Justin Madders
MP for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough · Labour · United Kingdom
“Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard asked about, will consider the points raised in this debate and whether any of them can be put into future updates to guidance. As was mentioned, good passenger information is central to standards.”
“As the roads Minister, I of course recognise the importance of bus stops and the important effect they have on the streetscape. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard made clear that she is passionate and informed about the importance of bus journeys to everyone.”
“Where responsibility for highways or individual assets sits elsewhere, close and effective working between the relevant authorities is essential. We expect local plans to join up services, infrastructure and passenger information, rather than treating them as separate issues. That will no doubt be music to the ears of my hon.”
“Our guidance encourages authorities to take a strategic approach to stops and interchanges, including keeping an inventory of infrastructure, identifying priorities for investment and setting locally appropriate standards for facilities and maintenance.”
“She is absolutely right that the quality of a bus stop is about more than accessibility, although of course accessibility is vital. Passengers notice whether a stop is easy to find and use, whether it offers shelter or seating where appropriate, whether it is clean, whether the surroundings feel safe and well maintained and, as we have di…”
“That approach reflects a simple principle: local transport authorities know their areas and are best placed to plan improvements across the whole local bus network. That is why the Department’s vision for buses, within an integrated transport system, puts local transport authorities at the centre of delivery.”
The complete record
Every one of 8,481 lines we hold for Justin Madders, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 73 of 170.
“In addition to the obvious arguments about why we need accurate information on workforce requirements, it is important that we collect such information for existing staff, because they need hope that help is on the way. We need to show that those claps on a Thursday night were not an empty gesture and that there is a determination to do something about the persistent rota gaps that mean staff are both exhausted and demoralised. Just look at some of the challenges we face: 93,000 vacancies; a £6 billion annual spend on agency staff; staff working extra unpaid hours; and some 40% off with work-related stress at some point or other. With all those things conspiring together, it is little wonder that retention is an issue, so we need to give staff hope that we have an answer—that we have a plan.”
“The most recent Department-commissioned NHS workforce strategy, the People Plan, did not include a forecast on staffing numbers. When asked about it, Baroness Harding, who authored the plan, said that the strategy did not include staff numbers not because “the Government disagreed with the numbers” but “because we could not get approval to publish the document with any forecasts in it.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 7 December 2021; Vol. 816, c. 1814.] Perhaps that means the Government do have figures but just do not want us to see them. If that is right, perhaps the Minister could let us in on the secret when he responds. If that is not right, will he tell us what other organisation with more than a million staff manages to operate successfully without accurate figures on workforce projection?”
“Every one of those examples arises because, to a greater or lesser extent—I would say to a greater extent most of the time—there simply are not enough staff to meet the demand. There is a pattern of disconnection in respect of the action required to meet the Government’s ambitions, let alone getting the NHS to meet its constitutional targets. Unless workforce is addressed in a meaningful way as part of all the plans and strategies issued, the Government are just fooling themselves that their plans are credible and deliverable. Even if the Government wish to fool themselves, they are not fooling anyone else. They are certainly not fooling us Members on the Opposition Benches or the 100 or so health and social care organisations that support what we are trying to achieve with the workforce amendment.”
“On Friday night, a constituent contacted me as he suspected he had dislocated his hip and had been told that his situation did not warrant an ambulance. Eventually, he managed to get to A&E, but in the end he went home without receiving treatment because it was so busy that people were standing outside the department. That is just one example, but there are countless others like it—the frustrated constituents who can never speak to their GP; the many people left in agony because waiting lists are at record levels; those whose teeth rot away because they cannot get dental treatment; and those who receive no help for their mental health issues because they do not reach the threshold for intervention.”
“I rise to speak to the Lords amendment on workforce—probably for the dozenth time during the Bill’s passage. I make no apologies for repetition because some things are worth repeating and the importance of our workforce can never be understated. Everything comes back to workforce: the grandest plans, strategy documents, reorganisations, integrations and configurations will all count for very little if the fundamental cog in the machine and the glue that holds the whole thing together—the workforce—is not a central part of those plans. The consistent failure to invest in the workforce and to provide a plan for it so that it is able to meet demand over a sustained period is at the root of many of the challenges that the NHS faces today. We should correct that.”
