Climate Change Assembly UK: The Path to Net Zero

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome Climate Assembly’s report and its 14 recommendations on aviation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said, this was a people’s assembly, not a politicians’ assembly. That is why its recommendations are so powerful.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the Chair and former Chair of the Transport Committee, on which I sit. As I sit on that Committee, and because I represent a constituency adjacent to Heathrow, I am particularly interested in the chapter on aviation.

The impact of covid, to return to the other key topic of the moment, has been devastating for my communities, affecting up to one household in three. We seek support from Government for aviation communities right now, but that support could go hand in hand with actions on the climate crisis. Air travel accounts for 22% of UK greenhouse gas emissions and 7% of total UK emissions. That proportion is growing.

Unlike countries such as France and Austria, the UK did not provide covid sector-specific support for aviation, so, to date, the Government have missed the chance to impose conditions, and therefore help to introduce changes, on climate emissions. Such conditions would have helped to support not only work to address our zero-emissions target, but aviation communities such as mine.

The Government should look at emissions from international aviation and shipping, and include those in the Climate Change Act 2008. The Climate Change Committee has also called for the Government to formally include those emissions, so doing so would really show the UK’s leadership on this issue, set a clear policy framework around emissions, and create a clear path to the future. It would also help to boost investment in carbon-saving technology in the aviation sector.

Mention has already been made of the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for the green industrial revolution, but I do not feel that this plan goes far enough. For instance, there has been mention of the Jet Zero Council, led by industry leaders, but to date industry on its own has missed targets, such as that to get 10% of fuels from sustainable fuel sources by 2020. With the scale of the crisis facing our planet, and with the rapid need to make urgent changes, we cannot afford to just create more grandiose councils: we need action and leadership from Government.

I will now address two specific aviation issues. On surface transport, we really need the Government to put their money where their mouth is on the western and southern rail links into Heathrow, to get more cars off the road and encourage sustainable transport. We need to require airports to take action on airside vehicles, from coaches, ramps and luggage transport to pushback tugs. In the air, of course, we need the Government to fund research into zero-emission planes, and also to level the price differentials between plane and train journeys to the same destinations.

In conclusion, I welcome the work the Government have done to support walking and cycling, which helps to cut our personal climate emissions, and look forward to hearing the Government’s response to the Climate Assembly recommendations on aviation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for the question. He will know that local consent and local support are absolutely key to the pot one auction, but he will also be aware that planning policy is a devolved matter in Scotland, and it is therefore for the Scottish Government to set up national planning policies and the approach to declining planning applications. He is well aware that this Government have been very focused on local consent right through this process.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I also concur with the remarks made about my friend and colleague Jo Cox. We remember her today and what she stood for. As a member of the Transport Committee, I stand by our description of British Airways as a “national disgrace” for the way it has effectively fired most of its staff and will rehire some of them on vastly cut pay and conditions. BA has done that under the cloak of the pandemic and gone way beyond any other major employer. The aviation sector will take longer to recover. When that does happen, I hope the Government will step in to support the sector. When they do so, will they ensure that employers cannot get away with the tactics of British Airways and also commit to delivering on climate change?

[Alok Sharma]

We appreciate that announcements about redundancies for British Airways staff have been incredibly distressing for the employees and their families. At the end of the day, the use of the Government’s job retention schemes is preferable to making redundancies. That is why we made them available. What I would say in this case is that it is a commercial decision. We expect British Airways and, indeed, all employers to treat employees fairly and in the spirit of partnership.

Post Office Network

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Marion Fellows]

I agree with my hon. Friend that that all matters. I am an old person—[Hon. Members: “No!”] I know everyone is shaking their head in amazement. I understand this issue. People who have been using those accounts should be able to continue to do so, and that seems to be happening. Those who are retiring later, thanks to other Government plans, should still be able to go into their post office and use it as others have been able to. Post offices are the focus and the heart of any town or small community, or anywhere rural.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

The hon. Member makes an important point about people who are not digitally enabled, particularly older or disabled people. Does she agree that the closure of post offices also disadvantages small business owners, who frequently use post offices to collect and post parcels, and that that affects local economies?

[Marion Fellows]

I absolutely agree. When the Crown post office in Motherwell closed, one of the biggest lobbying efforts I had was from small business owners who could nip into Motherwell town centre to deposit their cash. With the closure of different banks, they now struggle and have to find somewhere else. The Motherwell Crown post office became a small retail business with two counters instead of six. That post office used to have queues out of the door at certain times of the week, and the town centre benefited from people withdrawing and spending cash. That does not happen now, because although the post office does an excellent job—I have used it—it does not have the required capacity.

