Category: Speeches

Deidre Brock – 2023 Parliamentary Question on the Devolution Settlement

The parliamentary question asked by Deidre Brock, the SNP MP for Edinburgh North and Leith, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)

1. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the operation of the devolution settlement. (904292)

Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)

6. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the operation of the devolution settlement. (904297)

Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)

7. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the operation of the devolution settlement. (904298)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)

I take this opportunity to congratulate Humza Yousaf on becoming Scotland’s new First Minister. I look forward to working with him. I heard him say that he wanted to put the independence drive into “fifth gear”; I would gently remind him that most Scots actually want him to put it into reverse and to work with the United Kingdom to tackle the issues that really matter to them, such as cost of living pressures and growing our economy.

The devolution settlement gives Scotland the best of both worlds. Scotland benefits from the wide influence and economic strength of the UK, while also enjoying considerable devolved powers in vital areas such as health, education and justice to tailor policies to meet the needs of people in Scotland.

Deidre Brock

In his response to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on 22 February, the Secretary of State claimed that the Scottish Government had not asked for an exemption from the UK Internal Market Act 2020 for the Scottish deposit return scheme. The Scottish Government have since published the timeline to show that that is incorrect and that the proposal has been under detailed discussion within the resources and waste common framework since last October, with the final detailed case for exclusion presented on 13 February. In the light of that, will he correct the record and apologise for inadvertently misleading Parliament?

Mr Jack

This is an important point and has had a lot of airtime in the media in Scotland. I can say to the hon. Lady that, while officials and civil servants spoke to one another over a period of time, the official request to Ministers came in the inter-ministerial group meeting, which the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) was at, on 6 March. That is all minuted. It is a fact, it is on the record and there is no question. The UK Government have published it. The official request was on 6 March. I would also say that the Scottish Government proceeded with a deposit return scheme that small businesses, consumers and others are very concerned about. Even the chief executive of Tesco, the UK’s largest retailer, said yesterday that it is not the right scheme and it is not fit for purpose. They are concerned about it and they are right to be concerned about it. The Scottish Government asked for their UKIM exemption after they put their scheme together. If I were building a house, I would get planning permission and then build my house, not do it the other way around.

Drew Hendry

The Secretary of State knows that the process for gaining an exemption to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act is through developing the appropriate common framework. He also stated that there had been no request by letter from the Scottish Government, yet the Deputy First Minister wrote to the UK Government on 31 January and even received a positive reply on 10 February. Is the problem here that the Secretary of State just has a very selective memory, or is it that he is so busy preparing for his seat in the House of Lords that his office does not bother keeping him in the loop any more?

Mr Jack

Let us be absolutely clear about this: the letter the hon. Gentleman refers to was a letter to the Chancellor about value added tax treatment of the deposit return scheme. The letter mentioned that an exemption request would be coming forward, but the official request was made on 6 March—there is no question about that—and the detailed arguments were laid out on 6 March at the ministerial meeting.

Chris Law

It is not going too well for the Secretary of State, is it? Environmental charities across these islands have written to him, calling on him not to block the Scottish deposit return scheme. We know there are successful schemes across many other countries, and the British Soft Drinks Association, whose members include Coca-Cola and Irn-Bru maker A.G. Barr, called for it to go ahead as planned. What on earth is the future Baron von Jack thinking of when he ignores those calls and threatens to block the scheme—particularly when his own Government and other UK nations will follow Scotland’s lead and introduce their own scheme from 2025?

Mr Jack

I am not sure that there has been much joined-up thinking on the questions here. Again, I have suggested that the deposit return scheme should be paused. I think a UK-wide solution is right; I think recycling is absolutely right. But I agree with the chief executive of Tesco, Britain’s largest retailer, when he says that this is not the right scheme—it will be inflationary. As I have said before at this Dispatch Box, 12 bottles of Scottish water currently cost £1.59 in Aldi, but under the scheme, that would become £3.99 or even higher if a price is put on top. Although £2.40 of that could be reclaimed, the consumer will also pay an extra cost that is put on by the producer—producers have been clear about that.

We met Coca-Cola, which said that 2p on a can and 5p on a bottle would be passed on to the consumer and could not be reclaimed. There are higher figures from other companies, including one small brewer that said it would have to add £1.40 to a bottle of beer on top of the 20 pence. The scheme is inflationary and very bad for the consumer’s shopping basket. That is why I think we need to pause it and get a scheme that works for the whole United Kingdom.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

I call David Mundell.

David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)

What a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair for Scottish questions, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I add my congratulations to Humza Yousaf on becoming First Minister of Scotland, and I recognise the inclusive and historic nature of his appointment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, based on the experience of our constituents, Mr Yousaf will have to up his game considerably in his new role? As Transport Minister, he came to Dumfries in 2016 to hold a transport summit, and seven years later, precisely zero of the commitments given that day have been delivered.

Mr Jack

Not only did Humza Yousaf fail in the transport brief but, as we know from his opponent, who took almost half the vote—48%—he also failed in his other briefs of justice and health.

Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)

I join others in congratulating the new First Minister. The Barnett formula by which money is devolved to Scotland has existed for more than 40 years. Has the Secretary of State received any representations from the Scottish Government about reviewing that formula?

Mr Jack

At the moment, we are in discussions with the Scottish Government about a review of the fiscal framework. That review has been in train for some time, and the conclusions will be coming shortly.

Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)

I, too, congratulate Mr Yousaf on his appointment as First Minister of Scotland. Does the Secretary of State agree that the effectiveness of devolution arrangements was demonstrated in the use of the Scotland Act 1998—section 35 in particular—to block the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, specifically because it impacted on the effective operation of UK law across the UK?

Mr Jack

Yes. I have heard the new First Minister say that it was anti-devolution to block a Bill that had been passed by the Scottish Parliament, but section 35 exists for that very reason. When a Bill is passed by the Scottish Parliament—if it did not pass it, we could not block it—that has adverse effects on GB-wide legislation, section 35 exists to stop the Bill going for Royal Assent so that those adverse effects can be dealt with.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)

It is great to see you back in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. Welcome back, particularly to Scottish questions.

