs to ensure that postal regulation keeps pace with changes in the market and remains relevant, a point raised by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). We last reviewed the regulatory framework for post in 2017, and agreed at the time that it should remain in place until 2022. Ofcom is now carrying out the review of the future regulatory framework for post, which it aims to complete in 2022. As part of that review, Ofcom will consider whether extra consumer protections may be required, and is seeking views on the future regulation of the parcels market: a call for inputs closed in May 2021. Ofcom will publish a full consultation on the future regulation of postal services later this year.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central talked about postcode data, which is something we have spoken about in the past. It is a really interesting point that we need to work on, because in the era of open data, we have to make sure that that open data is available, without one company seeking to profit from intellectual property that has been developed over a period of time. I am looking forward to continuing that discussion with her.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green raised issues about the N8 area, as she has done before. I know that people at Royal Mail—I was going to say “avidly read Hansard”, but that is a little bit much. [Laughter.] It is essential lockdown reading. However, I know that they look at the coverage and debates in this House, so they will have heard about the campaign that the hon. Lady has been running to make sure that her constituents in the N8 area and the surrounding area are well served. I believe the last time we spoke about the SE22 area was in November 2020, when I participated in a debate led by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. It was interesting to hear the update about what is happening in that area with her constituents, and I know that the hon. Lady will continue to lobby and campaign on behalf of those constituents to make sure they get the service they deserve.

We know that the Royal Mail needs to continue to modernise as people are moving towards parcels, but we cannot forget those essential letters and that essential correspondence. Yes, fewer people are relying on them, but those who are relying on them are in many cases the most vulnerable in society and the most dependent on that social contact and social value, as well as the essential services that are still provided by post. Clearly, delays in postal service deliveries can be frustrating, and they can have serious consequences. We have heard some examples from those who are reliant on the post for important information, including for start-ups and small businesses, who are trying to build their businesses and develop a reliable, remote offer to their customers.

Following the debate we had here last week, I do not doubt the issues in the highlands and other remote areas about the cost of delivery for parcels. The service for letters must also remain, through the universal service obligation.

The past year and a half has presented exceptional challenges and has led to the disruption of services, but the postal system has continued to operate, and Royal Mail is able to resume service levels now that absence levels are closer to normal and the business has adjusted to operational changes. On behalf of the Government, I thank once again all the Royal Mail postal workers and Royal Mail itself for the dedication and commitment shown while providing continued service throughout the pandemic.

Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

Paul Scully Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the debate on 10 June on the draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) and Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.

[Paul Scully]

On divergence from the EU and Northern Ireland diverging from GB, in many ways the EU signals are still changing. The UK-Japan CEPA is the first agreement that the UK has secured to go beyond the existing EU deal, with enhancement in areas such as digital data, financial services, food and drink, and the creative industries. Clearly, the single distilled shochu will still be available in the entire UK market, including Northern Ireland, but an additional bottle size will be available in the UK.

[Official Report, Vol. 696, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 10 June 2021; c. 10.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully):

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra).

The correct response should have been:

[Paul Scully]

On divergence from the EU and Northern Ireland diverging from GB, in many ways the EU signals are still changing. The UK-Japan CEPA is the first agreement that the UK has secured to go beyond the existing EU deal, with enhancement in areas such as digital data, financial services, food and drink, and the creative industries. Clearly, the single distilled shochu will still be available in the entire UK market, including Northern Ireland, but an additional bottle size will be available in Great Britain.

Anti-loitering Devices: Safety

Paul Scully Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) on securing today’s important debate. I assure him that, although the House did not need an anti-loitering device to empty this evening, that was in no way a reflection of his excellent speech, in which he outlined his concerns about this important issue.

As Consumer Minister, the safety of these products falls under my ministerial portfolio, and the safety of the public is a key priority for the Government. The safety of such products contributes to ensuring the safety of the public and, in particular, children and young people, so I am pleased to be able to discuss this important issue, and I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity for us to exchange views on it. I am aware that he had an exchange of letters with my predecessor on the subject and that, as he has outlined, he has a long history of discussing and raising his concerns.

Many of the issues raised go beyond safety and fall within the remit of ministerial colleagues in other Departments. I will ensure that my officials draw the Hansard of the debate to the attention of relevant counterparts and continue to join up on this issue. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issues further, as he has requested.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) for bringing the debate forward; it is on an excellent issue. On the safety of the general public, the Minister knows, as do I and others, about the effect of autism and the number of children and adults with autism across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that, for the safety of the general public, children and adults with autism must be taken on board as a priority?

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which was as wise as always. It is important that we protect all children, but especially vulnerable children, and he raises an interesting point. I will talk a bit more about safety in a second.

It might be useful if I set out the context of the regulatory and enforcement regime with which products such as anti-loitering devices must comply. As my hon. Friend mentioned, OPSS is the UK’s national product safety regulator. It was established in 2018 to lead and co-ordinate the product safety system, providing national capacity and supporting local enforcement, and it plays a key role in protecting consumers from unsafe products and providing an environment that enables businesses to thrive. It works closely with a wide range of market surveillance authorities, including local authority trading standards in Great Britain and environmental health in Northern Ireland, which have responsibility for enforcing product safety and compliance in the UK.

The UK product safety system is one of the most robust in the world. It places strict obligations on those best placed to control or mitigate risk. We have a comprehensive regulatory framework in place for product safety, with stringent requirements on producers and distributors to ensure that their products are safe before they are placed on the market. Its approach places an obligation on those best placed to control and mitigate the risk.

The safety of acoustic anti-loitering devices, commonly known as mosquito devices, is regulated by the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 and other product-specific laws, such as the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016. These provide a baseline of safety for applicable products, requiring that only safe products, in their normal or reasonably foreseeable usage, can be placed on the market. Where product-specific legislation applies, such as the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016, a product must comply with a specific set of essential safety requirements before it can be placed on the market. Once their products are on the market, businesses have a continuing responsibility to monitor them and to act if a safety issue is identified.

The current regulatory framework enables the relevant enforcing authority—either local authorities or the OPSS—to investigate specific allegations of unsafe products and take action where it is appropriate to do so. That includes prompting businesses to take corrective action and to provide additional advice to consumers or instigate a recall. I can confirm that there have been no reports of dangerous anti-loitering devices on the UK product safety database, which is used by regulators to share information about safety risks and ensure that appropriate action is taken.

When the Government last reviewed and set out their position on the safety of these products, in 2010, the Health and Safety Executive concluded that there was little likelihood of any long-term ill effects associated with them, and that the use of anti-loitering devices should remain an option available to local authorities in tackling antisocial behaviour. That decision followed testing that was carried out by the National Physical Laboratory, which determined that mosquito devices did not operate at a high enough volume to damage hearing. However, we continue to monitor reports of safety in relation to all products. If, as my predecessor said, there is further evidence or data on the use and impact of anti-loitering devices, clearly we will review it. The 2005 regulations already provide protection for consumers from unsafe products. Where specific products are found to be unsafe, they can be removed from the market, so there are no current plans to introduce a licensing regime for anti-loitering devices on the basis of safety, as our current assessment is that such devices do not present a safety risk.

What we are discussing today, several years after that testing was done, goes beyond safety and regulation by the 2005 regulations. The basis of the debate broadens to include considerations of human rights and potential psychological impacts, and the need to understand the potential for certain vulnerable groups to experience greater harms. My Department recognises that concern but maintains that the 2005 regulations already provide protection for consumers from unsafe products.

I want to take a few moments to talk about the wider protections already in place and what the Government are doing to ensure that the freedoms of individuals are protected while also protecting the public. While these are matters for my ministerial colleagues in other Departments, I feel that it would be useful to set these out to provide the broader context for our debate. Concern has been expressed about the impact of anti-loitering devices on the freedom of assembly. The Government are committed to upholding the right to freedom of assembly and association for all, as protected by article 11 of the European convention on human rights, which is given further effect domestically by the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Government are also committed to tackling and preventing antisocial behaviour, because we know the serious impact that persistent antisocial behaviour can have on both individuals and communities. Everybody has a right to feel safe in their own homes and neighbourhoods. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 seeks to put victims first, giving power to local people and enabling professionals to find the best solutions for their local area. To do this, local enforcement agencies have a range of tools and powers that they can use to respond quickly and effectively to antisocial behaviour through the 2014 Act. It is up to local areas to decide how best to deploy such powers, depending on the specific circumstances. That is because they are best placed to understand what is driving the behaviour in question, the impact that it is having, and to determine the most appropriate response.

The Home Office issued statutory guidance for the 2014 Act, which was updated in January 2021, to support agencies to make appropriate and proportionate use of the powers, when they target specific problems in a public setting, depending on the circumstances. In a similar vein, where these devices are misused and create a noise nuisance for members of the public, there are statutory protections in place to deal with such nuisance.

The potential impact of anti-loitering devices on children’s rights has been discussed. The UK Government regularly report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on the work that we have been doing across the UK to implement the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and to promote children’s rights. The UN committee published a list of issues for the UK to report against early next year. One of these issues relates to anti-loitering mosquito devices and the measures taken to guarantee children’s right to freedom of movement and peaceful assembly.

The UK Government response will involve the input of a number of Government Departments and devolved Administrations, including the Crown dependencies and British overseas territories, and children’s rights stakeholders to record progress. I will ensure that my hon. Friend receives a copy of that response when it is issued.

In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this topic for debate today. It is really important that the Government continue to keep such issues, with wide-ranging interests and potential impacts, under close review, and I thank him for his dogged work in raising these concerns across Government. I would also like to reassure him, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is in his place today, and others that the Government will always take steps, where appropriate, to ensure safety and to protect the public.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) and Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Paul Scully Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) and Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray.

Hon. Members will appreciate the importance of supporting international trade while protecting our product safety and legal metrology system, which is among the strongest in the world. The regulations implement important aspects of international trade agreements within the Government’s trade continuity programme, ensuring continuity for UK business. They include certain mutual recognition agreements that the UK has signed with the USA, Australia and New Zealand, along with a free trade agreement with Korea, containing conformity assessment provisions that are relevant to the regulations. The UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement and the UK-Canada trade continuity agreement also include protocols on mutual recognition of conformity assessments. I will now refer to the mutual recognition elements of all those agreements as MRAs, as proceedings would otherwise get quite tedious.

MRAs promote trade in goods between the UK and partner countries by reducing technical barriers to trade. The UK’s product safety legislation and that of many of our partners often require products to be assessed against minimum essential requirements, sometimes by a conformity assessment body external to the business. MRAs can reduce barriers by allowing a conformity assessment to be undertaken by a body that is based in the UK prior to export to the relevant country. Likewise, they enable procedures carried out by recognised overseas CABs to be recognised against our domestic regulations.