The CWU has raised the loss of service and expertise that can occur when post offices are taken over by chains such as WHSmith. The employees are TUPE-ed over, but within a year their pay is cut and they leave, so the business no longer has the expertise to help and serve communities when they need it.

The Minister has been taking note of all my asks, and I hope that she will respond positively. Rest assured that if she does not, I will be back, along with many of the hon. Members who are present. I look forward to yet another debate about post offices in the main Chamber on 19 March, thanks to the work of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices, of which I am a proud member.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I agree with the powerful opening remarks of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and thank her for securing the debate. Other hon. Members have made important points about the significance of post offices for local communities and town centres, which I will focus on.

A tsunami of post offices and post office counters were lost in my constituency after 2011. We then had 10 post office counters—no Crown post office—of which we have lost three in the three years since 2017. The most important served Brentford high street, where the community has doubled in the past 10 years, to roughly 10,000 to 15,000 households.

The post office counter was in a shop in the middle of the town centre, where many buses passed. It served a large population and a large number of small businesses. There was a one-year notice period during which everyone knew that the parade building in which the post office was situated had to be emptied because it was due for redevelopment, so the post office could not remain in the premises. The building has subsequently been demolished. It also happened that the postmaster decided that he did not want to carry on the business, which is an issue in itself.

The good news is that a couple of months from now—18 months after the post office counter closed, during which time we have had no service in the whole of Brentford—we will get a new counter at Costcutter on the high street. We will have had 18 months without a service that many people feel is vital. We could have avoided the gap, because the Post Office, the local authority, I as the MP and the local councillors knew that there was a need to find new premises and probably a new postmaster. The Post Office sought applications, but in the first round there were only two applicants from the many businesses and organisations in Brentford that could have opened a counter. Neither fitted the criteria, so there was another application round. I am not sure whether Costcutter tipped over the bar in that round and was accepted or whether there was a third round.

Why are people not applying for or retaining counters? As the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw and other hon. Members have mentioned, it is because the margins are so slim, the pay is too low, the requirements for only a qualified person to cover the post office counter make it restrictive in terms of leave and sickness, the increase in robberies and violence makes retail businesses physically risky, and the Horizon project has damaged the Post Office’s reputation. What is the Post Office doing about that? I understand that it has an element of a public sector duty as a fully Government-owned company that, as we all see, provides essential public services.

In my correspondence and meetings with the Post Office, frankly, I have found it very passive. I have received no coherent response from it or the former Minister—I have not had a chance to speak to the current Minister about it. From the response, it feels as though the Post Office is passive. A Post Office representative told me yesterday that, “If no one applies, what can we do about it?” That is not a proactive response from an important Government-overseen operation.

The Post Office access criteria require

“99% of the UK population to be within three miles of their nearest post office outlet”

and

“95% of the total urban population across the UK to be within one mile of their nearest post office outlet”,

but that does not make a lot of sense if the community, or the place that people can get to by bus, does not have a post office. There is a post office just over a mile from Brentford, but people cannot get there by bus and there is nowhere to park anywhere near it, because it is a tiny little shop. We should have one in Brentford town centre. The Post Office should recognise that. I have now been told that the Post Office has realised that Brentford is a priority and should have a main post office, but why did it not think Brentford was a priority two years ago, when we knew that there was going to be an issue?

I ask the Minister and the Post Office to work together to address the public sector duty and deliver a core service in all town centres, which we could define. We could use the PTAL—public transport accessibility level—grading used in planning to define the criteria for the quality of public transport access, parking and so on. We could also look at grants and the transaction costs.

The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw talked about business declining in the Post Office’s core services, which is true, because many people use services online that they used to go to the post office for, but where is the Post Office looking at new business nationally, such as basic banking and new opportunities? Where is the entrepreneurial spirit to combine the best of private sector entrepreneurialism and new technology with the public sector duty—in a sense, the Government-perceived monopoly for services?

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Member agree that part of the problem is that successive Governments have not looked at those issues? They seem to perceive the Post Office as a business of the ’90s and 2000s, rather than one for the current and future generations.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Member expresses exactly my feelings about dealing with the Post Office—it is passive; it is backward-looking; it is old-fashioned. There is an inherent benefit to post offices, both in terms of their brand reputation and the legal governance position.

