UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2023

  • Michelle Donelan – 2023 Statement on the Artificial Intelligence Regulation White Paper

    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.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2023 Statement on the Hong Kong Veterans’ Settlement Route

    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.

  • Robert Halfon – 2023 Statement on the Post-16 Qualifications Review

    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.

  • Lucy Frazer – 2023 Statement on the Draft Media Bill

    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.

  • Kemi Badenoch – 2023 Statement on Investment Treaty Negotiations – Singapore

    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.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Frequently Flooded Allowance – Funding for repeatedly flooded communities [April 2023]

    PRESS RELEASE : Frequently Flooded Allowance – Funding for repeatedly flooded communities [April 2023]

    The press release issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 5 April 2023.

    £100 million of funding for areas in England that have suffered repeated flooding.

    Floods Minister Rebecca Pow has today (Wednesday 5 April) announced the first communities in England to receive better flood protection as part of the government’s £100 million Frequently Flooded Allowance to protect areas which have been affected by repeated flooding.

    The first 53 projects announced today will be allocated more than £26 million in total, better protecting more than 2,300 households and businesses across the country.

    Communities that will be better protected include those in Worcestershire, which faced severe flooding with Storm Christoph in 2021, and Cumbria, whose residents suffered major flooding from Storm Desmond in 2015 and Storm Ciara in 2020.

    It will also better protect properties in the Calder Valley, which was devastated by flooding when it was hit by both Storm Ciara and Storm Eva in 2015.

    The allowance targets communities where 10 or more properties have flooded twice or more in the last 10 years. These communities are often smaller and can face barriers to access funding due to the relative complexity and cost of building flood defences compared to the size of the community.

    Environment Minister Rebecca Pow said:

    We know only too well the devastating impact that flooding can have on communities and businesses, as we face more extreme weather brought about by climate change.

    I am determined that we do whatever we can to prevent flooding that affects so many towns and villages across the country.

    This much-needed funding will go a long way to support those whose homes and livelihoods are repeatedly threatened by flooding and forms a key part of our record £5.2 billion investment by 2027 to protect communities in England better.

    John Curtin, chief executive of the Environment Agency, said:

    We are already seeing the impacts of climate change in the UK and around the world, with increased flooding just one aspect of this. Protecting people and communities is our top priority as look to tackle this challenge.

    The funding announced today will help better protect thousands of homes and businesses at risk from repeated flood incidents across the country.

    The Environment Agency’s strong track record in delivering flood defence schemes means we have better protected 314,000 homes since 2015.

    Projects will improve resilience through a mixture of hard engineering flood defences and natural flood management measures. The allowance also supports the installation of property flood resilience (PFR) measures such as flood doors and barriers, meaning more homes will be better protected in communities where traditional defence schemes are not always viable.

    The ring-fenced funding is part of a record £5.2 billion investment in flood defences to protect communities across England better.

    Since the start of the current £5.2 billion investment programme (2021-2027), we have already better protected more than 35,000 properties. This follows our successful delivery of the previous £2.6 billion investment programme between 2015 and 2021, which better protected more than 314,000 homes across England.

    See below for a full list of projects to receive funding:

    • Alconbury Flood Alleviation Scheme Stage 2
    • Brighton & Hove City Council Surface Water Management Feasibility Study
    • Bingley and Shipley Property Flood Resilience Study
    • Bledington Flood Alleviation Scheme
    • Brighouse Flood Alleviation Scheme
    • Burrow Beck Conveyance Improvements
    • Carlisle Appraisal Package Appleby Town Centre
    • Chard Flood Alleviation Scheme
    • Cocker Beck, Lowdham, Flood Alleviation Scheme
    • Dufton Close Feasibility Study
    • Earby Flood Alleviation Scheme Phase 3, Earby Beck
    • Eardisland Flood Alleviation Scheme
    • Erringden Hillside
    • Falmouth Integrated Urban Drainage Management
    • First Avenue Flood Alleviation Scheme
    • Flood Risk Reduction Schemes 2 – Copley Village Flood Alleviation Scheme
    • Flood Risk Reduction Schemes 2 – Cottonstones near Lumb, Calderdale
    • Flood Risk Reduction Schemes 2 – Railes Close between Luddenden and Midgley
    • Greyfriars Community Flood Risk Management Scheme
    • Hebden Bridge Flood Alleviation Scheme
    • Ilminster Flood Alleviation Study
    • Intake, Flood Risk Management Scheme
    • Irwell Vale to Chatterton
    • Langstone (Havant) Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Scheme
    • Larkspur Close Integrated Urban Drainage Scheme
    • Lavendon Flood Alleviation Scheme
    • Leintwardine and Walford Property Flood Resilience
    • Lindale Road Grange over Sands
    • Lipson Vale Phase 1, Trefusis Park (South West Water Integrated Urban Drainage Modelling)
    • Little Bollington River Bollin Property Flood Resilience
    • Market Weighton Flood Alleviation Scheme
    • Natural Flood Management Upstream of Cirencester
    • Northumbria Integrated Drainage Partnership – Redcar (Yearby, Kirkleatham & Low Farm Drive, and West Dyke Road) Flood Alleviation Scheme
    • Northumbria Integrated Drainage Partnership – Saltburn (Princes Road & Marske Road) Flood Alleviation Scheme
    • North Road, Holme Village Flood Alleviation
    • Pallion Flood Alleviation Scheme
    • River Teme, Tenbury Wells Community Flood Alleviation Scheme
    • Rolleston Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme, Staffordshire
    • Ruislip Park Wood and Pinn Meadows
    • Severn Stoke Flood Alleviation Scheme, River Severn
    • Skipton Road
    • Small Communities Property Flood Resilience Scoping
    • South Cave Flood Alleviation Scheme
    • Stony Stratford Flood Alleviation Study
    • Stubbing Holme Road
    • Tenbury Wells Integrated Flood Solution
    • Toronto Close Flood Alleviation Scheme
    • Undefended Properties in the Ironbridge Gorge – Individual Property Protection
    • Upper River Piddle Catchment Flood Risk Management Scheme
    • Walsden Flood Alleviation Scheme
    • West End Road, St Helens
    • Whitley Brook Flood Reduction Scheme
    • Williton Flood Alleviation Study
  • PRESS RELEASE : Boost for Welsh businesses as UK strikes deal to join major free trade bloc in Indo-Pacific [April 2023]

    PRESS RELEASE : Boost for Welsh businesses as UK strikes deal to join major free trade bloc in Indo-Pacific [April 2023]

    The press release issued by the Department for Business and Trade on 5 April 2023.