The products that are in scope of these agreements vary between the MRAs. Many cover rules on radio equipment, while the agreements with Australia and New Zealand also address products such as machinery and simple pressure vessels. If a small UK business that manufactures wi-fi equipment is considering exporting to one or more of our MRA partners, they might therefore find that they can get all their advice and approvals from a single UK-based CAB. If that means that they reduce their costs, they can pass the saving on to their customers. The manufacturer can access international markets more easily when assessment is facilitated in this way, thereby increasing their potential for exporting and increasing consumer choice. Such benefits, which the UK has experienced for years, are maintained through the continuity MRAs.

In addition to measures to implement the MRAs, the regulations address one aspect of the UK’s trade agreement with Japan by giving greater flexibility to importers of the traditional Japanese spirit called single-distilled shochu. The regulations amend specified quantity requirements in Great Britain so that bottles of single-distilled shochu can be sold in 900 ml bottles, one of the traditional bottle sizes.

I shall whip through the issues in a bit more detail, first by addressing provisions on goods coming into the UK that are in scope of an MRA. Under the MRAs, the UK committed to recognise the results of conformity assessment procedures carried out by recognised overseas CABs against our domestic regulations. Today’s regulations make it clear that assessments carried out by a recognised body based in one of our partner countries should be treated as equivalent to those carried out by a UK-approved body when relevant products are placed on the market in Great Britain. The benefits are significant: trade with our MRA partners in radio equipment alone amounted to nearly £2 billion in 2019, although not all those products will have required conformity assessment by a third party.

The regulations provide for the Secretary of State to create a register of CABs that the UK recognises under the MRAs, which are defined as MRA bodies. That is communicated via the UK market CAB database, which is publicly available and used by the UK’s market surveillance bodies to verify the status of CABs that have approved products sold in the UK. Having all those CABs that are competent to assess for the domestic market in one place creates a one-stop shop for not only our UK enforcement authorities but businesses, helping them to find and verify the credentials of CABs quickly. The regulations also provide for Canadian accreditation bodies that are recognised by the UK under the UK-Canada trade continuity agreement to be listed on the Government’s website. They do not change the substance of requirements for third-party assessment, nor do they amend any requirements related to a product’s specifications.

I turn to goods in scope of the UK’s MRAs that are assessed by UK CABs. The regulations provide for the Secretary of State to designate CABs as competent to assess whether goods comply with certain regulatory requirements of our trading partners under the MRAs, as set out in schedule 2. To give a quick example, if a UK-based CAB wishes to be recognised by the American authorities as competent to test and assess for the USA’s radio equipment requirements, the body can apply to UKAS, the United Kingdom’s accreditation service, to be accredited as competent to test against those overseas requirements. The Secretary of State may then designate the body under the UK’s MRA with the USA to assess radio equipment for export to the USA. Once a CAB is designated, a UK manufacturer that uses the body’s services to assess its products for the domestic market can use that same body to do its assessment for the USA. The manufacturer does not need to identify a different CAB operating in the USA and commission it for assessment services, so the manufacturer can continue to place products on the USA market efficiently and without extra costs, potentially passing savings on to consumers.

The regulations also provide that the Secretary of State, or a person authorised to act on their behalf, may disclose information to the other party to an MRA when required by an MRA. For example, we may pass on information related to goods originating in the USA that have been suspended by UK enforcement authorities under commitments to co-operate in the MRA with the USA. Disclosure will be made in accordance with data protection legislation.

The regulations make provision for a product known as single-distilled shochu, a spirit that is single distilled, produced by pot still and bottled in Japan, to be placed on the market in Great Britain in the additional bottle size of 900 ml. Before the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement, single-distilled shochu bottled in Japan had been permitted in Great Britain in quantities of 720 ml or 1,800 ml, in addition to the usual specified quantities for pre-packed spirits. Allowing the sale of this traditional bottle size was an important request by the Japanese Government in negotiations for the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement. Given that the product is already on sale across the UK, albeit in other bottle sizes, the change should not have a significant impact on consumers in Great Britain.

Let me turn to the territorial scope of the regulations. Some provisions make amendments only for Great Britain, while others extend to the whole UK. Regulations 4 and 5, which deal with the recognition of conformity assessment by relevant overseas CABs, extend to Great Britain only. Northern Ireland will continue to recognise the results of conformity assessment procedures done under mutual recognition agreements between the European Union and the relevant third country, in accordance with the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol to the withdrawal agreement.

Regulation 6, which deals with the Secretary of State’s power to designate UK-based bodies under the agreements, will extend to the whole UK. CABs across the UK can therefore be designated under the MRAs. Regulation 7, which relates to information sharing, will also extend to the whole UK to enable the Secretary of State to share relevant information required under the MRAs.

Part 3—regulations 8 and 9—which amends the permitted bottle sizes for single-distilled shochu, extends to Great Britain only. In accordance with the Northern Ireland protocol, single-distilled shochu will continue to be permitted on the Northern Ireland market in 720 ml and 1,800 ml bottle sizes, in addition to the usual specified quantities for pre-packed spirits.

The regulations will provide certainty on the UK’s approach to recognising and designating CABs for certain products under the MRAs, and also make necessary amendments to allow for the 900 ml bottle size of single-distilled shochu to be placed on the market in Great Britain. We have introduced the regulations to give effect to provisions that keep barriers to trade low while preserving our robust safety rules. We do so as a Government who are committed to ensuring that consumers are protected from unsafe products as we look to deliver a product safety regime that is simple, flexible and fit for the opportunities ahead of us. I urge the Committee to approve the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I thank the Committee for its consideration of the draft statutory instrument and the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston for her valuable contribution to the debate.

I set out how the draft SI will maintain our latest product safety framework while preserving measures to reduce barriers to trade with some of our key trading partners. I will quickly whip through some of the questions the hon. Lady asked, such as about the timing of the SI. The Trade Act allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to implement non-tariff provisions of international agreements. That power was required to implement the MRAs that the UK has agreed with its trading partners. We have laid this SI at the earliest possible opportunity following Royal Assent to the Act.

On why we do not have an MRA with the EU, clearly it was proposed but not agreed in the negotiations. The UK proposed to the EU a comprehensive mutual recognition agreement covering all the relevant sectors, which would have allowed conformity assessment bodies in either market to assess goods for the other market. However, the countries in the scope of the draft SI have a combined population of more than 570 million with which UK businesses may continue to trade across the world.

On divergence from the EU and Northern Ireland diverging from GB, in many ways the EU signals are still changing. The UK-Japan CEPA is the first agreement that the UK has secured to go beyond the existing EU deal, with enhancement in areas such as digital data, financial services, food and drink, and the creative industries. Clearly, the single distilled shochu will still be available in the entire UK market, including Northern Ireland, but an additional bottle size will be available in the UK.[Official Report, 16 June 2021, Vol. 697, c. 1MC.]

The hon. Lady talked about what will happen in future mutual recognition agreements. The approach that we are developing for future such agreements is under discussion, but will involve appropriate consultations with all interested parties. Northern Ireland and all the devolved Administrations will be important in that regard. I hope that I have covered a good deal of the questions. If I have not, I will certainly pick up on any the hon. Lady does not feel satisfied with.

The draft SI gives effect to the provisions of the MRAs and the Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement, which are important for the reasons that I outlined. By supporting the SI, we will ensure that our manufacturers and consumers benefit from maintaining agreements to minimise duplication of conformity assessment requirements between us and our trading partners. I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Delivery Charges in Highlands and Islands

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing today’s important debate. Its subject continues to be important for his constituents and, similarly, for other Members across the House, including, as he mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), who raised this last, in December 2020. The hon. Gentleman was there, and he and my hon. Friend came together in a cross-party spirit, because this is very much a geographical issue rather than a political issue, although there are often political levers we can look to to see what we can work on together.

It is not unreasonable for business to seek to cover the legitimate costs of delivery, but it feels to some customers outside the major conurbations that charges are going beyond that, so I have a lot of sympathy for the case that the hon. Member has made—that consumers in some parts of Scotland continue to be treated differently from those in other parts of the UK. I also recognise that similar issues exist for consumers in, for example, Northern Ireland and, latterly, the Isle of Wight. I am pleased to take part in this debate and to update Members on developments since the previous debate in December 202, but let me first remind colleagues of the Government’s general approach.

The Government recognise that delivery costs can be higher when reaching some parts of the UK, but delivery surcharges should be based on real costs of transportation. Businesses are strongly encouraged, as far as possible, to provide consumers with a range of affordable delivery options. Moreover, the Government have ensured that there is access for everyone, including small retailers, to an affordable, consistently priced postal service for deliveries across the UK under the universal postal service. Royal Mail, through the universal service obligation, must deliver parcels up to 20 kg five days a week at uniform rates throughout the UK.

The Government believe that businesses should be free to choose partners and make the contractual arrangements that best fit their commercial needs. At the same time, consumers need transparency of information so that they can choose the supplier who best meets their requirements. The resulting competition should lead to a more efficient allocation of resource.

Consumer protection laws require transparency of costs, including delivery charges. Retailers are therefore required to be up front about their charges, including where they deliver to, what they charge and when any premiums apply. In that regard, at least, the law was working well for the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, Graham, in terms of his batteries, because at least he could make an informed decision, as unfair as he felt that extra transaction cost was. With that transparency, consumers know exactly where they stand and can therefore decide accordingly. If retailers are to take advantage of the considerable opportunity for online sales, they need to take heed of the needs of consumers in all parts of the country, developing delivery solutions to realise sales potential in every single area.

Our legislation is robust. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 set out that the information given by traders to consumers regarding those delivery costs, including any premiums, must be up front and transparent, as I have said.

In response to concerns raised previously by hon. Members about understanding the rules, highland trading standards established a website to provide advice and delivery charges for consumers and businesses. Any consumer who believes that the rules have been breached should report it through the deliverylaw.uk website so that incidences are recorded and appropriate enforcement can be taken.

Furthermore, as I reported to the House last year, a significant volume of enforcement work has been undertaken by the Competition and Markets Authority and the Advertising Standards Authority. The ASA has issued enforcement notices to online retailers where parcel surcharging practices have been raised and has achieved a compliance rate of over 95%. The CMA has continued to issue advisory notices to the major retail platforms and has published guidance to retailers who sell via those platforms. It continues to work through primary authorities to ensure improvement in this area. On the legal compliance side, our enforcement partners are continuing to monitor the situation and to take action where necessary.