The Post Office has a new chief executive, who has been in post for just six months. My understanding is that it will soon release a strategic review about its role. I am looking forward to hearing positive, forward-looking answers to my concerns, so that my constituency and my town centre, like so many other villages, town centres, suburbs and towns, is served properly by this important, Government-owned, public service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Solloway]

Apologies—that is one of the questions she was asking.

The hon. Lady asked about BEIS and Government oversight of the Post Office. BEIS has challenged the Post Office and, in fact, the new CEO and the chair personally to strengthen their relationship with postmasters and to take on board the lessons learned from the recent litigation. They have provided assurances that they will do so. BEIS has established, and chairs, a quarterly group with the National Federation of SubPostmasters and the Post Office.

The hon. Lady asked about Post Office card accounts. The POCA contract is a commercial matter for the Department for Work and Pensions and Post Office Ltd. It is no secret that the contract for the Post Office card account will come to an end on 30 November 2021, but the DWP is in the process of developing a replacement. The predecessor Minister with responsibility for small business, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), wrote to her ministerial colleagues in the DWP in full support of a full and open tender process to ensure the delivery of the best possible service to citizens and value for money.

I turn to franchising. There is a widespread misunderstanding that franchising is a closure programme, leading to redundancies and the deterioration of services for consumers, but that is not the case. I appreciate that the proposed changes to the delivery of post office services can cause concern in the communities affected, and that some constituents have a strong emotional attachment to directly managed branches and their staff. However, the franchising model has endured to this day, and the vast majority—more than 11,300 post offices—are successfully run on a franchise or agency basis with large and small retailers as part of a thriving business.

Since January 2020, the Post Office and Payzone network have become exclusive bill payment providers for British Gas, bringing more footfall for businesses and revenue for postmasters. Although it is important not to be complacent and to recognise the challenges ahead, I encourage Members to look closely and objectively at the facts, which show unequivocally that the network is more sustainable today than it was in 2010. All that has been achieved notwithstanding the challenging trading conditions in the Post Office’s core markets and the wider sector.

Delivering post office services as part of a wider retail offer is a proven model that brings benefits to the community, the local economy, postmasters, consumers and, ultimately, taxpayers. Let me reassure hon. Members that as part of its ongoing monitoring role, Citizens Advice will continue to track the impact of post office changes on consumers and customer satisfaction with franchised post offices. Citizens Advice also has a formal advisory role in reviewing changes to the Crown post offices across Great Britain that are relocated and franchised.

I note hon Members’ concerns about temporarily closed branches. Let me reassure the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw that Post Office Ltd is committed to maintaining the branch network, and there is no programme of closures.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Could the Minister could explain, now or subsequently, how the Government wish to retain the network? Our experience is that it is not being maintained.

Sale of New Petrol and Diesel Cars and Vans

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it, and I thank those hon. Members who have pushed for it. The Government have finally acknowledged that there is a climate crisis, but the 2050 net zero emission target and the ending of sales of fossil fuel vehicles in 2040 are too late. I support the movers of this debate in proposing to bring forward the date at which we stop selling new diesel and petrol cars to 2030. The shift does not just impact on our CO₂ emissions; many people across the country, including many in my constituency, are exposed to toxic air, and they want to see changes. Tens of thousands of people are dying from air pollution now, and the poorest people in society are being affected the most by air pollution.

Last week, I had the pleasure of joining the London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, in unveiling the Chiswick oasis, a 400-foot screen wall that protects St Mary’s Primary School and William Hogarth Primary School in Chiswick from the toxic air from the A4 next door. People from across the community came together and showed that they want to see action to stop the air pollution epidemic. Mayor Sadiq Khan has also introduced London’s ultra-low emission zone, which is set to reduce air pollution in central London by 45%, and his leadership in implementing low and zero emission bus fleets is already showing significant reductions in pollutants on roads such as Chiswick High Road.

We need to see national leadership now, however, and I come back to the type of fuels that cars, vans and other vehicles are using. We have to speed up the production and use of electric vehicles as a proportion of the fleet mix. We also have to help people to make changes to make this happen. Let us make it easier to scrap older and polluting cars through a Government-funded wide-scale scrappage scheme for polluting vehicles, to bring some income equality into the change that is needed, and let us have more electric car charging points. The Government provide some grants to plug-in vehicles and support for the roll-out of electric charging points based at home and at work, but for commercial vehicles—this debate is about vans as well as cars—and for users who are driving for most of the day, probably for work, fast charging points are essential.