    The bloc is home to over 500 million people and will have a total GDP of £11 trillion once the UK joins.

    • UK announces deal to join CPTPP – a major trade bloc in the Indo-Pacific which will have a total GDP of £11 trillion once the UK joins
    • More than 450 businesses in Wales exported to CPTPP countries in 2021 and could benefit after today’s announcement
    • Joining the Trans-Pacific partnership, which contains some of the world’s fastest growing economies, gives Welsh companies, start-ups and farmers access to the world’s emerging middle class

    The Welsh economy is expected to benefit after the UK Government today (31 March) announced the conclusion of trade talks with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), a vast free trade area spanning the Indo-Pacific.

    The bloc is home to over 500 million people and will have a total GDP of £11 trillion once the UK joins. Joining the bloc could boost the Welsh economy by improving businesses’ access to some of the world’s largest markets.

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said:

    We are at our heart an open and free-trading nation, and this deal demonstrates the real economic benefits of our post-Brexit freedoms. As part of CPTPP, the UK is now in a prime position in the global economy to seize opportunities for new jobs, growth and innovation.

    Joining the CPTPP trade bloc puts the UK at the centre of a dynamic and growing group of Pacific economies, as the first new nation and first European country to join. British businesses will now enjoy unparalleled access to markets from Europe to the south Pacific.

    There are numerous opportunities for Welsh businesses to benefit from joining CPTPP, with more than 450 businesses in Wales exporting over £900m worth of goods to CPTPP countries in 2021.

    Business and Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch said:

    This is an important moment for the UK. Our accession to CPTPP sends a powerful signal that the UK is open for business and using our post-Brexit freedoms to reach out to new markets around the world and grow our economy.

    Joining CPTPP will support jobs and create opportunities for companies of all sizes and in all parts of the UK. It is also about giving Welsh businesses improved access to the countries that will be gateway to the wider Indo-Pacific region which is projected to make up the majority of global growth in the future.

    Joining the trade bloc will mean more than 99 percent of UK goods exports to CPTPP members will be eligible for zero tariffs. In the long run, it could boost the UK economy by £1.8 billion and lead to a £1.7 billion increase in UK exports to CPTPP countries as result of the reduction of barriers across goods and services according to the Government’s published scoping assessment. Key Welsh exports such as machinery and power generators could benefit from the removal of tariffs as a result of the agreement.

    Welsh Secretary David TC Davies said:

    This trade deal is great news for Welsh business. CPTPP countries are already an important sector in the Welsh export market. Over 450 companies, including Halen Môn and Fifth Wheel, will benefit from less red tape and better opportunities. These growing markets will help businesses in Wales increase export opportunities and boost the global appetite for Welsh goods and services.

    Fifth Wheel Company are a multi-award winning business specialising in the design and manufacturing of luxury tourers. All of their vehicles are assembled in-house at their factory in Rhuallt in North Wales, and they’re excited about the exporting opportunities that will be created by the UK joining CPTPP.

    Gethin Whiteley at Fifth Wheel, commented:

    We’ve been exporting our luxury caravans to Australia and New Zealand customers for the last five years. The leisure and camping market within these countries is growing, and our products offer the size and space of a motorhome and the practicality of a car and caravan so are perfectly suited to explore.

    We have already embarked on a trade mission to strengthen our position in these markets, and we believe that joining CPTPP, along with the bilateral deals, will further assist us in our search to increase exports of our products to markets of growing importance.

    Wales-based company Halen Môn produce ANGLESEY Sea Salt, which can be found in over 100 of the UK’s best delicatessens, as well as in retailers such as Marks and Spencer, Waitrose and Harvey Nichols.

    They already export to more than 22 countries across the globe, including several CPTPP members, and are looking forward to exploring the further exporting potential created by the UK’s accession to the trading bloc.

    Alison Lea-Wilson at Halen Môn said:

    Anything the UK government can do to help realise the huge potential of trading with CPTPP member states is to be welcomed. We already export to Japan and Singapore and see opportunities in Australia too.

    We are delighted to be supplying a Japanese bakery ingredients company with our innovative oak smoked water. There is already a great relationship between Wales and Japan forged in part by rugby, seaweed and even leeks, and we look forward to building on it.

    Membership is a gateway to the wider Indo-Pacific region, which has 60% of the world’s population and is set to account for the majority (54%) of global economic growth and around half of the world’s billion middle-class consumers in the decades ahead.

    As a member of CPTPP, the UK will help influence and shape global rules for industries of the future like digital, data and services, and secure our place as a global leader in a network of countries committed to free trade.

    The UK and CPTPP members will now take the final steps required for the UK to formally sign in 2023.

  • Kevin Hollinrake – 2023 Speech on Unpaid Work Trials

    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.

  • Justin Madders – 2023 Speech on Unpaid Work Trials

    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.

  • Chris Stephens – 2023 Speech on Unpaid Work Trials

    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.