In November last year, the postal sector regulator, Ofcom, published updated information on how this part of the market is operating, as part of its annual postal service monitoring update. I set out Ofcom’s findings in the December 2020 debate in the House. Ofcom found that operators take different approaches to the pricing of parcel delivery services. Some vary their prices by location, but others do not. Businesses have options. For the subset of suppliers who vary delivery charges by location, some use a binary standard charge and an out-of-area charge and some set different prices for different areas. In other cases, the actual prices charged for business-to-consumer parcel deliveries are bespoke. Although operators may start with a standard rate, they often negotiate charges on a bespoke basis with individual retailers. As I outlined in the previous debate on this issue, some major retailers, such as Argos and Wayfair, have taken positive steps, vastly improving the delivery service by removing surcharges for most customers in the Scottish highlands and islands.

The Government have no role in interfering with business decisions. Businesses can adopt a range of options on delivery charges and may apply none at all, and the parcel delivery market is competitive. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross talked of the Penny Post, which was, in its time, an important standard to reach, but the post service has moved on in the past few years. Parcels, rather than letters, are more predominant in people’s lives than ever before, and the market is hugely competitive. Steps taken by suppliers to apply no delivery surcharge will put downward pressure on charges from other suppliers. Royal Mail clearly needs to be in that space, looking at that downward charge, to be able to modernise and compete with other suppliers.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government continue to look at this issue. The Consumer Protection Partnership brings together consumer protection organisations from across the UK. It runs a dedicated working group, including consumer advocates, trading standards and Government representatives, to focus on this issue. The working group also includes the Scottish Government.

Ofcom will be undertaking a review of its future regulatory framework for post over the next year. In the call for input between March and May this year, Ofcom invited views and comments from stakeholders. It intends to publish a full consultation on the future regulation of postal services later this year, before concluding its review in 2022. The review will consider issues affecting the broader postal sector, as people’s reliance on parcels continues to grow.

Other ongoing work to enhance compliance with the legislation includes updating the best practice guidance available from the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. The updated guidance has been informed by CPP members, as well as other organisations, and aims to drive the messaging out to online retailer platforms and delivery services.

I continue to believe that the legislative framework is robust and provides appropriate protections for consumers. The Government remain committed to ensuring that the universal service obligation, including the delivery of parcels at a set charge throughout the UK, remains affordable and accessible to all users. My priority is continued enforcement of the law to ensure that customers are not surprised by delivery charges and are able to make choices based on clear information. In that way, consumer decisions will apply competitive pressures that can drive down delivery charges to the benefit of all.

On behalf of the Government, I express my gratitude to postal and parcel workers across the UK, who have been working tirelessly throughout the pandemic to keep us all connected. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross once again for bringing this important debate to the House, and you, Ms Rees, for chairing it. I look forward to continuing to work on this issue. I know we will be back here again to speak on behalf of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and others in the affected areas.

Question put and agreed to.

Social Distancing Restrictions: Support for the Night-Time Economy

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) on securing today’s important debate. I thank him for his work and all those colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group for the night time economy, which is a hugely important sector, culturally, economically and for people’s wellbeing.

This area of the economy is being hard-pressed because it is not a binary situation like retail, which is either open or not—obviously there are measures within, but on the whole it is either open or not open. Clearly, restrictions are being put on the hospitality sector, the night-time economy and the wider hospitality sector, such as weddings, and that is happening at a cost, with extra staffing and reduced capacity for those venues. They have been incredibly hard-pressed.

The sector also creates millions of local jobs. Many sectors and industries within hospitality—events and entertainment, healthcare, security, cleaning, transport, logistics, retail, health and fitness centres—are all part of the hospitality ecosystem. The sector is also key in driving other vital sectors of the economy, including tourism, entertainment, the arts and cultural activities, such as theatres and comedy clubs. We recognise the huge disruptions that the covid-19 pandemic has caused to people’s lives. It has presented unprecedented challenges to those sectors.

The Prime Minister’s road map is an important step towards reopening the night-time economy, but we need to be driven by the data and proceed cautiously towards step four. That is why we have opened the economy in gradual steps, as it is vital that we do not jeopardise the success of the vaccination programme. I hope this debate will go some way to restoring public confidence and kick-starting recovery for the industry to make sure that people in the sector know that everybody in this place, from either side of the House, is fully committed to making sure that we can restore our night-time industry.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown talked about December and what happened at Christmas. For that reason we are going through the gears gradually, carefully and slowly. We have been at pains to talk about the fact that it is “data not dates”. Everyone will obviously put their hook on 21 June, but although—to provide enough certainty—we have said that that is what we are aiming for, we have been really careful to say that the decision needs to be based on data. Caseload, case rates, the effect of the vaccination on variants, the roll-out of the vaccination programme, and obviously hospitalisations and the pressure on the NHS, are among the things that we are testing and gathering evidence for. Every day that we continue with that process, we are getting richer data.

The promise has been clear that the decision will be made and announced on 14 June. I appreciate that, for some businesses—especially those producing real ale, as it takes a couple of weeks to brew and, as the hon. Gentleman says, it has a short shelf life—that will not be enough time. However, the key thing is that the full opening up would not be before 21 June. Media speculation does not help and I have been at pains, when speaking to newspapers and TV, to ask them not to speculate for speculation’s sake. That causes cancellations, especially for events that require planning, such as certain nightclubs, weddings or ticketed events. That speculation is harming business.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) on bringing the matter forward. He is right; it is the uncertainty. We understand the issues to do with the timescale and then it falls back, but I want to make a plea, to back up the hon. Gentleman, for those workers. In my constituency, I know that some have had real uncertainty over the future of their jobs. First, they are on furlough. Then, they are off furlough. Then, something else happens and they find themselves off furlough and they cannot get back on again. Can the Minister say what consideration the Government have given for businesses that have furloughed some of their staff, have taken them off with an option of opening and then find themselves in the predicament where they wish they had not taken them off furlough to start with? Also, what discussion has the Minister had with the devolved Administrations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

That is an interesting point. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. It is a really important point. I will come back to staffing overall in a second. He is right. I have had some interesting discussions with the hospitality sector over the past week or two, since the last reopening, when they have been looking at staffing issues. A number of people have come up with different ways of covering the staff shortages they have outlined. First, it is difficult to get some people back from furlough, because they are happy and prefer to be on furlough. They may be cautious about coming back to the workplace and have not the confidence to do so.

There are clearly some people who have left the country, especially in London and the likes of Brighton, where we rely on a significant number of workers from Europe and around the world. There are rural and coastal areas where businesses struggle to find people in general. There are also people on furlough who may have been running two jobs and have made a choice. For whatever reason, possibly because of the speculation that I was discussing about the uncertainty of hospitality and the night-time economy reopening, they have chosen to go to their other job—the non-hospitality job. That clearly provides a challenge and is something that we have to work through and be alive to.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown talked specifically about security staff and the need to maintain safe venues. Clearly that is something that we are aware of and we are working through the Home Office to see what more we can do to support them.

I shall return briefly to the road map. The Prime Minister has the step-by-step plan to be led by the data as we ease restrictions. We have progressed through that road map, on the basis of the latest data, easing restrictions further when it has been safe to do so. We want to make sure that as the night-time economy and hospitality reopen, we remind people that the hospitality sector has done so much to put mitigations in place—the time, the money, the effort, the staff, the one-way systems, the screens and what-have-you. We want to reassure people that they are safe by following the guidance and putting those measures in place, but providing a really warm welcome as well. We want people to go out and enjoy themselves. We want to give them the confidence to come out on the first day and make sure that they have enjoyed a fun time and want to come back time and again. As we break the cycle of people being locked away at home, we do not want them to necessarily just sit there and contain themselves with their bottle of wine and ready meal in their garden, because there is so much that Brighton, London and Northern Ireland have to offer in the night-time economy.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Could the Minister address one request that I get a lot from the night-time economy, by giving some pre-guidelines of what the opening up might look like, even if that were to change? Looking at another sector, I went to visit my local caravan club site recently. They were given three days, from the announcement to open up the site, to implement the measures that the Government required. If they had been given just a week, they told me, even if it was to say, “This is what we are currently thinking; it might change, but this is where you can start planning,” it would have really helped.

Could we learn that lesson with the night-time economy and give them a heads-up? Could we say, “This is where the current thinking is. We don’t know the date when it will happen—it might be this week, next week or the week after—but this is roughly what it will look like when you are opening up”? Could we make it clear whether it will be a free-for-all when we do, or whether it will be a case of, “You can open up, but here are the requirements that you will have to meet”? That would make a big difference for a lot of these venues.

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and totally accept that. We are in a frustrating period; it is frustrating for all of us. None of us wants this to go on for a day longer than possible, but as he knows, a number of reviews are under way—the certification review, the social distancing review and the events pilot—all of which are due to be completed this week. They will not only inform the Prime Minister in making his decision ahead of 21 June, but inform us of what works, what might not work and so on for larger events and for social distancing.

In all this, we have worked with organisations such as UKHospitality, Hospitality Ulster, the British Beer and Pub Association and the Night Time Industries Association to try to get a view about what the effects of any residual social distancing and mitigations will be on their economy. We can therefore get the balance right in giving them a chance to make a profit. Let us bear in mind that every time we walk down a street at the moment and see a busy, bustling pub, it is still losing money; it is just minimising cash burn and minimising its losses. It is not making money. It has not got a chance of making money until it can open fully, because of the capacity issues. As I say, it might look busy, but it is still constrained.

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact answer that he wants and that the sector needs, but we are trying our best to ensure that we can work with the sector and have a dialogue rather than just say, “Okay, this is the kind of stuff we are going to do. What do you think about it?” At every stage it has been difficult to work through those dates as we have come through them, but I believe that we will get there.

I know that not every venue will open fully on 21 June, because that is what happened on the other two dates as well. That is the date, and different people will work through their venues to best suit their staff rotas, their suppliers and perhaps just ensure that they can give that safe and warm welcome. We want to ensure that the Government’s programme is one-directional; and clearly, businesses do not want to be stop-starting because of economic constraints of a more local making, shall we say.

There were a number of issues on financial support. Let me first cover the rents moratorium. Throughout the process we have had a number of cliff-edge scenarios that we have tried to avoid, whether the end of the business rates holiday or the VAT relief. Those are big-ticket items. If I remember rightly—I might get these the wrong way round—business rates was about £11 billion of taxpayers’ money and VAT was something like £27 billion. It was of that order. Those are big amounts of money, so we clearly need to work that through in a holistic fashion for the Chancellor, but we have always tried to flex to view the situation as is, rather than try to predict too far into the future. Clearly, I do not think any of us expected us to be in this situation in March or April last year, when the pandemic Budget was announced.

The moratorium is the one complicated issue. Business rates relief is the Chancellor saying, “Okay, fine, we can extend this. The Treasury will take the hit.” I understand that ultimately it is taxpayers’ money, but the Treasury will take that view and it is the Treasury’s decision. On rent moratoriums, there is clearly a commercial rent, and landlords are businesses as well. We sometimes look at rogue landlords, but there are many mom-and-pop owners who own a property or two. There are also pension funds that own property, and that has ramifications on pensioners and investors in those pensions. Obviously, some landlords also have shareholders.