There has been a seismic victory—an historic victory—this week: the Scotland football team beat Spain at Hampden last night, so we all send our congratulations to them. May I echo the Secretary of State’s congratulations to Humza Yousaf, the new First Minister of Scotland? The Secretary of State rightly challenged Mr Yousaf to engage reverse gear on independence, but I think he may already have crashed that car. The new First Minister of course inherits a divided party and the SNP’s dreadful record on public services, but he does not inherit Nicola Sturgeon’s mandate—at the Holyrood election, the ballot paper said

“Nicola Sturgeon for First Minister”,

not “Humza Yousaf”. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and with Humza Yousaf himself, who rightly called for a UK general election after there was twice a change in Prime Minister last year? Does the Secretary of State agree that a new First Minister with no mandate means that there should now be not only a general election, but a Scottish election?

Mr Jack

There is a precedent for political parties voting in new leaders who then assume office: Henry McLeish replaced Donald Dewar, Jack McConnell replaced Henry McLeish, Gordon Brown replaced Tony Blair, and even Nicola Sturgeon replaced her at-the-time great friend and mentor—her words, not mine—Alex Salmond. It would be hypocritical of me to say otherwise, because last year, of course, I defended the change of Prime Ministers, and it is hypocritical that Humza Yousaf suggested then that we should have an election and there is now deafening silence.

Ian Murray

That answer shows that both the Conservative party and the SNP are democracy deniers. In January—[Interruption.] In January, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] They don’t like it up ’em! In January, the UK Government announced that they had signed a memorandum of understanding with BioNTech and Moderna to conduct trials of vaccines that can attack cancer cells. Such innovative treatments could be a lifeline for those with terminal cancers, such as David Williamson from Glasgow, who contacted me and others to plead to be accepted on to those trials. However, David lives in Scotland, and as it stands the trials are due to take place in England only. He has written to both the UK and Scottish Health Secretaries but has failed to receive a response. David does not want to die knowing that there could be a treatment that could help him. Does the Secretary of State agree that potentially life-saving treatments should be available throughout the UK? Will he work to resolve this matter urgently for David and thousands of others?

Mr Jack

This is a very serious issue and my sympathies are with David and his family. I know that he has written to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. I am a great believer in our NHS being reciprocal across the United Kingdom and will organisation a meeting for the hon. Gentleman with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care at the earliest opportunity.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

I call the SNP spokesperson, Dr Philippa Whitford.

Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair for Scottish questions, Madam Deputy Speaker, and join Labour’s shadow Secretary of State in celebrating Scotland’s win. It is just a pity that people could not watch it on Scottish terrestrial television.

The devolved Governments have led on many innovative policies, such as the carrier bag charge in Wales and the smoking ban and minimum unit pricing of alcohol in Scotland, with the UK Government following years later, if at all. The attacks on the latter policy at the time show that, had it existed then, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 would inevitably have been used to block minimum unit pricing, which has recently been credited with a 13% drop in alcohol-related deaths in Scotland. Even the EU single market allows policy divergence to improve public health and the environment, so why are there no such derogations in the internal market Act?

Mr Jack

Let me pick up the hon. Lady’s first point, because we do not want the grievance factory to say, as I have seen on social media today, that the English Government blocked people in Scotland watching the game against Spain last night in which we were so victorious—[Interruption.] I said “on social media”. The Scottish Football Association sold the rights to the football match. It was the Scottish FA’s decision.

On the hon. Lady’s second point, there are opportunities for derogations and exemptions within the UK internal market. We did it in the case of plastic cutlery because the same proposal was coming forward in the rest of the UK six months after it was introduced by the Scottish Government. The schemes worked together and a derogation for six months worked. But derogations do not work when there are different schemes in different parts of the United Kingdom, some of which include glass and some of which do not, and when producers have to sign up to different schemes that have a huge cost implication. We do not think that is the right way forward.

Dr Whitford

It is funny how differences in the different nations worked fine before Brexit. One has to wonder why the UK market does not seem able to cope right now. Is the Secretary of State planning to hold back the devolved Governments repeatedly to avoid making his Government look bad? Or is he just going to seek every single chance to attack devolution and enforce Westminster rule?

Mr Jack

I quoted earlier the chief executive of Tesco, the largest retailer in the United Kingdom. In the paper yesterday he made the very good point that there is one drinks industry across the United Kingdom and we should have one solution to the recycling problem.

April 5, 2023
Tom Pursglove – 2023 Statement on Supporting People Nearing the End of their Lives

The statement made by Tom Pursglove, the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work on 29 March 2023.

The Government are committed to providing support to people who are nearing the end of their lives. For people in this position, special rules allow simple and fast access to financial support through the benefits system.

Today, I am pleased to announce the commencement of the Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2022, which will apply from 3 April 2023.

The Act enables more people nearing the end of their lives to get fast-tracked access via the special rules. It applies to three key disability benefits: personal independence payment, disability living allowance and attendance allowance.

This change means that people nearing the end of their lives who meet the eligibility criteria for one of these benefits, can receive vital support in their final year, six months earlier than they can currently. Those eligible under the “special rules”, get their claims fast-tracked, which means they do not have to wait as long to start getting payments. They are not required to take part in a medical assessment and, in most cases, those claiming will qualify for the highest rate of benefit.

The new 12-month special rules criteria align with the end-of-life approach in the NHS where, for those with 12 months or less to live, clinicians are encouraged to think about what help their patient may need, including financial help.

The Government introduced similar changes to universal credit and employment and support allowance on 4 April 2022. The Act ensures a consistent approach across five key health and disability benefits.

These changes to the special rules for end of life are a culmination of many years of work since the then Secretary of State launched an in-depth evaluation of how the benefits system supports people nearing the end of their lives in 2019. I would like to pay tribute to her and my predecessors in my role, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith).

I would also like to thank the many people nearing the end of life, groups and charities that have supported the Department for Work and Pensions. Their input has helped improve the support provided by the benefits system in this area.

I am proud to say that when someone is in their last year of life, they can now benefit from improved support from the benefits system. By expanding eligibility, we will provide thousands more people with financial support to allow them to focus on sharing the valuable time they have left with the people who matter most to them.

April 5, 2023
Michelle Donelan – 2023 Statement on the Artificial Intelligence Regulation White Paper

The statement made by Michelle Donelan, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

I am pleased and excited to announce that today, the Government are publishing their Artificial Intelligence Regulation White Paper.