“Q4. In the Labour party, we believe not only that law breakers cannot be law makers, but that tax raisers should be taxpayers. When people in powerful positions pick and choose where they pay their taxes, it is an insult to everyone else who does not have that luxury. May I ask the Prime Minister how many members of his Cabinet have ever been involved in a tax avoidance scheme?”
“The Prime Minister happens to believe that he did not knowingly break the law. Many of my constituents will have difficulty accepting that. However, if we suspend disbelief for a minute, the Prime Minister is—this is based on his own words—telling the world that he did not know what the rules were, so I ask him: does he think someone who does not understand the laws they are bringing in is fit to lead this country?”
“The Minister will be aware of concerns, particularly from the Prison Officers Association, that far more female officers than male officers are failing this test. Will he meet the Prison Officers Association to discuss this issue?”
“In my view, it introduces a level of robustness to workforce planning that is currently missing. For the reasons I have set out, we owe it to the workforce, to patients and to those in receipt of social care to put workforce planning on the strong footing that the amendment would deliver.”
“As he knows, I like to be helpful to him, so I hope that on this occasion he can support the amendment. This debate is timely because it comes on a day when two surveys have been released that lay bare the crisis that we face. One survey shows that public satisfaction ratings with the NHS are reported to be at a 25-year low—a quarter of a century of surveys there—and another shows that the number of NHS staff who would recommend their trust as a place to work has plummeted. Those two facts are intertwined and symptomatic of the workforce crisis that the amendment is trying to address. The question we must ask ourselves, if we choose not to support the Lords amendment, is whether the Government’s existing plans create sufficient accountability and rigour to deliver the transformative approach that the amendment would.”
“I suspect that the Minister—who I have a lot of time for, even though he is often wrong on these things—might privately think that a long-term workforce plan might be a good idea, not just to ensure that the NHS can plan properly and to move forward on a sustainable footing, but because that might help his Department when it goes into negotiations on the spending round with the Treasury, as it will be able to point to an independently verified assessment of workforce need. If the amendment has a weakness, it is that it does not ensure that any plan is actually feasible, because there is no requirement in it that any plan be fully funded. However, a plan that shows, for all the world to see, a clear funding gap would be helpful to the Minister, because it would allow him to go to the Treasury with a clear and objective demand.”
“The Health and Social Care Committee report on staff burnout says: “It is clear that workforce planning has been led by the funding envelope available to health and social care rather than by demand and the capacity required to service that demand.” That is rather the nub of it. Health and social care are both demand-led systems, yet the funding and therefore the workforce capacity are not linked to demand. Until that central issue is addressed, we will keep coming back to the many varied and unfortunate consequences of an overstretched and under-resourced workforce.”
“There are 93,000 NHS staff vacancies; £6 billion-plus has been spent on temporary staff to fill gaps; and more than half of staff are working unpaid extra hours each week, with 44% saying that they have felt ill with work-related issues—little wonder, given that retention remains a huge issue. We need a plan, and we need to give staff some semblance of hope that we are listening—that the claps on a Thursday were not just an empty gesture; that the tributes that we rightly pay here to their dedication are not meaningless platitudes; and that there is a determination to do something about the persistent rota gaps that mean that staff are both exhausted and demoralised.”
“I wish to speak to Lords amendment 29 on the workforce. The most important thing I learned during my five years as a shadow Health Minister is that everything comes back to the workforce. We can have the grandest plans, strategy documents, reorganisations, integrations and configurations—all of which are probably in this Bill, in various forms—but it will all count for very little if the fundamental cog in the machine, the workforce, is not a central part of those plans. The consistent failure to invest in, and provide a plan for, the workforce, so that it can meet demand over a sustained period is at the root of the challenges that the NHS and social care face today. We now have a chance to correct that. Let us look at some of the challenges.”
“That was a pretty strong-sounding answer from the Minister, but let us see whether those fine words are put into practice. An audit undertaken two years ago found that 17% of organisations—more than 2,500—that should have published a modern slavery statement had failed to do so. Can the Minister tell us what action has been taken since then to ensure that they do?”