Last month, research showed that there are just under 9,000 public charging points in the UK, of which only 1,500 are rapid charging points—those that can recharge a car battery to 80% in around half an hour. The roll-out of public and particularly rapid charge points needs to run ahead of the supply of new electric vehicles; otherwise, the demand for new electric vehicles will slow down. Overall, 29,000 charging points will be needed across Britain by 2030, of which about 85% will need to be either fast, 22 kW, chargers or rapid chargers, which are more than 43 kW. This will need Government help, such as grants to install rapid charge points, particularly in the less commercially viable places away from the town centres and major roads where there is a business case that is quite easy to prove for those schemes. We need schemes similar to the home charging and workplace schemes that are already in place for standard charging.

Tesla has raised a different concern with me: not a shortage of grants in this case, but our ancient common law. Tesla has a showroom in my constituency, and I was able to drive one of its cars to the West Drayton depot a few miles up the A4. I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle): yes, it was fun. Tesla is concerned because high-voltage cables will need to be installed for the rapid charging points, and our ancient wayleave laws make it difficult to run high-power cables across private land. The more landowners there are, the more complicated the process becomes. I am sure that the Government are addressing this.

Moving on, I share the note of caution mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who chairs the Transport Committee on which I serve. While the shift to electric vehicles will reduce our CO₂ emissions, she noted that it does not answer the problem. Some of the particulates that pollute our urban environment, such as those from brake linings and tyres, will still be present even with electric vehicles, so we do need to address that issue and put in more mitigation where we cannot get away from using vehicles.

I have concerns about the assumption that we are talking about a straight switch from one type of private car to another. We are still over-dependent on large, single-person metal boxes on wheels to get around. However private cars are powered, they still take up room, cause congestion, emit harmful particulates and are expensive to own. Car use among young people has been in decline over the past 20 years, and that is set to continue. Cars militate against using active forms of travel that keep us fitter and are cheaper. We could do so much more to reduce our dependence on private cars and vans to make our cities and towns more sustainable and pleasant places to live.

Urban areas have seen a bigger roll-out of battery-powered cargo bikes, which can move quite large loads around our cities and could be used much more with Government incentives. We need to get on low-emission buses and cycle and walk more, and the Government could do more to provide cheap and easy alternatives, particularly for sub-three-mile journeys. Buses play a key role in helping us to reduce our dependence on the private car, but as the Transport Committee has found, 3,000 bus routes have been axed since 2010 and subsidies have fallen by £20 million in the past year, following cuts to local government grants.

In London and other cities, many people want to cycle for short journeys, but we need dedicated cycle lanes, better cycling infrastructure, such as storage, and stronger laws to protect cyclists. The Government need to ramp up the amount of investment in cycling infrastructure.

Finally, by moving forward the deadline for net zero CO₂ emissions, we need to inject much-needed urgency into the policy. The clearest message that I have heard from the hundreds of people who have contacted me about climate change is that they want us to take urgent action. They do not want just more warm words; they want us to take the lead. Let us put the UK at the front of the global fight against climate change and air pollution by taking much bolder steps.

Community and Sub-Post Offices

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands]

I agree 100% with my hon. Friend that the entire exercise is, quite frankly, a piece of nonsense; she makes her point well.

The fees that banks pay to Post Office Ltd, which in turn compensates its sub-postmasters, to carry out this work have been ridiculously low––so much so that the majority of these transactions are actually carried out at a loss to the sub-post office. For example, for every £1,000 of cash accepted over the counter, Post Office Ltd is paid 24p. There is no differential between the commissions paid for coins and for notes, so in effect if the post office had to count 100,000 pennies, it would get to keep 24 of them as payment. To be clear, Post Office Ltd also pays a transaction fee, but the combined fees are insufficient to cover those costs. It is clear that the current deal is deeply unfair and unsustainable.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate to the House. Of course, there are issues in rural areas in Scotland, but we also have an issue in Brentford town centre—a small town centre in the suburbs of London. We have lost our sub-post office, which closed in the new year because the sub-postmaster did not want to keep it on. No one else could be found among any of the other businesses to run the sub-post office because, as he has just outlined, it is just not viable. Does he agree that the Government need to review their tapering down of the network subsidy payment, which was supposed to be what made sub-post offices viable? In Brentford’s case, it is clearly no longer viable.