AI is one of this Government’s five technologies of tomorrow—bringing stronger growth, better jobs, and bold new discoveries. As a general purpose technology, AI is already delivering wide social and economic benefits, from medical advances to the mitigation of climate change.

The UK has been at the forefront of this progress, placing third in the world for AI research and development. For example, an AI technology developed by DeepMind, a UK-based business, can now predict the structure of almost every protein known to science. This breakthrough has already helped scientists combat malaria, antibiotic resistance, and plastic waste, and will accelerate the development of life-saving medicines. There is more to come. AI has the potential to transform all areas of life and energise the UK economy. By unleashing innovation and driving growth, AI will create new, good-quality jobs. AI can also improve work by increasing productivity, and making workplaces safer for employees.

Through the national AI strategy, this Government are committed to strengthening the UK’s position as an AI powerhouse. For example, to boost skills and diversity in AI jobs, the Government have announced £23 million towards 2,000 new AI and data science conversion courses scholarships; £100 million towards AI centres for doctoral training at universities across the country; and over £46 million towards Turing AI fellowships, developing the next generation of top AI talent. Through the technology missions fund, we are investing £110 million in missions on AI for health, AI for net zero, trustworthy and responsible AI, and AI adoption and diffusion. These are part of our £485 million investment in the UKRI AI programme to continue the UK’s leadership in AI and support the transition to an AI-enabled economy.

We want the whole of society to benefit from the opportunities presented by AI and we know that to achieve this, AI has to be trustworthy. While it offers enormous potential, AI can also create new risks and present us with ethical challenges to address. We already know that some irresponsible uses of AI can damage our physical and mental health, create unacceptable safety risks, and undermine human rights. Proportionate regulation which mitigates these risks is key to building public trust and encouraging investment in AI businesses.

Businesses have consistently asked for clear, proportionate regulatory requirements and better guidance and tools to support responsible innovation. When we set out our proposals for a proportionate and pro-innovation approach in July last year, they received widespread support from industry. Our approach is in stark contrast to the rigid approaches taken elsewhere which risk stifling innovation and putting huge burdens on small business.

The recent report led by Sir Patrick Vallance—“regulation for innovation”—identified that we have a short window for the UK to take up a position as a global leader in foundational AI development and create an innovation-friendly approach to regulating AI. We know we need to act now. I am proud to set out a proportionate and future-proof framework for regulating this truly exciting, paradigm-shifting technology.

Our framework for AI regulation is outcome-focused, proportionate, and adaptable. It will be sensitive to context to avoid stifling innovation, and will prioritise collaboration—between Government, regulators, industry, academia, civil society and wider stakeholders. The framework will be underpinned by five principles. These five principles are a clear statement of what we think good, responsible, trustworthy AI looks like—reflecting the values at the core of our society. These are: safety, security and robustness; appropriate transparency and explainability; fairness; accountability and governance; and contestability and redress. We will work with the UK’s highly regarded regulators and empower them to apply the five principles using their sector-specific expertise.

As automated decision-making systems are increasingly AI-driven, it is important to align the article 22 reforms in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill with the UK’s wider approach to AI regulation. The reforms in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill cast article 22 as a right to specific safeguards, rather than as a general prohibition on solely automated decision making and also clarify that a “solely” automated decision is one that is taken without any meaningful human involvement. Meaningful involvement means a human’s participation must go beyond a cursory or “rubber stamping” exercise—and assumes they understand the process and influence the outcome reached for the data subject.

AI opportunities and risks are emerging at an extraordinary pace. We need only look to the sudden increase in public awareness of generative AI over recent months as an example. As such, the framework will initially be introduced on a non-statutory basis and we are deliberately taking an iterative, collaborative approach—testing and learning, flexing and refining the framework as we go. This will allow us to respond quickly to advances in AI and to intervene further if necessary.

We will establish central functions to make sure our approach is working effectively and getting the balance right between supporting innovation and addressing risk. These will monitor how it is operating but also horizon scan so we understand how AI technology is evolving and how risks and opportunities are changing. Taking forward Patrick Vallance’s recommendation, they will also support the delivery of testbeds and sandbox initiatives to help AI innovators get AI technologies to market.

We are deliberately seeking to find the right balance between more rigid approaches to AI regulation on the one hand, and those who would argue that there is no need to intervene on the other. This position and this approach will protect our values, protect our citizens, and continue the UK’s reputation as the best place in the world to be a business developing and using AI.

Alongside this White Paper, we are also committed to strengthening UK AI capability. We are establishing a foundation model taskforce, a Government-industry team which will define and deliver the right interventions and investment in AI foundation models—a type of AI which looks set to be transformative—to ensure the UK builds its capability.

We recognise that there are many voices to be heard, and many ways that we can learn from across the whole of society, industry, academia, and our global partners. We have been engaging with regulators and a range of stakeholders as we develop our proposals and I actively encourage colleagues and stakeholders across the whole of the economy and society to respond to the consultation. I will be placing copies of the White Paper in the Libraries of both Houses, and it is also available on gov.uk.

April 5, 2023
Robert Jenrick – 2023 Statement on the Hong Kong Veterans’ Settlement Route

The statement made by Robert Jenrick, the Minister for Immigration, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

I am pleased to announce that, from autumn this year, eligible Hong Kong veterans of His Majesty’s Forces and their families will be able to apply for settlement in the UK.

Many Hongkongers served in His Majesty’s Forces throughout the 20th century, supporting the administration of Hong Kong along with important military operations around the globe, including the liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi forces in 1991. It is right that we continue to recognise this service and ensure that veterans from Hong Kong are placed on an equal footing with other members of His Majesty’s Forces who were also stationed in the territory prior to the handover to China in 1997.

Successful applicants will be granted indefinite leave to enter, allowing them to live and work in the UK without restriction and putting them on a path to full British citizenship.

Further information about this settlement route and how to apply will be published on gov.uk in due course. The Government look forward to welcoming applications from those Hong Kong veterans and their families who wish to make the UK their home.