“The success rate for parents at appeal is indicative of a system that is completely broken. Of course, parents should not have to go to appeal to get the education that their children deserve, and they should not feel that they have to fight every step of the way, so I hope that what the Secretary of State has announced today will begin to change that. I want to ask about getting children to school in the first place. The Secretary of State will be aware of reports over the weekend of a real crisis in special educational needs transport because of rising fuel prices. What will he do to address that issue?”
“As we have shown and heard today, it is not possible to discuss the war pensions and armed forces compensation scheme without looking at the role and performance of Veterans UK, so I would like the Minister to commit to listening to constituents such as mine, veterans such as Mr Cottrell, and to addressing their concerns, in order to drive some improvements in the service, because we all believe that veterans deserve the very best service in these areas, as in every other service they use, as a thank you for their service and duty over many years.”
“The schemes designed to ensure they can access the financial support they need through their pensions are lagging behind numerous social security benefits, and that is together with the fact that we are now in the third year of waiting for the digital answer to the veterans ID card. That is another example of how veterans feel they are not being treated as a priority. I would like to conclude with Mr Cottrell’s own words. He asks that the Government “meet some Veterans and ask them what they think of the service Veterans UK provide to people who have served this Country and have been damaged either physically or mentally by their service”.”
“For Mr Cottrell, who was also claiming PIP, the difference in approach was stark. His PIP renewal claim in 2020 was dealt with within 18 days. It is reasonable to ask why the same standards cannot apply to war pensions. I am told that the vastly different timeframes are based on the long-term performance of the war pensions scheme, and that will remain the case “until the digitisation and transformation of the WPS is complete in 2023”. That essentially means there will be little improvement for veterans for at least another year while that digitisation process takes place. It is perhaps unsurprising that veterans do not feel they are being given much priority and that they feel like an afterthought.”
“In Mr Cottrell’s case, that meant a decision was made on his claim without a medical assessment report, and the decision maker specifically referred in the decision notice to having to decide on the claim in lieu of such evidence—the implication being that the decision may have been different if an assessment had taken place. Mr Cottrell certainly believes that to be the case. The feedback I have received from those navigating the war pensions process is that veterans feel they are an afterthought, and the comparison with how PIP is dealt with certainly makes them feel that way. The DWP does not apply a target time for the clearance of war pensions claims. My understanding from the last question on the subject is that the average time is 127 working days, or six months.”
“It is accepted that the pandemic has caused delays to the normal functions of the application, assessment, and appeals process, but I was concerned to see that the number of claims made to the war pensions and armed forces compensation scheme dropped by almost 40% from 2019-20. While we must acknowledge the impact that the pandemic had on that, it is notable that the decrease in personal independence payment applications for the same period was much less at around 27%. Perhaps the decision to prioritise PIP assessments by alternative means, while the war pensions process ground to a halt, offers some explanation, but it feels to many that the system for war pensions was simply closed for a period of time. From April to August 2020, there were 200,000 PIP assessments, yet not one war pension medical assessment took place.”
“In the context of the repeated concerns about independence, it would be a cause of concern if the acceleration of the clearing of the backlog hindered the legion or any other provider from providing the representation that veterans need. On a slightly tangential point, I am sure that many Members will, when contacting organisations, have had challenges about whether they have their constituents’ consent. As we all know—indeed, we commonly quote it—statutory instrument No. 2905 of 2002 covers the authority of MPs to act on behalf of their constituents. It has therefore been a source of frustration that Veterans UK seems to be unaware of that provision. We have managed to get that resolved, but it does not show an organisation that is particularly customer-focused.”
“I am pleased that the Government have committed to reducing waiting times, but the Royal British Legion has said that it is essential that, as the default provider of representation, it has the capacity to deliver its services to those who need support. I understand that following some discussions, there has been a little slowing down to enable hearings to match the legion’s capacity. However, there is a question mark about how long that arrangement will last, so I ask for some assurances that any attempts to clear the backlog are done with the welfare of veterans at heart to ensure that they are properly represented. Clearly we all want veterans’ appeals heard as soon as possible, but it is vital that they come out of that process feeling that they have been properly represented and their cases have been properly heard.”