We must therefore look carefully at getting the right balance, but we are working through that as quickly as possible because we know that the most immediate effect will be on tenants. It will be on those hospitality venues who, for the reasons we have said, cannot operate to capacity very quickly. We are hoping to come up with something that works for both tenants and landlords and furthers those discussions. We want to have constructive discussions, as the hon. Gentleman said, because it is in the landlords’ long-term interests to ensure that they can do so. Beyond that, we will make sure that we can get to more of a fundamental review of the landlord-tenant relationship, because the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about how we go beyond reopening.

I have been working with the hospitality sector on the strategy—what we do next. Bear in mind that our Department did not have a hospitality team before all this, but we now have a permanent hospitality team within the Department, and I now include Hospitality Recovery Minister in my vast array of titles and responsibilities. It is important that the hospitality industry has the seat at the table that it worked so hard for.

There are three Rs: reopening—we have to get back to full capacity to start making money again and start paying back the three years of debt that the hon. Gentleman talked about. Then, recovery—going through that process, starting to have more easements from local authorities to help support that. It is also about resilience, which brings us back to the long-term issue of staffing. What makes hospitality so flexible is that it has a low bar for entry. A student can go in and do a few shifts at a pub without any qualifications. But we want to make sure that people can see a career path in hospitality, so that although there is a degree of flexibility, that is not the same as instability. We want to give that stability through a greater skills offering for the hospitality sector. As we build back better and fairer for the workers in that sector, we will also build back greener, seeing what more we can do to further the Government priority of driving towards net zero, by means of practices in the hospitality sector. There is a lot to be working on.

We are gradually removing restrictions and reopening the economy via the road map. It is a frustrating time, waiting for Monday to see what the decision is, but we have to remain cautious and continue to follow advice on safe behaviours. It is key that we remind people that this is not like a thriller movie, when someone shoots the baddie at the end and the credits roll. We will be living with this for some time. In the meantime, hon. Members are sitting with their masks on because we need to remember social distancing, “hands, face, space and fresh air” and get the vaccine when it is offered.

We will continue to work closely with businesses, local authorities and other stakeholders to support those industries and ensure that the UK night-time economy can recover and return stronger. As we continue those reviews in tandem with the vaccine programme, we are hopeful that further venues will be able to reopen as we approach step four of the road map. That will be no earlier than 21 June, following a review of data. Protecting the health and safety of the British public is our top priority, but we will not keep the restrictions in place any longer than necessary. Until then, everyone must continue to play their part.

Question put and agreed to.

11.28 am

Sitting suspended.

Employment Rights

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce the latest steps the Government are taking today to better protect and enforce workers’ rights, as we look to build back better from covid-19.

Firstly, the Government have today published their response to our 2019 consultation on creating a single enforcement body for employment rights. This Government have been absolutely clear that we will do whatever we can to protect and enhance workers’ rights, and this new body will help the country build back better by taking a smarter approach to the enforcement of employment law.

Today’s response to the consultation sets out the overarching details of the new body. Responsibility for tackling modern slavery, enforcing the minimum wage and protecting agency workers—currently spread across the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and HMRC —will be brought under one roof, creating a comprehensive new authority.

This “one-stop shop” approach will help improve enforcement through better co-ordination and pooling of intelligence, and providing a single, recognisable port of call for workers so they know their rights and can blow the whistle on bad behaviour. It will also make it easier for the vast majority of responsible businesses to do the right thing by their employees by providing clear guidance on their obligations.

Our consultation response also confirms that we will extend state enforcement to cover holiday pay and statutory sick pay for vulnerable workers and will regulate umbrella companies. The new body will also enforce financial penalties against organisations that do not meet requirements to publish modern slavery statements, as well as run the unpaid tribunal awards penalty scheme.

Protecting workers requires both support for business—so employers understand how to comply—as well as effective, visible enforcement action to deter irresponsible employers from undercutting the vast majority who want to do right by their workers. The body will have a spectrum of powers and responsibilities to achieve this, including compliance notices and civil penalties, as well as the power to prosecute.

The single enforcement body will be delivered through primary legislation and is the latest initiative in this Government’s wider efforts to protect workers’ rights. In the last year alone, the Government have boosted the minimum wage for around 2 million employees, protected furloughed workers’ parental pay, cracked down on restrictive employment contracts, and more.

Secondly, as well as modernising our enforcement regime, the Government are today publishing their consultation responses on bringing the Certification Officer in line with other regulators; these reforms will implement technical measures passed by Parliament via the Trade Union Act 2016, providing reassurance to union members and the wider public.

Our reforms will make the Certification Officer a more effective regulator, with powers and funding more in line with similar bodies, They will give the Certification Officer the power to proactively investigate issues without having to wait for complaints from union members, the power to issue financial penalties, and put their office on a more sustainable model of levy funding. This proper and fair regulation will ensure all trade unions and employers’ associations conduct themselves to the highest standards.

Thirdly, I wanted to update you on the publication today by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service of their report on “fire and rehire” and the Government’s response to the evidence it provides. I have asked ACAS to produce better, more comprehensive guidance to help employers explore all options before considering dismissal and re-engagement.

This Government have always been clear that we do not accept fire and rehire as a negotiation tactic. Workers up and down the country have worked flat out during the pandemic, carrying out essential work to keep our economy going. It is crucial that employers take their responsibilities seriously and act appropriately when it comes to discussions about changing employment contracts.

The report shows that the practice of fire and rehire includes instances where it has been threatened but not implemented, as well as companies dismissing and re-engaging employees. It is neither a new phenomenon nor is it concentrated in a particular sector or type of employer. While there is no quantitative data, there is a sense that fire and rehire had become more prevalent in the years before covid-19 as well as during the pandemic.

This is clearly a complex issue and we understand that sometimes, regrettably, employment negotiations will fail. In these circumstances, employers may feel they need to dismiss staff, and potentially re-engage them.

However, the Government want to send a crystal clear message to employers that all options must be exhausted before considering dismissal and re-engagement of staff. It is unacceptable to use the threat of fire and rehire as a negotiation tactic to force through changes to employment contracts.

The United Kingdom has one of the best records on workers’ rights in the world—going further than the EU in many areas—and we are determined to build on this progress. By protecting workers more extensively, supporting business to comply with the law, and preventing them from being undercut by a minority of irresponsible employers, we can continue to be a high-wage, high-employment economy that works for everyone as we build back better.

The geographic scope of the bodies being subsumed into the single enforcement body vary; the Certification Officer’s geographic coverage applies to Great Britain—there is a separate Certification Officer for Northern Ireland.

I will place copies of the Government response to Single Enforcement Body consultation, the Government response to the Certification Officer levy consultation and the Government response to the Certification Officer Enforcement powers consultation in the Libraries of the House.

[HCWS72]

Employment Rights

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the latest steps the Government are taking to protect workers’ rights, as we look to build back better from covid-19. That includes our plans to create a single body responsible for state enforcement of employment rights, modernise the regulator of trade unions and address so-called fire and rehire negotiation tactics.

This Government have been absolutely clear that we will do whatever we need to do to protect and enhance workers’ rights in this most challenging year. In April, for example, we increased pay for around 2 million workers, and the coronavirus job retention scheme has already helped to pay the wages of 11.5 million people across the country. We will continue to champion our flexible and dynamic labour market and to maintain the UK’s excellent record on workers’ rights.

Today, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has published its report on fire and rehire. I know that this is a matter of great interest to employers and workers up and down the country, and I encourage all Members to read ACAS’s report. This Government have always been clear that we do not accept fire and rehire as a negotiation tactic. Workers up and down the country have worked flat out during the pandemic, carrying out essential work to keep our economy going. It is crucial that employers take their responsibilities seriously and act appropriately when it comes to discussions about changing employment contracts.

I have been deeply concerned by reports over the last year that some employers may be turning too soon to firing and rehiring employees and are using this as a tactic in negotiations to put undue pressure on workers to rush into accepting new, and often worse, terms and conditions or face losing their jobs. It is unacceptable and, frankly, immoral to use the threat of fire and rehire as a negotiating tactic to force through changes to people’s employment contracts, or for employers to turn to dismissal and rehiring too hastily, rather than continue to engage in meaningful negotiations. We are not talking about something abstract here—this is about peoples’ lives and livelihoods.

At a time when many workers have shown great loyalty and commitment to carry out essential work and keep our economy going in the face of a pandemic, I expect employers to continue to treat their staff fairly and with respect. That is why my Department asked ACAS to gather evidence on the practice, so that we could evaluate whether further action is needed at this time. I would like to thank ACAS for its work, which has provided my Department with a balanced account, based on insights from employer bodies, trade unions and professional bodies.

The report outlines the circumstances in which fire and rehire can be and has been used, and offers views from a range of contributors on whether and how to tackle the issue. There are different views on whether the practice can ever be justified. For some of the organisations consulted by ACAS, it is never acceptable. For others, in its most legitimate form fire and rehire is a route for employers to avoid redundancies and business failures, after negotiations have been exhausted. However, the report finds agreement that fire and rehire can and should be used only in limited, legally prescribed circumstances. Some thought that this should be further reinforced in law, whereas a number of participants cautioned against new legislation, warning that it may have unintended consequences: it may lead to more redundancies.

This is clearly a complex area. Many of the people ACAS spoke to welcomed non-legislative interventions, such as guidance for businesses, the vast majority of which I recognise want to do the right thing. That is why I have now asked ACAS to produce better, more comprehensive, clearer guidance to help employers explore all the options before considering fire and rehire, and encourage good employment relations practice.

Some of ACAS’s participants raised concerns that fire and rehire is used by employers to break continuity of service to limit the ability of workers and employees to access their rights, as certain employment rights require periods of continuous employment. The Government have already committed to legislate to extend the time required to break a period of continuous service. That will make it easier for employees to access their rights and also deter businesses from using fire and rehire to engineer breaks in employment in order to deny individuals important employment rights.

Despite the unprecedented Government support during the pandemic, this has also been an exceptionally difficult time for businesses. Many businesses have shown an incredible ability to adapt and innovate, and have played a key role in tackling the pandemic. Even so, some employers may need to make difficult decisions, in order to avoid redundancies and to ensure their business can survive and succeed. In those circumstances, employers and employees should always aim to reach negotiated agreements about terms and conditions of employment and exhaust every avenue to achieve this. But the reality is that sometimes, regrettably, negotiations will fail. In these circumstances, employers may need to dismiss staff, and potentially re-engage them. Therefore, any potential reform must be balanced against the possibility of the remedy creating a worse problem than the one it is intended to address: we must be careful not to introduce measures that inadvertently run the risk of businesses going bust, and thus more people losing their jobs.