April 5, 2023
Robert Halfon – 2023 Statement on the Post-16 Qualifications Review

The statement made by Robert Halfon, the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

Today, as part of phase 2 of the post-16 qualifications review of English qualifications, we have published an update to the final list of qualifications that overlap with wave 1 and 2 T-levels, to include qualifications that overlap with health and science T-Levels. These qualifications were included in the provisional list published in May 2022 but confirmation was not included in the final list published in October 2022, due to the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education’s review of the outline content of the health and science T-levels. This review has now concluded. Today’s update adds 28 qualifications to the list and as previously stated these will have 16 to 19 funding removed from 1 August 2024.

The removal of funding from these qualifications follows rigorous assessment by independent assessors and an opportunity for awarding organisations to appeal their decisions. The awarding organisations who will have funding removed from these 28 qualifications have been notified, as have the Federation of Awarding Bodies and Joint Council for Qualifications. My Department will also engage with further education providers on this matter.

T-levels are rigorous qualifications that provide a great progression route into a range of occupations in the health and science sector. They are based on the same standards as apprenticeships and have their content set by employers. Students that take a health and science T-level are well placed to progress into careers in the sector, including as health professionals, technicians and researchers.

We have backed providers with significant additional revenue and capital funding so that they are well prepared and have the resources to deliver T-levels to a high standard. We have made around £400 million available to improve buildings and buy state-of-the-art equipment. We recently announced a short-term 10% uplift in T-level revenue funding to help providers as they transition from study programmes and scale up and a new £12 million employer support fund to help providers deliver quality industry placements. This comes alongside a range of practical support measures that we have put in place to support providers to implement T-levels, including investing over £31 million in the T-level professional development programme (TLPD) to provide free training and support to FE providers, teachers and leaders to successfully plan and deliver T-levels.

The changes to post-16 qualifications at level 3 and below are designed to ensure that our qualifications system provides a ladder of opportunity for young people from all backgrounds. T-levels are a key part of that ladder of opportunity, helping young people climb rung by rung toward a fulfilling career. The T-level transition programme provides a high-quality pathway onto T-levels.

In addition to T-levels, students will also benefit from a range of choice in order to access careers in the health and social care and science sectors. This will include high-quality reformed qualifications at level 2 designed to support progression to apprenticeships, further study, and employment. At level 3, students will also be able to choose to study a health and social care-related qualification as part of a mixed study programme.

I am pleased that we have taken this next step in ensuring our post-16 qualifications system provides young people with the skills employers need and which are fit for the future.

April 5, 2023
Lucy Frazer – 2023 Statement on the Draft Media Bill

The speech made by Lucy Frazer, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on 29 March 2023.

Today the Government are publishing a draft Media Bill. This will ensure that we can deliver on key aspects of the Government’s vision for the broadcasting sector, set out last year in our landmark White Paper, “Up next”. The Media Bill will reform decades-old laws to turbocharge the growth potential of our world-leading public service broadcasters (PSBs), allowing them to better compete with global giants. It will give PSBs the tools to adapt to changing viewer habits as people now increasingly watch TV on demand via smart TVs and other connected devices, instead of traditional “linear” services such as terrestrial TV.

The draft legislation will bring video-on-demand (VoD) services such as Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime Video under new Ofcom content rules, ensuring that children and vulnerable viewers are better protected from harmful material and that these on-demand, online-only streaming services platforms are properly accountable to the UK regulator. The draft Bill also has new rules to make streaming content more accessible to those with seeing and hearing impairments, bringing them in line with existing broadcasting standards.

The draft Bill reflects the Government’s decisions to proceed with a package of reforms to support Channel 4 to meet the sustainability challenges it faces. Channel 4 will have greater freedom to make and own its own content, should it choose to do so. A new legal duty will also be introduced on the corporation to consider its long-term sustainability alongside the delivery of its public service remit. This will ensure that this globally renowned broadcaster can continue to produce high-impact, distinctive shows long into the future. The Government have already committed to raising the level of Channel 4’s independent production quota and will continue to work closely with industry to consider additional protections that will safeguard Channel 4’s important role supporting the production sector following these changes.

The Bill now also includes measures that are vital to the future of UK radio services. These long called for reforms will help protect radio’s long-term position on connected audio devices, including smart speakers, and ensure the continuation of the huge public value that radio provides for listeners across the UK. It will also include legislation for radio deregulation, which will reduce burdens and the costs on commercial radio.

The Media Bill will:

Deliver a new public service remit for TV while making sure public service broadcasters continue to service audiences across the UK with universally available, high-quality programming;

Make sure public service broadcast content is always carried and easy to find for UK audiences on connected devices and major online platforms, including on smart TVs, set-top boxes and streaming sticks, so audiences can easily access this content in the way that best suits them;

Introduce a sustainability duty on the Channel Four Television Corporation (C4C) and remove the existing publisher-broadcaster restriction on C4C so it has a greater ability to produce and monetise its own content, if it chooses to do so, ensuring Channel 4’s long-term future in public ownership;

Update the public service remit of S4C (Sianel Pedwar Cymru), the Welsh language television service, to include digital and online services. Removing the current geographical broadcasting restrictions so that S4C can broaden its reach and offer its content on a range of new platforms in the UK and beyond, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to the future of Welsh language broadcasting;

Bring video-on-demand services such as Netflix under UK regulation, ensuring that larger, TV-like services are subject to the same high standards as broadcast TV channels, by giving Ofcom powers to investigate and take action if it considers it appropriate;

Reduce regulatory burdens and costs on commercial radio stations that are no longer needed due to the decisive shift towards digital listening, while also strengthening protections for the provision of national and local news and local information for listeners;

Introduce measures to protect the position of radio accessed via smart speakers—for example, “Alexa” devices—by ensuring that listeners are able to find the content they expect in an unaltered format, without additional or substituted advertisement; and

Repeal section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which would—if commenced—force news publishers to pay the costs of any court judgment if they were not a member of the approved regulator, regardless of the outcome of the court judgment.

In recognition of the importance of getting these reforms right, and delivering the best outcome for audiences, the Government are publishing the Bill in draft to facilitate a period of technical engagement with industry prior to introduction.

The Government are today publishing the draft Bill and associated documents on www.gov.uk. I will deposit copies of the draft Bill and these documents in the Libraries of both Houses.

Alongside publication of the draft Media Bill, I am also issuing my response to Ofcom’s report on the licensing of Channel 3 and Channel 5 submitted under section 229 of the Communications Act 2003. This response confirms that I do not intend to block the renewal of these licences, acknowledging the valuable role that ITV, STV and Channel 5 continue to play within the PSB system. A copy of my response will be available on gov.uk.