“However, both those matters could be dealt with under a different system. It seems plain to me that introducing direct lodgement would be at least a step forward for veterans in England and Wales, and I hope the Government will take that request on board. I struggle to think of any truly independent appeal process in which an appeal must first go through the body that is being appealed against. I really do not know what that adds to the process and, as we have heard, it creates more concern and problems. There is a focus at the moment on ensuring that those waiting get their cases to tribunal can do so with as little delay as possible, following the closure of the service for a significant period during the pandemic.”
“Essentially, we ask people to apply to Veterans UK and then, if that decision is wrong, to go back to Veterans UK to appeal and wait for it to decide whether a review is possible. At that stage, if there is no change, the case worker at Veterans UK must have prepared appeal papers, which are then passed on to the reprographics department. Only at that point are they sent to the tribunals service. I think anyone can see how the appeal process is overly convoluted. The involvement of Veterans UK, which is the subject of the appeal, risks, at the very least, the perception of a conflict of interest. Of course, it is reasonable for a mechanism to allow review without the need for a tribunal hearing, and of course it is necessary for Veterans UK to provide its response to the appeal.”
“That would allow appeals to be sent directly to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, rather than having to go through Veterans UK. In the legion’s experience, direct lodgement is more efficient. That is of little surprise given that the customer journey, as it is called, via the current route represents a 13-stage process with the involvement of Veterans UK. Direct lodgement would also provide reassurance about the independence of the tribunals service, which is currently lacking, particularly for my constituent. When we consider that over the last 10 years, more than 60% of war pension appeals have been unsuccessful—in comparison, 37% of personal independence payment appeals are unsuccessful—we can begin to see why veterans feel as though the process is not working for them.”
“I want to talk about my experiences with the system—particularly in relation to a constituent of mine, David Cottrell, whom we discussed in an Adjournment debate more than three years ago—and why there are still issues today. I recognise that covid-19 has caused delays in dealing with claims, but that does not excuse the delays and the errors that have been made by Veterans UK in losing documents on two occasions and taking more than six months simply to copy paperwork. My constituent does not feel as though his claim and subsequent appeal are being treated fairly when he sees that happening regularly. I know that the Royal British Legion is calling for the direct lodgement process, which is available in Scotland, to be extended to England and Wales.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on his tenacity in campaigning on this issue for some time. I also congratulate him on securing this debate and on his introduction to it, which exposed the injustices and the flaws in the current system. I have had experiences of the system through one constituent in particular, but it is clear that he has uncovered a whole range of systematic flaws. Those who have served our country and made sacrifices deserve a system that is fair and supportive to them. He was right to say that we should consider it a matter of shame that we do not have that, and I pay tribute to his work in this area.”
“They are not available to all workers, and they are not working sufficiently for those who are able to access the schemes. Parents and families deserve better, frankly. If the Government are keen to see the societal shift to equal parenting that we want to see, and if they want to tackle the gender pay gap, I urge them and the Minister to look at Labour’s Green Paper on a new deal for working people.”
“There was a Government consultation on high-level options for reforming family-related leave and pay, including a right to neonatal leave, pay for parents of premature or sick babies, and proposals to encourage transparency around flexible working and parental leave policies. That was launched back in July 2019, nearly three years ago, and we still have not seen the Government’s full response to it. They have only published a response to the proposals on neonatal leave and pay. The rest—we are told—will be reported on in due course. As we have heard, the greatly heralded employment Bill is still to materialise. I am sure the Minister will tell us once again that it will appear when parliamentary time allows, which is a frustration to many. It is clear that the policies we need to support families are not good enough.”
“However, I am afraid that what we have heard is that it is too complicated and it is poorly understood by both employers and parents. The low rates of pay are a disincentive and workers do not qualify—for example those in agency work, on zero-hours contracts and, of course, the self-employed. We should be very clear that all those groups of workers deserve the same parental rights as everybody else. When faced with all this evidence, it is hard to conclude that the Government are serious about employment rights and protections. They are not doing enough to address the real barriers in the way of shared parental leave.”
“Our advice lines are full of parents who want to share parental leave, but confusion around the rules means that they are completely baffled. Add that to the low level of pay on offer and the system seems almost designed to put parents off sharing leave, rather than encourage it.” The organisation is saying the scheme is not working because the shift to more equal parenting that it was supposed to promote is not happening. That does appear to be the case. We just have not seen the transformation in the take-up of parental leave by fathers that we would have hoped for. The scheme certainly needs reconsideration. I will give the Minister and the Government a compliment—something that is rare for me—because they have spent millions of pounds on promoting the scheme.”