However, having carefully considered the report, the Government want to send a clear message to employers: even if your business is facing acute challenges, all other options to save jobs and a business should be exhausted before considering the dismissal and re-engagement of staff. I believe that we can achieve this working in partnership with businesses and workers, without heavy-handed legislation.

This House should be left in no doubt that this Government will always continue to stand behind workers and stamp out unscrupulous practices where they occur. That is why today I am also confirming the next steps we will be taking to modernise our labour market enforcement regime. In 2019, the Government published a consultation that set out the benefits of bringing together our three existing labour market enforcement bodies into a single organisation. Today, the Government have published their formal response to that consultation. This new single enforcement body will help the country build back better by taking a smarter approach to the enforcement of employment law. It will make it easier for the vast majority of responsible businesses to comply with the rules. It will ensure a level playing field, through effective enforcement against those who cut corners and exploit workers. Today’s Government response sets out the overarching details of the new body: responsibility for tackling modern slavery, enforcing the minimum and living wages and protecting agency workers will be brought under one roof, creating a comprehensive new authority.

The new body will go further than current enforcement, enforcing holiday pay for the most vulnerable workers, as well as statutory sick pay. It will regulate umbrella companies, enforce financial penalties against organisations that do not meet requirements to publish modern slavery statements, and run the unpaid tribunal awards penalty scheme.

Protecting workers requires support for businesses, too, so that employers understand how to comply with the rules. This is in addition to effective, visible enforcement action to deter irresponsible employers. The body will have a spectrum of powers and responsibilities to achieve that, including the ability to issue guidance and compliance notices and levy civil penalties for certain offences, and the power to prosecute the most exploitative employers.

Protecting workers is not just about support for business and effective state enforcement. Trade unions have an essential role in the workplace; I know from my regular close engagement with unions how important their work is. Today, the Government have published our plans to modernise the regulation of trade unions, bringing the certification officer in line with other regulators. These reforms will implement technical measures passed by Parliament via the Trade Union Act 2016, providing reassurance to union members and the wider public.

We are confirming three changes related to the certification officer today. First, we are extending the certification officer’s powers to enable her to proactively investigate when a third party raises concerns that a union or employers association may have breached its statutory duties; we will also expand the powers available to her to conduct those investigations. Secondly, we will give the certification officer the power to apply financial penalties to unions or employers associations where the most serious breaches are found to have occurred. The sanctions will be targeted only at the small minority of unions that breach their statutory requirements and obligations. Thirdly, we will move the certification to a levy funding model, which will bring the certification officer in line with other regulators such as the Pensions Regulator and the Financial Reporting Council. Proper and fair regulation will ensure that all trade unions and employers associations conduct themselves to the highest standards.

The United Kingdom has one of the best records on workers’ rights in the world, going further than the EU in many areas, and we are determined to build on that record. By modernising our labour market enforcement regime, protecting workers more extensively, supporting businesses to comply with the law and preventing them from being undercut by a minority of irresponsible employers, we can continue to be a high-wage, high-employment economy that works for everyone as we build back better.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The Government have overseen a crisis of insecurity and a lack of protections at work, and the proposals announced today will do little to address it. There is no plan to legislate for a single enforcement body, so can the Minister explain how and when that will happen, given that the long-promised employment Bill has been ditched?

There is no new money in this announcement. We had a decade of cuts and underfunding that left us woefully unprepared when the pandemic hit. In the past year, just one workplace in 171 has had a safety or workers’ rights inspection, and not a single employer has been prosecuted and fined for putting workers or the public at risk of contracting covid-19. A staggering 2 million people are paid below the national minimum wage, yet there are currently just 18 employment agency standards inspectors responsible for inspecting 40,000 employment agencies.

Without new funding, the Minister is simply proposing to merge several under-resourced agencies into a single under- resourced agency. The hollowness of the Government’s commitment is underlined by the fact that the post of director of labour market enforcement has been left vacant for the past six months. However, the most glaring omission in this plan is that many of the most exploitative employment practices are perfectly legal.

Bogus self-employment denies millions of workers in the gig economy basic rights and protections, including the national minimum wage, rest breaks and health and safety protections. For those workers it is not a matter of enforcement, because they do not have rights to enforce. They have been totally abandoned by the Government. Will the Minister commit to giving all workers full employment rights to ensure that everyone has dignity and security at work?

On fire and rehire, the Minister says:

“This Government have always been clear that we do not accept fire and rehire as a negotiation tactic.”

These are empty words. The only clear message would be to outlaw the practice. The Government have hidden behind the ACAS report since February, using it as an excuse to do nothing. Today’s announcement that ACAS will be asked to produce further guidance kicks the can down the road yet again. Almost 3 million people—one in 10—have been subjected to fire and rehire since last March.

Allowing working people to be bullied on to lower wages and worse terms and conditions is both morally wrong and economically illiterate. The Government claim to oppose fire and rehire while encouraging it through their inaction because they believe that this one-sided flexibility is good for the economy. How many more millions of workers is the Minister prepared to allow to be fired and rehired before he acts to outlaw the practice?

The proposal to give the certification officer powers to commission investigations and fine trade unions even when there has been no complaint from a member, funded by a levy on trade unions, is an ideological attack on working people. The Minister is proposing to solve a problem that does not exist. The certification officer had a tiny number of cases last year resulting in just one enforcement order. This means that unions will face financial burdens at times when their members are facing hardship, diverting time and resources away from protecting working people to deal with spurious complaints initiated by groups like the TaxPayers’ Alliance rather than fighting for members. If the Minister is genuinely concerned about law-breaking, I suggest he looks closer to home. Staff in his Department are balloting for strike action because of repeated breaches of employment law, including unlawful deductions of wages that force staff to rely on food banks, as well as breaching the working time directive and repeated breaches of Health and Safety Executive covid guidelines.

Trade unions are the best mechanism for protecting workers’ rights, yet the Minister wants to tip the balance of power even further away from them. Compare and contrast this with Joe Biden, who is unshackling and empowering trade unions to rejuvenate the American economy and raise living standards. This Government want to hobble trade unions. The Minister has committed his Government to

“do whatever we can to protect and enhance workers’ rights.”

There is a chasm between the reality and the rhetoric. This is another deceit on working people, but I have news for the Minister: he is fooling nobody.

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman talks about enforcement issues and funding. We have more than doubled the budget for minimum wage enforcement and compliance, which is now over £27 million annually, up from £13.2 million in 2015. There are more than 400 HMRC staff involved in enforcement of the minimum wage. We concluded over 2,700 investigations on the minimum wage and returned more than £16.7 million in arrears to over 155,000 workers. We are determined that people should get a fair wage for a fair day’s work. As we build back better, we will build back fairer, and it will not be on the backs of the lowest paid. That is why we will continue to increase the national minimum wage and the national living wage and also to enforce action on transgressions in that area.

On the Health and Safety Executive and what has happened with covid, the HSE has received £14.4 million in extra funding and has conducted 274,000 spot checks in the past year.

Worker status is clearly complicated when we have three issues of the worker, the employer and the self-employed, but that allows us to have a flexible, dynamic labour market that enabled us, after the last recession, to build back better by delivering more jobs than the rest of the EU put together.

On fire and rehire, we hear a lot in this place about a binary choice, but in reality the situation is far more complicated. As we build back better, we want to make sure that we can protect people’s jobs as well as their working conditions. That is why we have to get that balance right. Only we on the Government Benches will deal with the economy and with businesses, but most importantly with workers who are subject to transgression of their workers’ rights by irresponsible employers, yet not just painting all employers with the same brush.

The hon. Gentleman talked about changes to the certification officer’s duties being ideological. Actually, it is adhering to the law, as it is what we said we would do in the Trade Union Act. All we are doing is implementing what was debated properly and agreed in this place under that Act.

We will protect workers’ rights, protect jobs, and create more jobs, and it will be through a flexible, dynamic labour market, getting that balance right. Rather than just having a 1970s-style binary debate, we want to work for 21st-century working conditions.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his statement. Many of my constituents work at Manchester airport and will welcome action to address fire and rehire in the aviation sector. A single body for employment rights is also welcome, but I would encourage the Government to go further and establish a single body for whistleblowers to ensure that they are protected from retaliation and blacklisting and that their concerns are properly investigated. Unfortunately, the current legal framework does not tackle these issues, and the recourse for whistleblowers is the heavily backlogged employment tribunal system, where the average wait for whistleblowing cases is more than two years and the success rate is low. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree with me that it is time for an office of the whistleblower to uphold the right to speak up and strengthen these employment rights even further?

[Paul Scully]

I am glad that my hon. Friend had the opportunity to meet the Secretary of State recently, and we continue to want to work closely with her and other colleagues on this basis, including my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who also raises the issue on a regular basis with great knowledge from his constituents. We do recognise how valuable it is that whistleblowers are prepared to shine a light on wrongdoing and believe that they should be able to do so without fear of recriminations. It is right and proper that we review the whistleblowing framework, and we will do that once we have sufficient time to build the necessary evidence of the impact of the most recent reforms, so we will consider the scope and timing of a review.

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) [V]]

I thank the Minister for his statement. I know that, across the House, we recognise that strong employment legislation, regulation and guidance help the businesses that respect such standards be more successful, attract more talented and skilled people, and build better teams than those enterprises that play fast and loose with their own employees’ rights.

While the Minister has outlined a number of measures today, with all these things the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Will the Minister commit to working across the Chamber, with trade unions and employers to ensure that the highest employment law expectations are maintained and enhanced, and the experience of the employee is exactly what it says on the tin when it comes to fair and just working practices? Hon. Members’ casework inboxes are already too full of such cases, and if the Minister were to commit to an annual review of the measures in his statement today, that would help ensure that we were getting this right and protecting workers across the four nations of the UK.

Finally, on fire and rehire, I cannot speak on this subject without praising the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), and his dogged determination in supporting this campaign and his desire to seek fairness for thousands of employees who have been caught in the sordid, pathetic practice applied by unscrupulous employers. Today was the Government’s chance to right a wrong—a chance to end fire and rehire for good. The question is: why has the Minister not taken that chance to put fire and rehire out of its misery and protect thousands of hard-working people across the four nations?

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Clearly, as I have said, we do not want to go back to the 1970s binary view of workers’ relations. What we want is a 21st-century view, so of course we will continue to look at and review the impact of legislation, guidance and our work on workers’ rights to check that it is working for a 21st-century economy. We will continue to do that, and we will continue to work with colleagues from either side of the Chamber to hear about constituents’ casework. On fire and rehire, as I have said, nothing is off the table. We are charging ACAS with strengthening the guidance in this area to inform responsible employers how to conduct themselves in this area, but as I say, nothing is off the table.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

Can I say to the Minister that I am slightly confused by the statement today? He says that the Government say fire and higher is wrong, yet did nothing to intervene to stop its being used inappropriately. He tells us that the single enforcement body will be introduced, which I welcome, but that requires legislation that is not lined up in the Queen’s Speech. This is merely a statement of intent, not a statement of action—a statement of all bark and no bite—so let me ask the Minister: by the end of this year, what will have actually changed?