April 5, 2023
Kemi Badenoch – 2023 Statement on Investment Treaty Negotiations – Singapore

The statement made by Kemi Badenoch, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

The Government will shortly commence negotiations with Singapore to deliver a new, modern investment treaty. Negotiations build on the strong investment relationship between our two nations and represent the United Kingdom’s Indo-Pacific tilt.

As of 2021, the stock of UK investment in Singapore totals £11.4 billion and the stock of Singaporean investment in the UK totals £12.0 billion, up from £4.1 billion in 2012. The United Kingdom and Singapore share a joint ambition to further strengthen our trade and economic relationship, deepening trade and increasing investment flows for the benefit of both countries.

That is why we are pursuing a new, modern investment treaty. This will fulfil a commitment made in the free trade agreement between the United Kingdom and Singapore, and it is an opportunity to put the UK at the forefront of international best practice. This follows on from the successful UK-Singapore digital economy agreement last year.

His Majesty’s Government remain clear that, in addition to guaranteeing clear standards of fair treatment to investors, any deal we sign will be in the best interests of the British people and the United Kingdom economy. We will not compromise on our high environmental, public health, animal welfare and food standards, and we will maintain our right to regulate in the public interest.

We are also clear that this negotiation will not open the NHS to further competition and overseas companies will not be able to take legal action to force us to do so.

The Government will update Parliament as we reach key milestones in negotiations.

April 5, 2023
Kevin Hollinrake – 2023 Speech on Unpaid Work Trials

The speech made by Kevin Hollinrake, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on introducing this important debate, and on his persistence. I think it is his seventh year of talking about this issue. He rightly feels strongly about it. He, like me, the rest of Government and probably every parliamentarian, absolutely believes that people who are at work should get paid the national living wage. I am delighted to be the Minister responsible for national living wage policy and workers’ rights.

Broadly, I agree with the points the hon. Member made. As others have said, if employers are engaging in the behaviour to which he referred—I accept that there is some evidence that some are—that is a scandalous practice. It is absolutely our case that all workers should be fairly rewarded for their work. Most people think that. Who would not agree with the point that a fair day’s work should mean a fair day’s pay? We are all on the same page on that.

We are also all on the same page on a related and very important point. As Minister responsible for national living wage policy, I am pleased to see the largest ever increase to the national living wage: a 9.7% increase to £10.42. That applies from Saturday. It is great to see it go over that £10 mark. Some 2.9 million people across the country will benefit from that measure, including 210,000 in Scotland and 160,000 in Northern Ireland. It is a very welcome move.

We should pay tribute to the vast majority of businesses and employers who—I think we all agree—are decent, do the right thing and do not engage in these scandalous practices. It is really important that we reiterate that, as well as the fact that lots of businesses are already struggling in the cost of living crisis, not least because of high energy bills, for example. They are suffering because of numerous cost pressures, and their paying this increase in the national living wage will not only affect the people on the bottom rung of the pay ladder, but have a knock-on effect on others in their workforce. We are determined to build the high-skill, high-wage economy that most people would like to see.

We have further ambitions. We want the national living wage to reach two thirds of median pay by 2024. That remains our ambition. It is the right thing to do. We are putting in place other measures that reinforce our point that we are absolutely protecting and indeed strengthening workers’ rights. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) made an interesting point about finding parliamentary time; we are effectively finding parliamentary time for a number of pieces of legislation, including six private Members’ Bills for which I am personally responsible. Those Bills include measures to ensure workers get full allocation of tips and service charges; to protect neonatal care for new parents who have difficulties with a newborn, ensuring more leave—up to 12 weeks; to entitle everybody to at least a week’s carers’ leave, which could help many people in the workplace look after dependent relatives; and to ensure redundancy protections pre and post maternity, which, again, is a welcome change.

A further change, and a key measure in the Taylor review, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is the right to request predictable terms and conditions. It will give people on, for example, zero-hours contracts the right to request predictable hours. We support legislation on that, and on making flexible working something that people have the right to request on day one. Those are all things that we are doing to strengthen workers’ rights and make the workplace more attractive.

Chris Stephens

I have been listening to the Minister very carefully, and I welcome what he says about the right to request, but a right to request does not necessarily mean that the right will be given. Will the Minister talk about how he intends to enforce that legislation, and increase enforcement around unpaid work trials?

Kevin Hollinrake

I do not want to get too distracted from the issue at hand, but I am happy to address that point in detail afterwards. We think those measures strike a balance. The recommendation from Matthew Taylor was not that there be a right to insist; it was the right to request. The employer could reject that request only on one of eight grounds, and in doing so, has to adhere to a process. We think that strikes a balance and meets the needs of businesses. For example, businesses can refuse a request in order to ensure that they have the right customer service availability and are not put under an undue burden. Those criteria have been set out, and I am happy to have that discussion with the hon. Member after the debate.

On the issue that the hon. Member for Glasgow South raised, there are two things that the Government would question about his policy: is it necessary, and what is the extent of the problem? It is important that we reflect the actual extent of the problem. He said that there is £3 billion of unpaid work; clearly that is a different issue. Following my intervention, he clarified that unpaid work trials are an element of that. The figure of 29% is also about unpaid work; the hon. Member for Glasgow South West said that among the 29% of employers that use unpaid work, work trials were a factor. The extent of the problem is not clear. I would describe people who are abusing the system as rogue employers, rather than something to benchmark.

Anybody who is defined as a worker should receive the national living wage. We updated the guidance in 2018, probably prompted by the work of the hon. Member for Glasgow South. The guidance is clear on the time that someone is allowed to have a work trial for. It says:

“in the Government’s view an individual conducting work in a trial lasting longer than one day is likely to be entitled to the minimum wage in all but very exceptional circumstances”.

Employment tribunals, for example, have a basis on which to make a judgment, and there are other bases.

Stewart Malcolm McDonald

I am unclear. Do the Government and the Minister’s Department collect data on the use of unpaid work trials?

Kevin Hollinrake

I do not have access to that data. The hon. Member refers to a survey that was done some years ago. It is our belief that unpaid work trials are not widespread, and there are measures to deal with the problem, which I will set out shortly. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said, there are six criteria applied to unpaid work trials.