[Gavin Newlands]

I totally agree. It is simply not viable to be a sub-postmaster at the moment.

Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018 Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 General Committees

[Justin Madders]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I am standing in for my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock), who has had a family bereavement. I am sure the Committee sends its condolences.

The Minister’s introduction presented the regulations as a necessary tidying-up exercise to remove unnecessary references to EU directives in important areas of workers’ rights, such as maternity leave, part-time work, fixed-term contracts and so on—I think she used the term “minor” to describe the effect of the legislation. On one level, that is understandable—we need our laws to be aligned with reality—but it seems at odds with the Prime Minister’s stated aim of protecting workers’ rights. From the removal of those powers, one can only conclude that the Government do not intend to match our EU counter- parts in terms of employment protection. The Committee will note that I asked the Minister about that and I do not think we had any confirmation that it is Government policy.

The regulations do not just remove our ability to keep pace with the EU but remove one area altogether. The Minister has already referred to it, so the Committee will not be surprised to hear that I am talking about European works councils, which are an important part of workplace democracy and a vital mechanism for giving a voice to the employees of multinational companies.

The Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999 set out the rules governing European works councils. They say that where a company is based in two or more member states and has more than 1,000 employees, a European works council can be set up if one is requested. The regulations provide for the procedure to set up the council and a series of rights for employee representatives. Many of the information and consultation rights and protections are stronger than those under national legislation—for example, in relation to time off for workers’ representatives and the right to use experts and to undergo training. Those rights will be lost in a no-deal scenario.

Article 1 of the EU’s recast directive on European works councils anticipates the possibility of works council agreements that include non-EU countries and encourages them to proceed on a voluntary basis to enable workers’ representatives to participate. For example, the European works councils of companies operating in Switzerland often include Switzerland in their scope and may include Swiss representatives as members. However, the regulations do not appear to make provision for works councils to continue to include the UK in their scope on a voluntary basis, even though some European works councils have already amended their agreements to enable them to continue to work with UK representatives after Brexit.

In the regulations, the Government seek to retain certain aspects of the European works council scheme for councils set up before exit day, whenever that turns out to be. We welcome the fact that the enforcement framework, various employee representative rights and protections, and the confidential information protections are preserved for existing European works councils. There are also provisions to ensure that existing European works councils can continue to operate.

The concern, however, which we have already referred to, is that no new councils will be set up and that the right to request information on employee numbers, the provisions governing the setting up of a negotiating body, and the process and content of works councils and information and consultation procedure agreements will be lost. That clearly constitutes a loss of valuable workers’ rights in contravention of the Prime Minister’s promise to maintain existing workers’ rights at current levels.

The opportunity for workers to participate in discussions with their European colleagues on company-wide issues is valued by businesses, employees and their representatives. It can include opportunities for the workforce to be included in strategic multinational decisions about jobs, investment and training. Employees and unions are concerned that if UK representatives lose their place at the table, there will be a risk to UK jobs and investment.

In the event of a no deal, we need a commitment to continue to support and facilitate future voluntary UK worker participation in European works councils, as anticipated by article 1 of the recast directive, by keeping in place existing rights and protections for UK representatives on European works councils after Brexit. This will ensure that, in future, UK worker reps joining new or existing councils will continue to have their current rights and protections, including the right to paid time off to attend such meetings, as currently set out in regulations 25 to 27, and a right to training, as set out in regulation 19B. In our view, the draft regulations need to be amended to cover at least those basic work- place protections. Failure to do so would mean not honouring the Prime Minister’s clear commitments in this area.

On a more technical point, as alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, the draft regulations are supposed to come into force on exit day, with the exception of certain provisions. The Minister needs to explain the need for that distinction.

I also have concerns about the lack of a Government statement on their timetable for revoking the regulations, in full or in part, should a withdrawal agreement with the EU be concluded. The draft regulations do not provide for the method by which they would be revoked. The unique circumstances that we currently face could involve considerable numbers of statutory instruments being repealed or revoked in a short space of time. The nature of the revocation is an important matter that we need clarity on from the Minister. I hope she agrees that, if a withdrawal agreement is secured, the draft regulations will not be needed subsequently, including in a transition period or in any backstop, if that is where we end up.