[Paul Scully]

In terms of fire and rehire, that guidance will be there. As I have said, fire and rehire in itself is not a binary view. Clearly we need a dynamic labour market. We need to protect businesses from making redundancies and losing those jobs, and we need to save businesses. That is why we are progressing along the way by charging ACAS with strengthening the guidance in this area. We will be working throughout the next few months to make sure, when we have parliamentary time to bring the employment Bill through and create the single employment body, that the guidance will be there and the prep work will have been done.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The best form of employment protection is a thriving entrepreneurial business sector open to innovation and creativity. The Minister has already outlined that the UK has an enviable flexible labour market with the highest participation rate of people in work, the highest levels of employment we have seen for many years, the fastest ever increases in the minimum wage and the highest take for the minimum wage as a proportion of average earnings. Rather than going back to the ideological arguments of the Opposition, will my hon. Friend join me in praising the Biggleswade branch of the Department for Work and Pensions, which I was in a conversation with today? It is embarking on promoting the kickstart programme to get more people into work, particularly young people.

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend speaks in his usual eloquent way, talking up the dynamic, flexible economy that makes the UK fantastic and the envy of the world in terms not only of its workers’ rights but its flexibility, which is why we are attracting so much inward investment. I am glad to hear about the Biggleswade jobcentre promoting the kickstart scheme, because it is such initiatives and the extra money we are giving to employers to take on more apprentices that will create levelling-up potential and give people opportunity.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]]

I was pleased to hear in the Minister’s statement that he accepts there is still some way to go in securing workers’ rights, particularly for those who are most vulnerable. I am surprised he has not concluded that further legislation is required. If the solution is for the new body that replaces these three existing bodies to go further and do more to enhance and strengthen workers’ rights, there must surely be extra funding available to enable it to fulfil its responsibilities. Can the Minister confirm that?

[Paul Scully]

We have a good history of increasing the funding for enforcement measures, as I have already outlined. Indeed, the single enforcement body, when we are able to introduce it through legislation, will have sufficient funding not only to do its work, but to transition from those three bodies into one.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s statement, because a strong economy utilises all the talents of its workforce. Despite some very strong laws, one in four pregnant women or women on maternity leave experienced discrimination during the pandemic. The Minister knows that every year more than 50,000 pregnant women feel that they have no option but to leave their jobs because they are pregnant. Can he confirm that the new enforcement body will be looking specifically at enforcing pregnant women’s rights at work and outlawing the use of non-disclosure agreements to cover up illegal employment rights abuses?

[Paul Scully]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that she continues to do in this area. The law is absolutely clear that discrimination in the workplace is unlawful, with clear regulations in place that every employer must follow. The pandemic has not changed any of that. There is no place for that under any circumstances. We believe that the most appropriate way forward for pregnant women and new mothers is to extend the existing framework of protections set out under regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999. We will do that by extending redundancy protections for six months for mothers returning to work and ensuring that pregnant women also benefit from these additional protections. We will bring these forward as part of the employment Bill, which will also be the vehicle that will bring the single enforcement body together.

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

May I start by saying that I very much look forward to supporting the fire and rehire Bill of the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), now that my own Bill has fallen? After months of warm words for the victims of fire and rehire from the Prime Minister through to the Minister, is this it? What do we have? Guidance that amounts to nothing more than utterly shameful lip service. The statement states:

“It is unacceptable and, frankly, immoral to use the threat of fire and rehire as a negotiating tactic to force through changes to people’s employment contracts”.

I agree, so can the Minister tell us whether employers will still legally be allowed to do so: yes or no?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I have talked about the fact that fire and rehire should not be used as a bully-boy tactic, but the hon. Gentleman talks about it as if it binary. Can he define exactly what it is? Some of the examples I have heard about over the past year would be considered traditional fire and rehire and would be the subject of this debate, while others have drifted into other areas of employment law.

We need to make sure we can continue the flexibility for employers so that they do not have to make redundancies in the first place, because clearly what would affect those employees badly is not having a job. That is why we need flexibility and dynamism, and we must have measures in place to ensure that responsible employers stick to their responsibilities for the lowest paid.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]]

That is possibly one of the most mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed, ineffectual statements that I have ever heard in this House. It is a betrayal of working people. Fire and rehire commenced in my constituency with companies such as British Airways and Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd, and it spread like a pandemic, harming my constituents. It is galling that these companies have been receiving taxpayer support through furlough, grants, loans and tax reliefs. We need legislation, not guidance that can be ignored. If the Government are to go down the guidance route, will the Minister confirm that they will insist that no grant, loan or tax relief—no taxpayer support—will go to companies that do not abide by this guidance?

[Paul Scully]

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not at the Dispatch Box talking about mealy-mouthed statements while throwing Chairman Mao’s little red book at me as I talk about supporting business and workers. We will strengthen the guidance. Nothing is off the table. We will clearly see what is going on. We will work with ACAS and colleagues to see how this lands and look at what happens with irresponsible employers. It should not be used as a bully-boy tactic. It is right that we have wrapped our arms around the economy with £407 billion-worth of fiscal and financial support. We now have 407 billion reasons to shape the economy, allow these businesses to survive, protect jobs and create new jobs so that we can build back better.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

Today’s statement will be welcomed across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. I think of great employers such as Churchill China, whose chief executive officer David O’Connor started on the shop floor and worked his way up. That employer invested in the company and its workers, and workers’ rights gave him the opportunity to go from firing a kiln all the way to running a multimillion-pound business. As a former trade union rep, I find it confusing that the Opposition bemoan the fact that trade unions should have to pay a levy, rather than UK taxpayers. I assume that is because they are worried that there will be less money in the Labour party coffers. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no reason why trade unions should not pay their own way? Holding trade unions to account, just like holding business to account, is perfectly acceptable.

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We will not have shouting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

It is great to hear that example of my hon. Friend’s constituent, because that is exactly the kind of flexible, dynamic economy that we are talking about. Someone can come from the shop floor and go right the way to the top of their business. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as was said in the debate on the Trade Union Act 2016, that unions can now be held to account, alongside other regulators. There are strictures looking at unions to make sure they do a good job for their members.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]]

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lefarydd. Today’s smoke-and-mirrors announcement—rhetorical, rather than under- pinned by legislation—amplifies this Government’s ongoing failure to introduce a new employment Bill to protect workers’ rights. As we continue to struggle through the pandemic, one thing has become clear: the current approach to bereavement leave and miscarriage leave is insufficient and depends too much on the good will of the employer. Will the Government now consider making paid bereavement leave and paid miscarriage leave an employment right from day one?

[Paul Scully]

We will continue to work with the right hon. Lady and other colleagues to look at the various issues around neonatal leave and carer’s leave, for example. We have also introduced bereavement leave for newborn children and will look at what more we can do in the employment Bill. She talks about rushing towards legislation, but that should never be the first port of call. It is partnership with employers, employees and government that will ensure a flexible economy that works for everybody.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. One of the biggest issues in employment is people having a job in the first place. I am happy to go toe-to-toe any day on our party’s record in government against Labour’s record. Every time the Labour party has been in government, it has left unemployment higher than when it came in. We have had a great record since 2010 on job creation, and we have now created the conditions to bounce back really well, with great job numbers coming through following the covid pandemic. It is also great to see the Government looking properly at fire and rehire. However, one of the biggest issues for workers in my constituency is pensions. It is brilliant to see auto-enrolment come through, which is great for a lot of workers in the workforce, but will the Minister agree to meet me and look at extending that right to all workers over the age of 18? A lot of my constituents start work on the shop floor at 18, rather than after university at 22.

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he talks about a dynamic economy, which is why voters turned in their droves to him to represent them in this place, after decades of under-representation. I will gladly meet him to discuss auto-enrolment.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The irony that the Government are consulting on enforcement powers against trade unions but only on guidance for bad employers is not lost on me. Talking about bad employers, zero-hour contracts, unclear employment status and short-notice shift changes were all mentioned in the Taylor report given to the Government five years ago—no rushing into legislation there. When will the Government legislate on the Taylor report recommendations, or will it be left to other Members to bring forward legislation to address these bad employment practices?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the certification officer as if it were something new that has just been sprung on people, but clearly it is from the Trade Union Act 2016, so it has been five years, funnily enough. It is only just coming in now because we have tried to get the detail right. As for the legislation from the “Good Work” report that he talked about, the employment Bill will come to this place when parliamentary time allows.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Our business, energy and industrial sectors are pivotal to our economy. Does the Minister agree that the best way of safeguarding jobs and livelihoods for our fantastic workers is to comprehensively ease all covid restrictions in these sectors, and will he please lobby No. 10 to that effect?

[Paul Scully]

Nobody wants these restrictions to go on a single day longer than they need to. We are in the middle of a frustrating period, with the decision to be made on the 14th of this month. We are looking at the data, and every day that goes by gives us a richer set of data to make the best decision for businesses.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]]

The case won by the GMB trade union against Uber over the status of its drivers is immensely important, but why are the Government leaving it for these issues to be slugged out, employer by employer, worker group by worker group, in the courts? That is in nobody’s interests, so when will the Government finally bring forward the long-promised employment Bill, which is so urgently needed?

[Paul Scully]

The Uber judgment that the right hon. Gentleman talks about was a landmark judgment. It is important that we reflect on that, but it is important that Uber, primarily, reflects on that and makes sure that workers are getting their rights, because every worker is different. Indeed, Uber contracts have changed over the last few years, and other companies working in the gig economy have different contracts, so it is complicated, but that is the definition of flexibility and dynamism. None the less, he asked about the employment Bill, and as I have said, it will come forward when parliamentary time allows.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As a former employer, I absolutely support the Government’s approach to strengthening workers’ rights and stamping out bad practice. When it comes to enforcement, whistleblowers are far more effective at identifying inappropriate behaviour or practices than regulators are. Nevertheless, from a position where the UK used to lead in whistleblower legislation, it has now fallen behind. It is a key area that we could work on to improve the situation. Will my hon. Friend the Minister set out the approach that the Government will take to improve the legislation?

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s work in this area. I am looking forward to meeting him and his colleagues to discuss it further, to get his knowledge and the experience of his constituent, who has been put in an incredibly tough and invidious position. As I say, we will review the whistleblowing framework once we have had sufficient time to build the necessary evidence, which will include that conversation. We are considering the scope and timing of the review.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It would be helpful if we could go a little faster, because the House has a lot of business before it over the rest of the day.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]]

Polling for the GMB union found that 76% of the public want fire and rehire to be banned, including 71% of Conservative voters. If only unscrupulous employers use fire-and-rehire tactics, as the Minister said in a previous answer, a non-legislative solution will do absolutely nothing. How much more consensus is needed before the Minister acts to ban fire and rehire, rather than warm words that do nothing to protect workers in his constituency or mine?