Jim Shannon

Some of the responses have been very positive. The Carer’s Leave Bill, which I have been following, is really welcome. The Minister mentioned the outcome of tribunals, but a person cannot take a case to a tribunal if they have not been in the workplace long enough, which means that a tribunal may not be an option. Can the Minister also give some direction on the uniform issue?

Kevin Hollinrake

I thank the hon. Gentleman for all the good work he does in this House. In all the debates he speaks in, he is a champion for doing the right thing. As he said, we have been on the same side of the fence in debates on many occasions, and I am sure that will continue despite my ministerial position. I will come back to both of those points shortly.

Six different criteria apply in deciding whether an unpaid work trial is appropriate. The first is the length of time. The trial should be no longer than a day. Observation is another: is the employer observing, or is somebody just working unobserved? Other criteria relate to the nature of the work, and the value to the employer—is there a value to that work? That would be inappropriate. If the worker is observed, the work would have less value, because somebody has to observe them, and they might as well be doing the work themselves. All those things are taken into account in judging whether that shift should be paid.

There are reasons for having an unpaid work trial; for example, a teacher might be required to do a model lesson. It might be appropriate to ask teachers who are being interviewed to show what they would do in the actual situation. It would not be right to ban the practice altogether.

On having more specific guidance, which the hon. Member for Glasgow South mentioned, the problem is that being too specific in guidance could result in a race to the bottom by some employers—something that he is looking to clamp down on. If we said, “This categorically is the perimeter of work trials,” rogue employers may well take advantage. There needs to be a balance of judgment, rather than exact criteria.

The Government think that work trials can be a legitimate recruitment exercise at times, which is why we are not legislating in this area and do not intend to. I know the hon. Member disagrees, and I respect his opinion, but we do not think it is right to legislate further in this area. What we already have strikes the right balance.

Chris Stephens

On the one hand, the Minister says that the Government do not collect data, and on the other, he says that legislation is not necessary. That seems a bit confusing to those of us in the House who study these matters. Before the Government decide whether to legislate, would it not be better to do some investigation into the root of the problem to see how widespread it is?

Kevin Hollinrake

Of course, we will always look at information and evidence. As parliamentarians, we get information and evidence from lots of different sources, but we tend to work by seeing where there is obvious detriment and therefore loopholes that we need to close. I do not think it is practical for the Government to look at every single problem and then decide where to legislate; it is usually the other way round. I think we disagree on that, but we will always look at information. If the survey was updated and specified unpaid work trials as an issue, the hon. Gentleman would have a more compelling case.

On uniforms required for a place of work, deduction of the cost of the uniform should not take a person’s earnings below minimum wage. If it did, the employer would be guilty of an offence under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. It can be appropriate for an employer to say that there is a uniform that an employee must wear, at the employee’s cost, but that must not take that employee below the minimum wage.

Jim Shannon

The example I gave was a true one—I bring all my examples with honesty. The person had to buy a black shirt and black trousers to have the trial. If they did not get the job, they were out of pocket. Where is the comeback? It might be better for the employer, who will probably have spares, to make them available.

Kevin Hollinrake

I agree with the hon. Member, but that is a different point; I am speaking more to uniforms and how they relate to the minimum wage. It would be entirely inappropriate for an employer to say, “I want you to come on an unpaid work trial, and I want you to buy a new shirt and a new pair of trousers to do that.” I would define them as a rogue employer for taking that approach. As I have said, I was an employer for 30 years, and we would never have even considered that kind of behaviour.

The hon. Member for Strangford talked about awareness. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs undertakes a programme on best practice for employers. It is an enforcement body, as well as one that tries to help employers meet the relevant employment conditions.

A number of contributors said that an employment tribunal is the only way to deal with the issue. I quite understand that employment tribunals can be expensive and time-consuming. There are other processes; if people feel that they have been wrongly and inappropriately asked to do an unpaid work trial, they can report that to ACAS or His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, through its online form. All reports are investigated.

We are keen to expand the reach of HMRC’s enforcement capability. We have doubled our investment in national minimum wage enforcement since 2015-16. We spend nearly £28 million every year on ensuring that employers meet their legal responsibilities. Employers who are found to underpay their staff must repay all arrears that they owe to their staff and a penalty of up to 200% of the underpayment, and may be eligible to be publicly named by the Department for Business and Trade.

In 2021, HMRC returned more than £6.7 million in arrears to over 155,000 workers, and issued fines totalling more than £14 million to businesses that had failed to pay the minimum wage. Since 2015, the Government have ordered employers to repay over £100 million to more than 1 million workers, which demonstrates that it is never acceptable to short-change hard-working employees. The shadow Minister rightly asked when we will do the next naming and shaming. It has been too long. The last one was in December 2021. I have absolutely met my officials and said, “We need that list out very shortly.” It will happen very shortly.

I conclude by again thanking the hon. Member for Glasgow South. We absolutely agree that it is vital that the right of workers to be paid the minimum wage continues to be upheld. That is why the Government listened to concerns relating to work trials, and issued new guidance in 2018—prompted by his work, I would say, though I was not in this role at the time. That revised guidance, combined with strong enforcement of existing legislation, will continue to ensure that workers are not exploited through unpaid work trials.

Stewart Malcolm McDonald

We have had a good debate, with all the obsequiousness that is customary in the House. I thank the Minister, who I know to be diligent, but I briefly have to pick up on a couple of things that he said. He cannot have it both ways: he tells the House that he does not have data on the issue, but also that the problem is not widespread. I promise you, Mr Hollobone, that the problem is widespread and very real. The Minister cited the amount of money that HMRC has forced businesses to repay to workers. That is not the sign of a system that is successful. It is the sign of an unsuccessful system when the Government have to go around forcing people to pay money that they should have paid. It is welcome that the Government have done the enforcement, but this should never have been allowed to happen in the first place.

I accept entirely that the Minister does not see the need for legislation, but I think that he is wrong; legislation would be entirely proportionate and is necessary. He tells me to be specific; the title of the Bill was the Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill. I cannot think of a more specific title for a Bill trying to solve a very specific problem, via an amendment to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Minister mentions various Bills that he is seeking to bring in. I think he will agree that his job is one of the best in Government, because he can make a material difference. He is choosing not to, and that needs to change.