The second draft instrument proposes to alter the Secretary of State’s power under section 38 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 to provide TUPE protection to workers not ordinarily covered by those regulations, which typically include what are colourfully known in the directive as administrative reorganisations of public administrative authorities and the service provision changes that the Minister referred to.

I understand the need to remove the reference to the EU, but I do not understand why, as part of that process, the Government intend to water down TUPE protections, which it seems will be the inevitable consequence of using the phrase “TUPE-like” in the draft regulations. That is the nub of it. Why is “like” in there at all? Surely it is superfluous. The protections will be “the same or similar”. Why can they not just be the same? That is what the Opposition want, and I think it is what the Prime Minister intended.

This change will cover a potentially huge number of employees, as it will apply to contracting out of public sector services, market testing, private finance initiatives, any other outsourcing and contracting exercises, second and subsequent generation contracting where the contract was first awarded from the public sector, and reorganisations and staff transfers from one part of the public sector to another. We cannot simply nod through the draft regulation because it could affect thousands of employees.

The risk is that “TUPE-like” could mean that TUPE protections on changes to terms and conditions may no longer apply. Will the Minister confirm that the power could be used to prevent employees’ terms and conditions from being preserved after a transfer? Is it not the case that the draft regulations will mean that current rules regarding protection against a dismissal connected to a transfer could also be disapplied? Is it not also correct that existing laws regarding information and consultation on a transfer could be ignored as a result of the draft regulations? On the latter point, the Trades Union Congress points out that the draft regulations do not expressly refer to employee representatives, be they trade unions or elected representatives. Will the Minister explain why that has been omitted?

I would also be grateful if the Minister clarified what would happen in a no-deal Brexit where employees of a UK company were involved in a TUPE transfer post 29 March to a new employer based somewhere within the EU. Would any employee wishing to enforce their rights against their new employer have to do so subject to the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction? Normally, both employers in a TUPE litigation would be made parties to the case. Does that mean that UK companies could still be subject to ECJ jurisdiction post Brexit?

The other aspect of the second draft instrument is the proposed amendment to section 13 of the Working Families Act 2006, which will have the effect of removing the obligation to keep pace with EU law on annual leave entitlements. The enshrining in UK law of the working time directive was one of the finest achievements of the last Labour Government, bringing for the first time a legal entitlement to rest breaks and paid annual leave. I am not surprised that the Government are taking the opportunity to weaken the standing of the working time regulations, given that a number of current and former members of Government, including Cabinet members, have spoken at length about the supposed burdens of the regulations. The Opposition do not consider paid annual leave or daily and weekly rest breaks to be a burden. They are essential health and safety measures, as well as important parts of workplace protection.

It is clear from this instrument that the Government do not wish UK workers in future to enjoy parity with their European counterparts. This can be seen as the firing of the starting gun on the race to the bottom. Indeed, as the political declaration makes clear, employment standards are to be considered subordinate to open and fair competition. That is where we are heading.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just about the protection of employees but about those they serve? I refer to the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by our hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) in the Chamber today, which was prompted by the deaths of people in Coventry as a result of a bus driver having worked inordinately long hours that week and the two weeks beforehand. That is an example of the importance of adequate employment legislation, not only for workers but for those they serve and their customers.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the working time directive was initially presented as health and safety legislation. It is not just about the worker’s health and providing adequate rest breaks, but about protecting those enjoying the benefits of their labour.

The Prime Minister may talk a good game but the evidence is that the words do not match the reality. Hers is the party that introduced employment tribunal fees, doubled the qualifying period for unfair dismissal and commissioned the atrocious Beecroft report, which proposed removing workplace protections altogether. I hope I will be forgiven for taking the Prime Minister’s comments in the Chamber yesterday about matching EU developments in employment rights with a pinch of salt, given what is before us today. Her track record does not inspire confidence, and these regulations do not do what she claims she wants to do. In fact, they do the opposite.

I say to the Minister that if the Government are genuinely trying to find common ground with Members across the House, these regulations should be withdrawn, because they do not do what the Prime Minister claims she wants to see happen. They represent the erosion of workplace protection and they must be opposed.

Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. He has been a fine supporter of the Bill—a sponsor, no less. He is right. Not everyone does this, and those who do give good employers a bad name. That is why I made the point in response to the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) about the damage this will do in people’s minds if it is their first experience of the world of work.

I want to square up what the Bill does and why it does it. It is essentially split into two main parts. The first part amends the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. It makes it clear that where someone takes part in a trial shift—it defines what a “trial shift” is—they are to be paid at least the national minimum wage, and that the Bill applies right across the United Kingdom.