“The Women’s Budget Group, an independent organisation that monitors the effect of Government policies on men and women, has called the scheme complicated and said that, because leave was shared, the onus on taking parental leave still fell more on women than men, because men tend to earn more and their salary would be harder to sacrifice at a time when families have great costs. Earlier this month, a Royal College of Midwives motion at the TUC women’s conference called for a shake-up in parental leave so that it works better for both parents. Ros Bragg, the director of Maternity Action, a maternity rights charity, said: “Shared parental leave was brought in six years ago now and it’s clear that it’s not working—take up is woeful.”
“EMW’s analysis found that 598,000 women took maternity leave in the last year, indicating that just 2% of women who took some form of parental leave actually used shared leave. That is right—just 2%. That is a damning statistic. It is not surprising, therefore, that the UK is ranked only 34th out of 41 OECD countries for its family-friendly policies by UNICEF. It is also not surprising that leading groups such as Maternity Action, the Fawcett Society, the National Childbirth Trust, the Royal College of Midwives, the TUC and the Women’s Budget Group have all called on the Government to urgently rethink the scheme.”
“As we have heard in the debate, from our constituents and from leading employment and equality groups, however, shared parental leave just does not do what it says on the tin. The scheme is not working for parents, and take-up rates remain woeful. In February last year, data provided by the Minister in a written answer to a parliamentary question indicated that take-up in 2019-20—the scheme’s fifth year—was just 3.6%, which is far short of the Government’s 25% target. That is simply not good enough. We now know that things got worse during the pandemic: the use of shared parental leave fell for the first time since the scheme was launched. A study by EMW Law found that just 11,200 couples applied to use the scheme in 2020-21, which was a 17% fall on the previous year, when a record 13,100 couples applied.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Miller. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing this important debate and on her comprehensive introduction. It is clear that she is a passionate advocate for the many people who want to see great improvements in parental leave and pay. As the hon. Lady and other Members outlined, there are a number of different types of parental leave, but I will focus on shared parental leave. It was originally designed to encourage more fathers to take leave after the birth of their child by allowing new parents to share up to 50 weeks of leave and up to 37 weeks of maternity pay in the first year after the child is born.”
“Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), a memo was circulated beforehand that makes it clear that the intention of P&O was to replace staff on lower terms and conditions, and with agency workers.”
“Unscrupulous employers cannot be given free rein to sack their workforce, destroying secure jobs and replacing them with cheap, insecure agency work. Such actions must have consequences. Every tool at the disposal of the state must be used to its maximum effect, because if one company can divest itself of responsibility for its workforce in such a callous, cynical and frankly offensive manner without a serious response from Government, then others will see that as a green light to do exactly the same. This must be a line in the sand. Condemnation, while necessary, is insufficient, and condemnation after the event from a Government who knew it was about to happen is simply not good enough. As we heard from my hon.”
“Every Member of this House should be united in condemning the brutality we have seen: thugs for hire, some wearing balaclavas and carrying handcuffs, turning up to boot people off the ship straight after they were sacked on a three-minute video call. If that is not bad enough, the pariahs responsible for this had already lined up cut-price workers at the dockside to replace them: workers who, let us be clear, are going to be paid at a rate that drives a coach and horses through the minimum wage laws. Those who have been sacked have also been threatened with losing what little compensation they have been offered if they talk to anyone about it, further compounding the sense of injustice they feel and further exposing the bully-boy tactics of their employer. We need to be clear that this decision cannot stand.”
“Time prevents me from mentioning every speech in detail, but I will refer to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East—a powerful and deeply personal speech about why this situation matters so much to him. As we heard, he has been campaigning on these issues for years, and surely now we must all regret that the Government have failed to heed his warnings. My hon. Friend called this action industrial vandalism, and that sums up the situation perfectly. What has happened to P&O workers is nothing short of a scandalous betrayal. Workers with families to support, bills to pay and lives to live had their plans upended in three minutes by an unscrupulous employer acting in the most cynical and calculating way.”
