Hospitality Sector
Sam Rushworth Excerpts(3 days, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
It is interesting that the Conservatives’ motion acknowledges the important role that hospitality businesses play in offering a first step on the employment ladder to
“young and often excluded groups”.
If they care so much about young and often excluded people, I would have thought they would have backed Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, because right now in Ealing Southall, young workers and the many workers of Indian heritage in my constituency can be sacked for no reason whatsoever in their first two years in a job. These are often hard-working, qualified people but they are completely at the mercy of bad employers because the right not to be unfairly dismissed applies only after two years in a job.
There are some great hospitality businesses in Ealing Southall, including the Plough in Northfields, a Fuller’s pub I visited recently, which does a lot to train and support its staff. However, over half of employees under 30 have been with their current employer for less than two years, and 42% of black, Asian and minority ethnic employees have been with their current employer for less than two years, compared with 28% of white workers. The very young, black and Asian workers that the Conservatives claim to care about are therefore exactly the people who will be helped most by Labour’s Employment Rights Bill. In fact, it is an all-too-common trick for bad employers to sack workers just before the two years are up. The Conservatives need to explain why they think it is okay that a young worker can be sacked for no reason after 23 and a half months in the job, just so they do not get their rights.
The Conservatives’ motion also objects to Labour’s plan to end exploitative zero-hours contracts. Who do they think is most likely to be on those kinds of contracts? Oh yes! It is exactly the same young and often excluded workers, but they obviously do not care about them at all. Exploitative zero-hours contracts do not just mean that workers do not know from week to week if they will be able to afford the rent; they also put power into the hands of managers who can use the threat of people losing their hours to threaten and bully—you’ve guessed it—young, black and Asian workers, who are often the most vulnerable at work.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Small businesses in my constituency often tell me that they want to be really good employers. That is something that they take great pride in, but they get undercut by some of the bad employers. Does she agree that the Bill is good not only for the worker but for the business?
Deirdre Costigan
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Labour’s Employment Rights Bill is all about levelling the playing field so that the efforts made by the great employers that we have in this country, including hospitality employers, to look after their workers can be broadened out to the whole of the industry.
The Conservatives also need to stop pretending that this change that Labour is bringing in would stop seasonal working in the hospitality sector. Stop making things up! A worker can stay on a zero-hours contract if that is what they want. Many people will choose to do that if it fits with their lives, but where there is clearly a regular job and someone has been working those hours for at least three months, they will have the right to a guarantee of those minimum hours. What is wrong with that? The Tories need to explain why they think it is okay for young and often excluded workers to remain at the beck and call of bad managers, with no control over their hours and no financial security.
Our hospitality businesses are indeed often the first step on the employment ladder, and McDonald’s in Southall is another great example of that. The Conservatives are busy trying to knock people off that ladder. With Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, we are helping workers climb up the ladder into decent, well-paid jobs that their families can thrive on.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I will speak about some of the hospitality businesses in my constituency, but I say to the hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) that that was an interesting speech; I do not think much of it was based in reality, however, and I am more than happy to explain. The Employment Rights Bill will cost £5 billion by the Government’s own assessment. The businesses that will bear the costs of that will then have to make cost-cutting measures, and it is usually young people—I trust her that it might be ethnic minorities who are at the vanguard—who are at risk. They are the ones who will suffer and lose their jobs, because those businesses still have to make a profit.
I broaden my point out to the Government Benches. I listened to the opening speech by the Minister. It was sometimes an entertaining speech, especially when he took my intervention, but sitting here, I thought, “There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to make a profit and how important that is to businesses.” That is literally the reason people go into business: to make a profit and generate cash. The rise in national insurance contributions—the jobs tax—and the Employment Rights Bill, which will cost £5 billion, are costs imposed by the Labour Government. They made a choice to impose that on businesses. Hospitality businesses suffering at the hands of the Labour Government are having to make tough choices, and that means seasonal workers will not be employed, or not as many of them will be. We are already seeing that.