[Paul Scully]

I have noticed that I can shrink my long list of responsibilities in the ministerial portfolio down to Minister for unintended consequences. I do not want to have a series of legislation, which is a blunt instrument, as if it is tackling a binary tool. That would have unintended consequences for people’s jobs and livelihoods. We want to have a flexible economy so that we get both right.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) [V]]

I welcome the way in which the Minister is today extending the rights of the most important asset of any business, which is people. I am sure he will agree how essential it is to ensure that flexibilities enable workers to work the hours that suit them best, while also allowing employers to respond to the changing demands of their customers.

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need flexibility in the workplace, including so-called zero-hours contracts, for example. We know that the majority of people who work on zero-hours contracts like the flexibility. However, we want to ensure that we can clamp down on things like exclusivity contracts, which is why we banned those. It is important to get the balance right.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

The Minister just said that the UK Government will do whatever is needed to enhance and protect workers’ rights, but all he is doing on fire and rehire is to provide more guidance. That is shameful—guidance is not what is needed. We needed to hear about legislation to stop fire and rehire, to outlaw pregnancy and maternity discrimination, and to give flexible-working rights from day one to protect precarious workers, but the UK Government will plainly not do what is needed on employment. Does the Minister appreciate that what is needed now is to devolve this to the Scottish Parliament so that it can do what is needed?

[Paul Scully]

If the hon. Lady reads the ACAS report, she will see that there is a divergence and a variety of opinions, as well as a wider evidence base about the extent of use and how that is used. That is why we are coming up with a proportionate response. Clearly, the other issues she raises will be in the employment Bill when parliamentary time allows.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

I know my hon. Friend understands that right hon. and hon. Members across the House want the UK to be on the front foot on workers’ rights after we leave the EU. Will he offer me a categorical assurance that that will be the case and that there will be no degradation in our world-leading protection?

[Paul Scully]

Yes, absolutely that is the case. We are determined to ensure that this is the best place not only to set up and have a business, but to work—for workers’ rights, high pay and a highly productive economy. That can only be done by valuing our people.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Government may talk about enhancing employment rights, but they never act and never legislate. Recently, workers in York were being forced on to new contracts until a joint intervention by Unite and me, as a Labour MP, stopped the firing and rehiring. I know it is embarrassing for the Minister to have to defend his Government’s empty promises, dither and delay, but to stop bad employers constantly undermining their workers, we need not more guidance, but legislation. Will he bring forward a Government Bill to end fire-and-rehire practices in this parliamentary Session, which should also insist that any changes to contractual terms are negotiated with workers and their trade unions?

[Paul Scully]

I have outlined what we are doing around fire and rehire. Extra and enhanced workers’ rights will come in the employment Bill. The workers the hon. Lady describes have recourse, through ACAS and employment tribunals, to take their employers to task.

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

I welcome today’s announcement. My hon. Friend is quite right to point out the nuance in fire and rehire. Speaking as an employment barrister, I stress that the issue that we lawyers have had is that the employer is required to show only that it is a genuine reason—in other words, low profitability. They are not required to show that they have exhausted every other option, and I welcome the fact that that is now a devolved function of ACAS. Will he consider putting the last resort clause into primary legislation—either the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the new Bill—to give employees rights to go to tribunal?

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend, as ever, for her considered response in this area, with the expertise that she brings to bear. Clearly, as I say, nothing is off the table. We are putting the guidance in place with ACAS, but we will look at more measures should we need to.

Green Homes Grant Voucher Scheme

Paul Scully Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. Rest assured that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) will have plenty more than two minutes to summarise the debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) on securing this debate on the future of the green homes grant scheme, which has been conducted in a conducive way despite concerns about the scheme.

It is really important that as we discuss the future of the green homes grant scheme, we also discuss the wider future of decarbonising our country’s 30 million buildings to meet our target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. As hon. Members know, the Government’s aim is to reduce emissions by 78% from 1990 levels, which is one of the most ambitious targets in the world and is supported by our sixth carbon budget, which limits the volume of greenhouse gases emitted over a five-year period from 2033 to 2037, taking the UK more than three quarters of the way towards reaching net zero by 2050.

The carbon budget will ensure that Britain remains on track to end its contribution to climate change while remaining consistent with the Paris agreement temperature goal to limit global warming to well below 2° C and pursue efforts towards 1.5° C. In the energy White Paper, as has been mentioned, we set out our ambition and approach to get as many homes as possible to energy performance certificate band C by 2035, which includes our aim to deploy 600,000 heat pumps a year by 2028. We need far more households to heat their homes without burning fossil fuels such as oil and gas.

My right hon. Friend talked about the EPC, which is a widely available, standardised means of assessing sustainability. We will not be getting rid of the EPC, but none the less we will continue to make improvements to its accuracy, as outlined in the action plan as a result of the consultation we have undertaken.

Other ways and means of tackling climate change are outlined in the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, which sets out how we will mobilise £12 billion of Government investment, and potentially three times as much from the private sector, by 2030. That will level up regions across the UK and support up to 90,000 highly skilled green jobs across the UK in this Parliament, and up to 250,000 by 2030. The UK is committed to taking advantage of the huge economic opportunities that the transition to a green economy offers, including large-scale job creation and even more jobs being supported in the green economy.

In addition, as we have heard, 2021 is one of the most important years for global Britain as we host the G7 presidency and the UN climate change conference, COP26, in Glasgow in November. We know that the world is watching as we lead the way in reducing carbon emissions from homes, businesses and public sector buildings.

I welcome the news from my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) about his pre-COP26 conference in his constituency. It is excellent that as well as doing the countrywide conference that brings global attention to the UK, and Glasgow in particular, we all do our bit as champions within our constituencies. I congratulate him on that.

We are making excellent progress across much of that investment; substantial sums have already been spent on schools, hospitals and social housing as well as in privately owned or rented homes, particularly in partnership with local authorities. Just one part of that is the green homes grant voucher scheme, which was launched to help householders offset the cost of installing energy efficiency measures in their homes. Despite the fact that the scheme received many applications, as we heard, it did not deliver at the rate and scale that we originally hoped. As a result of that, and because the Government remain committed to reaching our ambitious goals by 2050, we had to look again at how best to support householders in decarbonising their homes at a rapid pace. We took stock and considered our approach. We reviewed our options and made a decision to close the voucher scheme, which ceased taking new applications at 5pm on 31 March.

As we have heard, the Government have already issued more than 62,000 vouchers, worth more than £262 million, and we continue to process more each and every day. No one who made a valid application by that closing date will miss out, but clearly, as we have heard, that does not mean that our work is finished. We are now refocusing our efforts and substantial funding on alternative approaches.

The Government will of course reflect on the lessons learnt from the closure of the green homes grant voucher scheme. In response to the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), we will learn those lessons, but our ambition is not diminished and we will very much listen to everyone who will be involved with us in the collective drive towards net zero, especially on decarbonising homes, which is so important. Other elements of the work on decarbonising homes have seen great successes. The local authority delivery element of the green homes grant scheme, for example, aims to support measures such as insulation and low-carbon heating. Of around 50,000 low-income households, both privately owned and rented, it is important, as we have heard, to make sure that we can address and support the people who cannot otherwise go about this very easily.

To date, the scheme has allocated £500 million of funding across the English regions. That investment is already being felt in constituencies across the country. For example, Bristol City Council has been awarded £2.6 million to retrofit 275 homes, reducing energy bills and creating warmer homes for low-income households. That project plans to install solar and solar thermal panels and underfloor insulation to keep residents warm through the winter months. The scheme, alongside the social housing decarbonisation fund, has now seen the Government commit an additional £300 million to green homes upgrades. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) talked about “only” £300 million, but we cannot dismiss telephone number figures of investment. I think that in most contexts many people in this country would look askance at “only” alongside £300 million.

Such investment means that for the financial year 2021-22 we are investing more than £1.3 billion for energy efficiency and low-carbon heating up and down the country. That not only ensures that we continue to cut carbon, but supports tens of thousands of jobs across the country and reduces heating costs for those most in need, helping to build back greener and level up in one go.

I was pleased to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) about the work that he is doing on sustainable materials. Yes, we can decarbonise homes and have retrofitting, but it is important that we plan for the future. We are embedding new practices with new materials, or newly purposed materials, because wood is hardly a new material, but it is very sustainable if we get it right. My hon. Friend’s contribution is important to our thinking and to our drive to net zero, so I thank him and congratulate him on his work.

As the world looks to recover from the impact of coronavirus on our livelihoods and our economy, we have the chance to build back better and invest in making the UK a global leader in green technologies. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow once again for securing this debate. I appreciate all the comments that have been made, and we are listening. My colleagues, the Energy Minister and other Government Members, will reflect on the words said today as we redouble our efforts to make sure, as I have said, that we keep to our ambition as we drive to net zero by 2050.

Financial Assistance to Industry

Paul Scully Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the motion, That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, compensation to Business Schools in respect of a proportion of the indirect costs of funding the Help to Grow Management programme up to a limit of £220 million over three years.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.

The UK has a long-standing productivity challenge. We are home to some of the world’s most innovative firms, but we also have a long tail of less productive firms compared with other G7 countries. In 2017, the Office for National Statistics estimated that labour productivity was on average 18% higher in the other six members of the G7. To put that in context, increasing the productivity of UK small and medium-sized enterprises to match that of those of Germany could add up to £100 billion per annum to the economy. There is strong evidence that the adoption of formal management practices and of technology are key drivers of firm-level productivity.

The new Help to Grow Management programme announced at the Budget will tackle those issues head on by supporting 30,000 small and medium-sized businesses across the UK to learn new skills, reach new customers, and boost their productivity and international competitiveness. The Help to Grow Management programme is a new mini MBA-style programme that is aimed at senior executives. Launching in June, it aims to support 30,000 SME business leaders over the next three years. The 12-week course, which will be delivered by the UK’s leading business schools, is designed to be manageable alongside full-time work. It will combine a practical curriculum with one-to-one mentoring from a business expert, peer learning sessions that give businesses the opportunity to learn from one another and ongoing support from an alumni community.

By the end of the programme, participants will develop a tailored business plan to lead their business to its full potential. Around 9,000 businesses have already expressed an interest in participating in the programme. Businesses can register their interest at www.gov.uk/helptogrow. Applications have already opened for the first cohort, beginning at the end of June, and businesses and social enterprises from across all sectors are welcome to apply. The programme is open to senior leaders and directors of businesses with between five and 249 employees that have been trading for over a year.