“We have heard some excellent speeches today from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and her campaigning on this issue over the past six years. She was absolutely right to talk about the work she has done there and the long list of employers that have tried this before, many successfully, highlighting exactly why a change is needed.”
“Sacking permanent staff and replacing them with agency workers is not being competitive; it is yet another example of a big company chipping away at job security and safety just to make a few extra quid.”
“All the anguish, distress and heartbreak for these 800 families could have been avoided if Ministers had made the effort to contact P&O before it went ahead with its plan. Having said that, given that their first attempt at letter-writing to P&O after the horse had bolted was addressed to somebody who left the company last year, I do wonder how effective such interventions would have been. As we have heard, the Secretary of State’s big demand of P&O is that it change the name of the ship: absolutely pathetic. The internal Government memo makes it clear that there is a level of acceptance that these measures are necessary to ensure that P&O can stay competitive, but paying workers well below the minimum wage is not being competitive; it is cheating the system.”
“I am sorry but I do not have time to give way. That means that the Secretary of State should have known that this was not an ordinary redundancy situation. The memo also says that disruption was expected to last for 10 days. Why would there be disruption if normal consultation procedures had been followed? The Secretary of State himself said that previous redundancies had been made in the past few years and consultation procedures had been followed, but there was no disruption then, so it was absolutely clear that there was going to be something different this time. Despite those warnings, the Government could not find the time to make one single phone call before P&O went ahead with the sackings, neither to the company nor indeed to the trade unions.”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made another excellent point. There really are serious safety concerns. We have to be absolutely crystal clear that the Government are enforcing all safety checks, because people simply cannot get on to a ship without any experience or knowledge of it beforehand, and that certainly cannot be done with an entire crew while expecting things to run okay.”
“We are not going to be the soft touch of Europe, we are not going to be the easiest of easy pickings for the billionaires who want to boost their profits still further, and we are not going to be a country where loyalty is rewarded with the sack and the race to the bottom is all that matters; we are going to be a country where employment protections have strength and meaning, where security, prosperity and respect run through every workplace like a golden thread, and where those who seek to undermine those values and rules are sent packing. I commend this motion to the House.”
“We should not be bystanders but defenders of working people and workplace rights. If we let this go now, who will be next? Without job security, people have no security. We cannot—we must not—continue to allow the worst excesses of capitalism to stick two fingers up at the workers in this country. It is time that these disgusting practices met their end. It is time that this place sent out a message—a message that was backed up by the full force of the law.”
“It is in all our interests that we have strong workforce protections. A secure workforce is a productive workforce. It is good for employers and good for the economy. It creates a level playing field. Do we really think it is a healthy sign for our economy that the only way businesses think they can get ahead is for their staff to be paid £1.80 an hour and to live in a tent? Is that what we really want as a future for our country? Are we not here to try to improve the lives of the people we represent? Do we not think that security, fair pay and decency in the workplace are central to that? For too long the pendulum has swung too far away from protection at work and too far into the hands of those who wish to exploit British workers. Changing that is a fundamental part of why Labour Members are here.”
“Today we are asking all Members to join us in standing up with them and for the rights of all workers, who deserve security and respect in return for an honest day’s work. This is an opportunity for us to really say what kind of country we want. Insecurity is baked into so many workplaces that it is little wonder that so many people feel a sense of helplessness and inevitability about what has happened in this case. But it does not have to be this way. Job security does not have to be out of reach to millions; it should be the basic cornerstone of any civilised society, and one building block of that has to be an end to fire and rehire. The destructive combination of weak employment laws, opportunistic employers and an indifferent Government is leading to a race to a bottom, and it is time that race was stopped.”
“If that does not happen, they must understand that they continue to send the message to these bad employers that they can carry on with impunity and that this Government are more interested in protecting their own Back Benchers’ second jobs than everyone else’s first. On the review of DP World contracts, when will the Minister be able to update the House on the outcome of that? Why are the Government still just considering removing P&O from Government advisory boards? Why have they not done it already? What more evidence do they need that P&O is totally unfit to be part of these bodies? Labour stands firmly with the P&O workers and the work being done by the RMT and north-west unions to stand up for them.”