When I quoted the chair of UKHospitality to the Minister, he denied that and said it was not happening, but the stats say something different. Over half of the jobs lost since the Budget have been lost as a result of Labour’s Budget. I have been speaking to businesses since then, including Visit Knowle, Eric Lyons and the Barn at Berryfields—these are beautiful businesses that we have. We have the National Exhibition Centre, which is a great importer of tourism and which the Minister spoke about, backed by Birmingham airport. We have the Greenwood pub, Nailcote Hall, Three Trees community centre—I could go on and on. There are huge numbers of hospitality businesses, but they are all suffering the cost of the jobs tax, which disproportionally affects them. It means that those businesses are not investing because they are having to save that money to pay the Chancellor.
Sam Rushworth
The hon. Member mentioned costs on businesses. One of those costs is the cost of sick days, which has increased by £30 billion since 2018. I visited a business recently in my constituency, and I am not going to lie: they said, “Yes, it’s a bit of a squeeze having to pay an increase in national insurance,” but then they said, “But we’re saving money on sick days because people are getting the appointments they need in the NHS.” He will know that there have been 7 million more GP appointments. Does he welcome that investment in the NHS and the fact that there were nearly 14 million fewer sick days in the last year?
Saqib Bhatti
I have a rude awakening for the hon. Member, and it is a broader point about the debate. Having listened to Government Members, and I suggest that they turn on the news and start looking at what is happening to the bond market, because we are seeing record interest rates when the Government have to borrow. Last year, all these Government Members backed the Chancellor’s fictitious black hole; now she has a real black hole that she created, which she will have to deal with. I do not know what they think will happen at the Budget, but it will either be the cuts that they opposed in the welfare Bill and other cuts that they find unpalatable, or it will be further taxes raised on working people, who they purport to defend and support. When those taxes are imposed on businesses, it will hurt either consumer sentiment or the business themselves. They will then have to make further job cuts to survive. That is the reality; everything has a consequence.
What Labour Members fail to understand is that it is absolutely essential—particularly because they talk about supporting such businesses—that they lobby the Chancellor to get a grip on the situation, instead of allowing it to balloon completely out of control as a result of the measures they backed last October. The consequences of that have been tens of thousands of job losses and thousands of businesses going under. I am deeply worried for my constituents.
As much as I found the Minister’s speech interesting and sometimes entertaining, I thought that it was quite disrespectful to the hospitality sector, which is very worried. The chair of the biggest representative body of the hospitality sector is saying that there is a problem, but she is being ignored or told that there is no problem. Hospitality businesses in the constituencies of Labour MPs will be knocking on their doors and asking for answers. I ask for a degree of humility because the reckoning is coming—respected economists and think-tanks are saying it—as a consequence of the Chancellor’s decisions. I restate my request for a bit of humility and understanding of what the hospitality sector is going through.
Social Media Use: Minimum Age
Sam Rushworth Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank the British public for bringing this petition forward so that we can debate it today, and thank those who have led on this issue. The petition comes from a place of real strong feeling among parents. This is not some blind moral panic; it is the lived experience of anybody who has raised a teenager in the last few years. My wife and I spend a lot of our time discussing our own parenting. Like many parents, we agonise over whether we are getting it right—on the one hand, wanting not to be too autocratic and to give our children the freedom to engage in a social space which their friends are in, while, on the other, knowing that we are allowing them access to something that we believe is causing them damage.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) for an excellent speech setting out the strong evidence base for why it is imperative that we, as a Parliament, act. There have been some excellent speeches from Members across all the parties in this place today. I was reflecting, were I ever fortunate enough to place where my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington did in the private Member’s ballot, and to be able to one thing to improve our country right now, what I would do. I think that he has got it right—it has to be about what we do to protect the next generation. It is not a cliché to say that they are all our futures and that we face an epidemic of youth mental unwellness today that is holding back a generation.