The programme will be delivered by leading small businesses, and business and enterprise experts from the UK’s leading business schools, with the support of leading figures from industry and experienced entrepreneurs. Participating business schools will have been accredited by Small Business Charter, an award that recognises high-quality, tailored guidance to support small businesses and their local economies. That approach brings a huge amount of expertise and experience to the scheme to ensure its success. There are currently 33 business schools with SBC accreditation, and a further 33 schools are expected to seek accreditation.

We recognise the challenge of reaching 30,000 SMEs over three years. I am pleased that we have the support of many business organisations, including the CBI and the Institute of Directors, which will help us to reach their members.

The programme has been developed with the support of an expert advisory council of senior business leaders who are helping to shape the approach and to design the curriculum. They will act as advocates of the programme. The council includes the CBI president, Lord Karan Bilimoria, the NatWest CEO, Alison Rose, and the managing director of Goldman Sachs, Charlotte Keenan. The council provides expert insight to ensure that the programme is practical and relevant to the needs of small businesses.

Help to Grow Management is an ambitious programme. We are confident that it will provide significant benefits to small and medium-sized businesses, helping them to seize every opportunity to grow. The initiative is an important component of the Government’s plan for jobs that will promote opportunity, boost employment and help to level up the economy as businesses recover from the economic impacts of the pandemic. The Government have worked at pace to provide an unprecedented and comprehensive package of support to help as many individuals and businesses as possible. During this challenging period, we have provided access to over £74 billion through the coronavirus loan schemes. I commend the motion to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. I know that there will be plenty of opportunities for she and I to discuss this and many other issues in the time to come. I also send my best regards to her predecessor, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), with whom I had fruitful debates, often in this very room. The hon. Lady and I will get to know each other and Committee Room 10 quite well in the coming months.

This is not considered to be a coronavirus-related measure. It looks at the wider aspect of productivity under the Act. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s question in that regard. The course is 32 hours of formal training, to be delivered over three months, accompanied by peer learning and one-to-one mentoring, and participants will also be able to join an alumni community. I therefore believe that the course offers value for money for the recipient, who will be asked to pay 10%—£750—as a joining fee. Equivalent executive education programmes can cost up to £10,000 per participant.

[Seema Malhotra]

The 32 hours has been published in the description of the programme, but there are also other taught hours, perhaps for case studies. I was just trying to understand what the full expectation would be of tuition hours—where an academic or speaker will be involved in delivering some of that tuition, whether in groups or lectures. Secondly, to clarify, I understand that the Minister is saying that the course offers value for money, but an exercise must have been carried out to come to the costing of £7,500. If he does not have that information, I would be grateful if he could write to me with it. It is quite significant in terms of ensuring that we are delivering value for money for the taxpayer, as well as value for the small businesses that need the support.

[Paul Scully]

Indeed, and if there is anything that I do not cover today, I am happy to follow up on it. As I say, we have worked with business schools across the country; 33 are accredited at the moment and another 33 are seeking accreditation. By the end of that, we will have quite an extensive list—well beyond the existing cohort—that will be able to provide coverage across the country.

[Seema Malhotra]

I am grateful for the Minister’s generosity in giving way. A number of business schools contacted me because they were not clear about this. Is the expectation that other business schools may be able to participate in the programme if they feel that they have either the resources or the opportunity to do so? That might be in parts of the country where there do not seem to be as many courses advertised at the moment, because I have been looking at the regional advertising of what is available. Will it be the case that other business schools could participate, but they would have to become accredited to do so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I can give the hon. Lady an absolute yes. We are encouraging more business schools to apply to the Chartered Association of Business Schools for accreditation to the SBC, and CABS will seek to complete that accreditation process within two months. As soon as schools gain accreditation, they will be able to deliver the programme. We want to ensure that there is a clear framework. I know that there are plenty of excellent business schools up and down the country, but we want to ensure that we can work within that framework to achieve the value for money that the hon. Lady rightly asks about, and to ensure that we have a consistent approach across the country.

The best description that I have heard of levelling up is that potential is equally distributed across the country, but opportunity is not, so we need to try to tackle that. Similarly, on business advice, we said in our manifesto, which we are trying to deliver, that the UK should be the best place to start, grow and scale a business, but we want to go further. I have seen this myself with my own business, and certainly in the last year working up and down the country. I want to ensure that we have a degree of consistency so that no matter where someone is in the UK, that should be the best place to start, grow and scale a business. That involves access to finance, mentoring, peer-to-peer networking and infrastructure, and this programme plays a major role within that.

The hon. Lady raised a really good point about not only geographical differences, but differences among the people whom the approach might benefit. We are working through our communications plan to ensure that we can get this out. We are converting registrations of interest into actual places and, similarly, making more registrations of interest available. What I am more interested in is the kind of businesses that we can speak to. Exactly as she said, it is female entrepreneurs, ethnic minority-led businesses and young people, whom I speak about and listen to on a regular basis.

The themes tend to be the same regarding what the barriers are for those businesses, but the answers are very different. With a tailored programme of work such as this, we can start to tackle that. However, we need to make sure that we do not go solely through the same people—the CBIs and the Institutes of Directors. Someone with an informal network will not necessarily be aware of those institutions or feel that they can engage clearly with them. What more can we do? I am always keen to hear more about how to reach those groups.

When we were handing out the first grants for retail, hospitality and leisure small businesses in the early stages of the pandemic—it was seemingly one of the easiest areas of support, because we knew exactly who qualified—we were still struggling with the relationship between the local authority and those businesses, because we did not have bank account details. Why? The businesses did not have a close transactional relationship with their local authority, so we had to do quite a lot of outreach through accountants, intermediaries and the local media in order to access the people who were running businesses based, as I say, on their informal networks. I am really keen to see what more we can do to drill down, because they are the people for whom this scheme will have the biggest effect.

The hon. Lady rightly talks about how we measure this. Frankly, there is little point in our subsidising someone who would pay the full £10,000 to go on a course over someone who perhaps could not afford it, would not be aware of it or would not think it was for them, although it actually would be very much for them. We ask for £750 because, frankly, if someone has a stake a scheme, they tend to get more out of it in the first place. I am really keen that we do more about finding those hard-to-reach people, and we will direct the funding more at places where productivity is lowest geographically. That is really important in the work that we are doing.

[Seema Malhotra]

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that that is indeed a priority for the Government. It is important for the House to be kept updated, because we want this to be successful. If places are not being reached, it will show in the numbers of those registering interest and the regions in which people are registering interest. I hope the Minister will keep the House updated on the numbers, including by region.

May I probe the Minister on one point? He rightly talked about consistency, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the idea that we want to make sure that the programme has the same quality, standard and consistency across the country, but will he respond to my point about whether a proportion of the curriculum could be more tailored? For example, it is English Tourism Week. We know that the tourism sector has been very hard hit—

[Seema Malhotra]

I would be grateful if the Minister could consider whether that could be part of the way in which the programme is refined.

[Paul Scully]

The programme is sector-agnostic, but the peer networking within it means that there can be a certain degree of tailoring towards a particular business leader’s business or sector. Clearly, the alumni aspect, as it develops and expands, will be really productive. I know from courses that I have done in the past—in politics and in the business world—that such learning is often the most beneficial to business leaders.

The hon. Lady asked about charities. Unfortunately, the programme is not available to charities. It is a business-led programme, based on business productivity, but social enterprises clearly are well within the remit, so we want to make sure that we can deliver on that.

[Seema Malhotra]

I also asked why the programme is not available to charities, which I do not think the Minister has fully answered. If that is the case, what is the alternative? Leadership, management and innovation capability within the charity sector is also extremely important as such organisations play an enormous role in our local economies and are great employers.

[Paul Scully]

Charities are indeed great employers. Many of them do fantastic work, and there are always interesting things that we can do to support charities. This scheme answers a particular question. It is an outcome-driven thing: how do we increase productivity? It is especially aimed at businesses and social enterprises that have that sort of outlook, and that is the outcome that we are after. The hon. Lady asked how we will measure that, which is a really important point. On all of the productivity measurements that we already do, we want to make sure that we can see a company’s turnover and the prospects improving. The measurements that we want to make will be covered.

We need to drill down further into how we measure overall outcome, and therefore how we report it. The hon. Lady will undoubtedly ask questions, and rightly so. The easiest thing in the world would be to just give this to a young hotshot whose business is expanding anyway. We want to make sure that we can find the hard-to-reach people and increase their productivity, because that will be of use to the levelling-up agenda, and productivity will help the prosperity of communities as well as businesses. Businesses can be a force for good for not just UK plc, but communities, cities and towns.

The hon. Lady asked about the curriculum. As I have said, the curriculum has been run through business support specialists, including existing courses such as the Goldman Sachs 10,000 and formal learning at business schools, as well as other organisations that run their own schemes. We want to make sure that we learn from the best and get the best in. That means not only doing these informal comms, but working through banks, accountants and intermediaries. Every business has an accounts package such as Sage, Intuit and Xero. Small businesses know that they can work through these areas, and I am keen to make sure that we work with them to get to the harder-to-reach businesses, because we continue to be a champion of the needs of business and industry. That is why we have published “Build Back Better: our plan for growth”.

The supporting strategies will put the UK at the forefront of opportunities and give businesses the confidence to invest, boosting productivity across the UK and enabling our green industrial revolution, which is so important. “Build Back Better” can mean a wide number of things to a wide number of people. Building back better will not only increase productivity, but will build back fairer so that people working in such organisations can feel that they have productive jobs and careers.

[Seema Malhotra]

The Minister is right about building back better, fairer and greener. We need to make sure that businesses are supported in the growth sectors that might be coming, particularly around the decarbonisation of our economy. I hope that there will be a connection, when future growth is planned within the industrial strategy, to help to support businesses to take advantage of some of those opportunities, too.

I am aware of the Goldman Sachs programme. Indeed, that has seen considerable success. There will be other initiatives that are important to learn from regarding how grassroots businesses have been supported to grow. Have the Government learned from other programmes in the development of the scheme and its curriculum?

[Paul Scully]

I used that as an example, but we have been working with business schools and the schemes that I have dealt with over the last year. In my 14 months as a Minister, I have spoken to about 5,000 or 6,000 businesses. A lot of those have gone through various schemes such Goldman Sachs’s, and also Be the Business, which is a Government-sponsored organisation doing fantastic work up and down the country. We will continue to work and learn from them, but we do not want to replace what is already there. We want something that is additional, that adds value and a degree of consistency, and that allows Britain to be proud, and to be the best place to start to grow and scale up a business that will attract investment, increase productivity for the UK and help us to build back better. I commend the motion to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the motion, That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, compensation to Business Schools in respect of a proportion of the indirect costs of funding the Help to Grow Management Programme up to a limit of £220 million over three years.