April 5, 2023
Justin Madders – 2023 Speech on Unpaid Work Trials

The speech made by Justin Madders, the Labour MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for securing the debate and for the work he has done over six years to try to deal with this wholly egregious situation.

We can probably start on a note of common concern, because every right-minded person would regard it as wrong that workers should be expected to work for free. In many cases, as we have heard, they actually end up out of pocket after working a trial shift. I firmly believe that we should all adhere to the principle that there should be a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, and any action to stop exploitation—whatever form it takes—should be welcome.

As we have heard, there clearly ought to be means by which an employer can test an individual’s suitability for a position, but—call me old-fashioned—I have always thought that that was what a job interview was for. If not that, what about a paid probationary period for someone to be assessed for their suitability? Let us not forget that people have to work somewhere continuously for two years before they get any protection against unfair dismissal, which could be seen as a very long trial period, albeit one that is paid. When we consider the many options available to employers to assess the suitability of potential employees in the round, we inevitably get drawn to the conclusion that, in the main, trial shifts are not necessary—certainly not unpaid ones. When we are confronted with the evidence that we have heard today and on previous occasions, the suspicion continues to grow that they are often used as a quick way to get free labour.

We have to ask what is being done to stop jobseekers being exploited. Although it is welcome that the Government have published guidance on the practice of unpaid trial shifts, it is not worth the paper it is written on without proper enforcement. There is a problem with both the wording of the guidance and the Government’s general attitude to upholding UK employment law. In particular, I have concerns about the fact that, as the guidance notes, there are no definitive rules or tests for whether a trial shift is legal.

As we know, there are six factors in the guidance that a court or tribunal will consider when making a judgment about whether a trial shift should be paid. I ask the Minister to consider how many people have the legal knowledge, patience, time or money to pursue an employer for a handful of hours of lost earnings at the tribunal, particularly if they are in a legally vulnerable position from having no employment protection at that point. Does the Minister agree that the threat of being taken to a tribunal for an unpaid trial shift is self-evidently a hollow threat to employers, and that the Department should be much more proactive in pursuing complaints on behalf of workers? Does he agree that, given that the majority of people in these sectors are young people, because of the nature of the work, and are unlikely to be members of a trade union, they need support in enforcing their rights?

Let me give an example from my own family of what is probably a pretty typical situation. My son has plenty of experience working in bars—quite often in Glasgow, actually. He has applied for various jobs in bars, including one at a bar in Chester. He had an interview. He has all the experience needed to work there, but was offered a trial shift despite the fact that he clearly could do the job. It transpired that the trial shift would run for eight hours and finish in the early hours of the morning, when there is no public transport, so he would have to pay for a taxi out of his own pocket to get home. That looked to me like blatant exploitation. Luckily for him, his father was the shadow employment rights Minister so he could be guided on what to do in that situation, but it begs the question: how many other times have they gotten away with that? How many hours each week are young people being asked to work trial shifts for which they get no payment? The Minister should be tasking his officials with trying to find out exactly how many times this happens each week, because we are probably seeing only the tip of the iceberg.

Kevin Hollinrake

What guidance did the hon. Member give his son in that situation? I would be interested to know.

Justin Madders

I am not sure Hansard can record in a polite way the suggestion that I conveyed to him. Let me put it this way: the employment relationship did not continue.

The six factors contained in the guidance are useful, but a lot of subjectivity is applied to them. For example, how is observation—which is one of the criteria—defined? How long is a reasonable period of observation? Ultimately, how can a jobseeker be expected to know if their employer has acted in line with the guidance, given how ambiguous it is? The ACAS website does not make any reference to trial shifts at all. People need a lot more support to understand when they are being asked to do something that is unlawful.

Ambiguities aside, the guidance needs to be properly enforced. As has been mentioned, we have this figure of £3 billion for unpaid work in various forms—it is probably is an even greater figure now. The continued reliance on an underfunded and overstretched tribunal system is failing our workers. Surely it is time for a single enforcement body to follow through for workers to ensure that their rights are enforced. I know the Government promised that along with an employment Bill, which we unsurprisingly have touched on. Will the Minister give us a timescale for when this single enforcement body will emerge?

The Government’s record on national minimum wage enforcement in recent times has been concerning. A naming and shaming list has not been published since December 2021, and I know the Minister has expressed his support for that as an important pillar of enforcement. As I have mentioned to him on previous occasions, a number of Departments have awarded lucrative contracts running into the hundreds of millions of pounds to companies that have appeared on the list of shame. What kind of message does it send to companies about the importance that the Government place on enforcement of the national minimum wage if they are then rewarded with Government contracts? I hope the Minister can give us an update on when the next list will be released.

In conclusion, the debate is a useful reminder that this is unfinished business. We can see very clearly how current ambiguities are being used to exploit workers. I want to hear from the Minister about what more can be done to ensure that people get paid for the work they do, and to ensure that these ruses, in all their forms, are put to an end, so that we get to a point in this country where a fair day’s work means a fair day’s pay.

April 5, 2023
Chris Stephens – 2023 Speech on Unpaid Work Trials

The speech made by Chris Stephens, the SNP MP for Glasgow South West, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, and to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I hope he enjoyed his birthday celebrations at the weekend; I noticed that he was a social media sensation, with all the well-wishers wishing him a happy birthday.

I congratulate my good friend and constituency neighbour, and fellow left winger—I use the definition loosely—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on securing this debate on an important issue that affects far too many people in these islands. My good friend talked about one of the more extreme examples, the tea company Mooboo, but he undersold what was going on at that particular workplace. That situation really did go from the bizarre to the ridiculous. I recall that when this story hit the headlines, myself and my good friend were actually sitting next to each other in the Chamber of the House of Commons on a Thursday morning at business questions—the Minister was usually at business questions in those days—as we discussed this great matter.

Those of us who were contacting Mooboo tea on the social media platform Twitter were finding ourselves blocked for asking why unpaid work trials were happening in that workplace. Members of the pubic who were asking Mooboo, “Why are you blocking Members of Parliament for asking basic questions?”, were finding themselves blocked. It was getting to the stage where Mooboo was blocking more people than it had followers. It was one of those ridiculous situations. Even journalists were asking Mooboo those questions and finding themselves blocked, until Mooboo relented and started to engage with Unite—Bryan Simpson, who is a fantastic trade unionist and a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South, and who does great work in organising trade unions in such areas, where exploitation takes place.