Many people have spoken well about the damage that we know social media is causing to our children: apps that are designed to addict, requiring users to get streaks, which we know affects concentration; an over-connectedness that is driving anxiety and disrupting children’s sleep; content that distorts children’s relationships with reality on bodies and lifestyles, which is damaging to self-esteem, and, while some of these sites do not host explicitly pornographic material, in the sense that certain body parts are covered, children are often overexposed to a general timbre of content that is still sexualising the human body and causing them to think in sexualised terms at a young age. There is also the challenge of apps that are designed for children to communicate through images, which are driving the phenomenon known as sexting. Despite schools’ valiant efforts to teach children not to do that, we know it is happening—and happening at a worrying scale.
We also know that children are overconnected to a social space, which is completely unsupervised, where they can encounter humiliation and bullying. I had a conversation not long ago with a child and asked the question, “Well, why don’t you just not go online?” The response came back, “Because I need to know what people are saying about me.” As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) suggested earlier, if young people were asked, “If you could switch this off for everyone, would you?” lots of them would actually say, “Yes, I would.” However, there is a phenomenon, which my teenagers tell me is called FOMO—fear of missing out—that means that they have to be in a space, while simultaneously not wanting to be in that space, all the time.
In our generation, we might have found school life difficult, but we could go home from school and switch off. For many children today, the first thing they experience when they wake up in the morning is the notifications from the night before, and those notifications are the last thing they see when they go to bed at night.
Therefore, I think we do need to regulate. We already regulate childhood in various ways to protect children, such as with laws that prevent children from going to nightclubs, the requirement for disclosure and barring service checks to protect children from coming into contact with adults around whom they would not be safe, and even film classification ratings. There is a huge industry around those ratings—yet, were the content that children can access on Facebook to be classified by film standards, we would often say that they were not old enough to be seeing that regular content.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) said earlier, many children and young people actually agree about the benefits of limiting social media. Before I was in this place, one of the roles I had was tutoring in various north-east high schools, and often our conversations in seminars would turn to this challenge of mental health. A lot of young people talked to me about how they can simultaneously feel lonely while also being overly connected and not having a place to switch off.
Girls at Teesdale school, which was my first visit as a new Member of Parliament, also talked to me about a change in attitudes that they saw among many of the young men that they go to school with and the increasing misogyny in the way that they would treat them, because of far-right content that those young men were accessing.
What can be done? People have spoken for and against an outright ban, and I think all their arguments have merits, and some have highlighted the challenge of simply banning things. Having said that, I think we do need to consider an age of consent; we need not just a legal shift, but a cultural shift, with greater parental controls and greater support for parents to supervise what their children are viewing. Perhaps we could have time-limit controls that would force a child to switch off.
Education around social media already exists, but we know that it is not yet effective. Perhaps we need education that looks not just at the don’ts, the warnings to young people, but at the do’s and reimagines childhood. We need to provide fewer virtual experiences and more real experiences for our children. I think back to my own childhood and remember learning an instrument, playing after-school sports, riding my bike around the block, attending a weekly youth club, going for a walk and bopping along to my Walkman, and yes, it also involved being bored and just being able to take in the world around me.
Children need more family time. We need to be real and acknowledge the fact that one of the things driving smartphone use in children is that parents are often less present in their children’s lives, and every parent feels guilt about this. That is why I was proud to support the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers’ “Keep Sunday Special” campaign on Sunday trading laws. It is why I support flexible working and laws in the world of work to make sure that families can have time together.
There are many things to be considered, but what we can all agree on is that we cannot allow the status quo to continue. It is imperative that we as a Parliament and the Government consider how to better safeguard our children’s future.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sam Rushworth Excerpts(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his condolences.
We took some tough decisions. They led to a Budget that delivered the largest settlement to Scotland since devolution began. If he thinks we should now reverse that, he should say so. The money has been given, so now the SNP has the money, the power and no more excuses for the non-delivery that we see in Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman wants me to reverse that, he should say so.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise that important issue. I have to say, when he said that there were cuts to police and somebody opposite said “Boring!”, that tells us everything we need to know about the last 14 years. My hon. Friend is right: we need to crack down on those committing vile acts in our communities. That is why our plan for change puts 13,000 extra police and police community support officers into neighbourhood policing, and includes a 3.5% real-terms increase and tough new respect orders. Where they lost control, we will take back control and deliver safe and secure communities.