I have put in some safeguards based on the feedback I have had from members of the public, as I have been discussing. First, when a member of the public is offered a trial shift, it is to be made clear to them in writing how long it will last so that people cannot be strung along. It will also be made clear how many jobs actually exist. That should put an end to the practice of offering “ghost” shifts where no job actually exists.

Secondly, the person and the employer are to have an agreement that proper feedback is going to be received. In one case, a person—I will not identify them but it was the daughter of a prominent Scottish Labour politician —went on a trial shift in a bar, worked three or four shifts, and at the end of it the employer said to her, “We’re not taking you on—you don’t have enough experience.” They already knew that from looking at her CV at the application stage.

We have to try to empower applicants a bit, because people are feeling helpless. This is not about ending trials or the ability of an employer to test someone; it is just about ending the ability to take someone for a ride and pay them nothing.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important Bill forward. I was not really aware of this issue until, when my eldest son was a teenager, a couple of his friends worked several unpaid shifts in a restaurant. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is particularly rife in the hospitality industry, which many of us partake of and spend money in? If people were more aware of the issue and the need to plug the hole in existing employment legislation, they would support the Bill. Should not all Members support the Bill?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Yes, I do believe that. What the hon. Lady says is funny; I have put a name on it—I have called it an unpaid trial shift. Most folk would say, “What on earth is that?” but when I explain it, they realise that their own kids have done it, their neighbours’ kids have done it or their nieces and nephews have done it. Everybody knows somebody who has done it.

On hospitality, I will say this. I had a very constructive meeting with the British Hospitality Association, which supports measures such as this because it wants the industry to be seen as an attractive place to work and build a career in. Anything this Parliament can do to help hospitality or other sectors can only be a good thing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Climate Change and Industry (Claire Perry)]

I commend my hon. Friend and her local enterprise partnership for their work. We look forward to seeing that report and to having productive conversations. We do not want any barriers that impede economic growth in her constituency and region.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

T6. Net present value is the economic measurement generally held to provide the most robust assessment of all the costs and benefits of any proposed major infrastructure project. Would the Government ever support a major infrastructure project that, at its inception, was calculated to have a negative net economic benefit?

[Greg Clark]

One of the things that the House has correctly required of the Government is that we should take account of the impact on local economies—for example, on small businesses. That is something that has changed in the impact guidance, and it is right that it has.

Student Loans Agreement

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. This system is flawed all the way through. Trying to fix it by making it more flawed is not going to work. Today’s students do not have the assurance, which we had in the past, that they will get a decent job. Many graduates are doing low-paid, low-skilled jobs that are perfectly useful but not commensurate with their qualifications. They often move from job to job, with nothing that could be described as a career. The doors of their chosen professions are frequently closed to them because they cannot afford to do the unpaid internships that are currently the way into many jobs.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing this debate. I declare an interest: I have two sons, both of whom will have to pay loans back at the higher rate, and both of them have paid fees of more than £9,000 a year. My hon. Friend might also have mentioned graduates like my elder son. He has chosen to work abroad for two years, on a low wage, to get an interesting experience of the world. He is not fully aware of the implications for what he is going to have to pay or how the repayment rates are rolling up year after year.

[Helen Jones]

I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend is right. When students took out loans at the start of university—this was as true under the old system as it is under the new one—many were not really aware of the full implications: when they would have to start to pay them back, how interest accumulates and so on. We would be foolish to expect many of them to be aware of those things at the age of 18. I do not think I or many other Members would have been.

The problems faced by many young graduates are simple. They have little hope of getting into decent jobs and no hope of getting on the housing ladder. Many of them are stuck in rented accommodation, with rents rising every year, meaning that they cannot save for a deposit on a house. Recently released statistics show that this will be the first generation to earn less than the one before. The assumption we always made, certainly when I was growing up, was that each generation would do better than the one before, but that no longer holds good. That is a real betrayal of our young people. What the Government have done with student loans adds to that betrayal. They have failed to understand the implications for young people and to get a grip on the system.

As in so many other matters these days, the Government are making young people pay the price for their failure. The Minister should really think again. With a new Chancellor in place, there is a chance to revisit this matter and get the student loans system on a sensible and sustainable footing. I urge the Minister to take this chance, because what is happening at the moment is totally wrong.