I want to make it very clear that the SNP is still calling on the UK Government to ban exploitative unpaid work trials and to protect workers, but we should not have to wait for the Government to act. As I alluded to in my intervention, we have waited six years for this employment Bill to appear before us. In 2017, the Government said they would bring forward an employment Bill to ban exploitative practices that were happening in the workplace, and then we were told, “Well, Brexit’s taken over.” Recently we have been told, “We’ll bring forward an employment Bill if there’s sufficient parliamentary time,” but that does not stop them introducing immigration Bill after immigration Bill. They can find parliamentary time for that, rather than for the very real issue of the exploitative practices that are happening in far too many workplaces across these islands. Will the Minister update the House on when we will finally see an employment Bill tabled by the Government to address unpaid work trials and all the other issues that come with it, which I will come to?

As my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South, said, he introduced an Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill in July 2017. Guess what, Mr Hollobone—I know you will be shocked when I say this—it was talked out by a Minister. How many private Members’ Bills have been talked out by a Minister? I hope that we will review how private Members’ Bills are put forward in this place and that we stop the practice whereby Ministers are allowed to keep talking until 2.30 pm on the button, when the Bills disappear. That is really disappointing, and that view is shared by others across the House.

My hon. Friend has led in a number of debates and been a consistent campaigner on unpaid work trials. I hope that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), and indeed the Minister, will praise him for his work in shining a light on these issues.

In response to a written parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South about legislative proposals, the UK Government said:

“Existing legislation already bans unpaid work trials that are not part of a legitimate recruitment process”,

yet he has given example after example, as did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), of unpaid work trials happening all over the economy and not being part of a recruitment process. As my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour said, they are being used to deal with staff shortages or fill in for people who have been off sick, which is a scandalous practice. Then there are those who are having to buy uniforms to go to unpaid work trials, which is an absolutely ridiculous practice—I hope the Minister noted what my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Strangford also said about that. The Minister will need to answer for how we can deal with that kind of exploitation, because that is what it is.

As my hon. Friend said, trial periods can be a legitimate way to assess a candidate’s skills and suitability. They also give individuals the opportunity to assess whether a workplace suits them, which can be just as important. I note that the Department for Work and Pensions is trying to force people to take up more hours, and there are issues in relation to that. However, if an employer offers someone a trial period, it should be paid. There should also be feedback. Many examples have been given of unpaid work trials where nobody hears anything afterwards—whether it is a day, a couple of days or even a couple of hours, they do not hear anything from the employers. That practice needs to end. Perhaps an employment Bill could deal with some of that.

It is interesting that the UK Government have confirmed that unpaid working time, which can include unpaid trial shifts, was a factor in 29% of cases when 208 employers were named for failing to pay £1.2 million to around 12,000 workers, and ordered to pay £2 million in penalties. If there is adequate legislation in place, and the practice is still happening to the degree outlined by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Strangford, perhaps there is an enforcement issue.

Perhaps the Minister can tell us what enforcement is taking place within Government to ensure that unpaid work trials are not exploitative. Perhaps he could start by telling us how many vacancies currently exist in the national minimum wage compliance unit. If we had more workers employed by the state to enforce the national minimum wage, as the Government said in their parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend—if we had more enforcement officers—perhaps we would find out that the practice is as the two hon. Members suggested: still widespread, and still happening in too many workplaces.

The UK Government could have supported my constituency neighbour’s private Member’s Bill, or they could have brought in their own legislation. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what legislation is proposed and what timetable will be allowed for an employment Bill. We might not agree with every single provision in that employment Bill, but it would give every single Member of the House an opportunity to raise other issues, put forward amendments and deal with this issue.

Stewart Malcolm McDonald

My hon. Friend speaks to an important issue that he touched upon earlier, which is the practice of talking Bills out. I got an assurance from the then Minister that the Bill would not be talked out, and that it would be given a fair hearing and allowed to go through the process, but he then rather dishonourably did the opposite of what he had told me. We ended up with the Bill not having a fair hearing in the House, and not being given the proper readings that it ought to have been given as a Bill from a Member of Parliament. The result is that we are back here six years later, discussing the same problem.

Chris Stephens

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As I recall, it might very well have been in the debate on his private Member’s Bill when the then Minister rose to his feet and said, “I will be concluding my remarks at 2.30 pm.” That was at the beginning of his remarks. That is a completely scandalous way of dealing with it, but my hon. Friend is right. We have had assurances before that Bills would not be talked about and then, lo and behold, on the day that the Bill is up for discussion, that is exactly what happens.

We firmly oppose this practice. Because of the sectors of the economy that my hon. Friend referred to, we also oppose the inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts. Sometimes they go together, where there is an unpaid work trial for a zero-hours contract job. They are both exploitative practices. These non-standard types of employment that offer workers minimal job or financial security really have to end, particularly in a cost of living crisis. If the Government are really serious about helping people to earn more money, they need to put forward legislation to stop unpaid work trials and exploitative zero-hour contracts.

Jim Shannon

When that Bill was introduced approximately six years ago, we anticipated that it would go through Westminster and address this anomaly. Does the hon. Gentleman, like me, feel aggrieved—I am sure he does—that, in the six years since this legislative change, people have been exploited and thousands have lost out on what was rightly theirs?

Chris Stephens

I agree.

I will remind the House why the promise of an employment Bill came about: it was because of the Taylor review. It was the Government’s own task. Matthew Taylor reviewed the working practices taking place across these islands, and the Taylor review listed a whole series of recommendations, many of which have still not been dealt with through legislation. If the Government are going to ask people to carry out that sort of work, we would expect them to back it with action. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, it is quite extraordinary that they have refused to do that.

The Scottish Government and the other devolved Administrations can do their bit, but they can do only so much, because employment law is reserved to this place, unfortunately. I would suggest that if employment law was devolved, including to the Scottish Parliament, work practices across the board would be a lot fairer.

I am conscious of the time. Let me end by saying that if the Government viewed trade unions as a key social partner in this country, these sorts of practices would come to an end in the workplace. I wholly support what my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South, is trying to do in this area.

April 5, 2023