To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the terms of reference of
the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform include
(1) reviewing existing employment rights, and (2) making
recommendations for reform; whether trade unions will be
consulted as part of any such review; and when they expect the
review (1) to be completed, and (2) to be published.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office () (Con)
My Lords, the terms of reference for the task force have been
published on GOV.UK. The task force has been commissioned by the
Prime Minister to consider opportunities for regulatory reform
independently, and to report to him in April. It is a matter for
the task force to decide its focus within its terms of reference,
and a matter for the Prime Minister as to whether the report will
be published.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. On 19 January,
BEIS confirmed that a post-Brexit review of workers’ rights was
under way; on 25 January, it was confirmed that the plan had been
scrapped; on 2 February the task force was announced with a remit
to
“scope out … how the UK can take advantage of our newfound
regulatory freedoms”.
The chronology provokes nervousness but, for the moment, I do not
pursue the reduction of workers’ rights. Instead, I ask: who
outside government is being consulted and when will we see the
Government’s employment Bill?
(Con)
My Lords, as to the employment Bill, I am not the Minister
responsible but I will answer on the matter before the House. I
draw the noble Lord’s attention to the third part of the terms of
reference, which mentions
“maintaining the Government’s commitment to high environmental
standards and worker protections”.
I hope that allays his fears.
(Con)
My Lords, the Covid pandemic has affected young people
particularly hard in their education and when beginning their
careers. To this end, and in terms of “Build back better” and
this task force, will the Government put an end to the pernicious
practice of unpaid internships? The Prime Minister and the public
are in favour of a prohibition. Does my noble friend agree that
this would be a clear illustration of levelling up and a labour
market that works for everyone?
(Con)
Again, my noble friend asks me a question which goes well beyond
my remit in the Cabinet Office. I note and respect what he says.
The Government’s position is that, for some internships, early
years in the labour market can help in securing work and gaining
experience. However, he raises important issues. As for the task
force issue, that is an independent matter for the task force.
(CB) [V]
[Inaudible]—a hard-won reputation, internationally,
“as a great place to set up and scale a business due to its
stable and predictable regulatory environment, competitive
product and labour markets and dynamic financial sector”.
Regarding the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory
Reform, does the Minister agree that we should beware of
opportunism at the expense of a more strategic approach and that
regulation must be in the service of building a competitive,
dynamic and future-focused economy, including net zero, digital,
R&D and innovation, and life sciences, for example? Does he
also agree that with the UK’s leadership of the G7 and COP 26, we
have a chance to reinforce our commitment to international
co-operation on equity standards and burnish our credentials as a
leading innovator across international regulatory reforms?
(Con)
I fear I was not able to catch all the matters to which the noble
Lord referred. While I do not favour opportunism, I agree that
there is great opportunity out there, which flows from the kind
of innovation that he describes. Britain certainly intends to be
a world leader.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, given the recent Supreme Court decision in the Uber
case, does the Minister agree that it is time to unscramble the
unnecessary and divisive distinctions still made in statute
between workers and employees, and to remove the taxation
differences that affect both groups?
(Con)
My Lords, I note the noble Lord’s comments and will obviously
refer them to the Ministers responsible.
(LD)
My Lords, in the terms of reference to which the Minister
referred, the aim of TIGRR is to “reduce administrative
barriers”. Since January, hundreds of thousands of businesses
have started to encounter extreme administrative barriers doing
things that had previously been seamless. Because of their poor
negotiating, the Government have left these businesses—from
fishing to cosmetics, advanced manufacturing and food—with miles
of new red tape. Does he agree that it is a bit absurd to set up
this task force when they have dumped literally container-loads
of red tape on British business?
(Con)
Absolutely not, my Lords. Again, the noble Lord does not show the
respect due for the decision of the British people to leave the
European Union. The reality is that this task force is asked to
look at reducing barriers in whatever context, and I draw his
attention to great steps forward. For example, there is the trade
agreement with Japan.
(Lab)
My Lords, in response to three questions today, the Minister has
said that he cannot answer because it is not his department. He
is no novice at the Dispatch Box. Can I gently remind him that at
the Dispatch Box he answers on behalf of the Government, not just
one government department? My specific question is around the
task force that he refers to; none of the questions on it should
be a surprise to him at all. I have read the terms of reference.
They are about business, environmental standards and workers’
protection, but the only members of this task force are three
Conservative MPs. Does he think it has any credibility when there
are no representatives of employers or employees on the task
force? Would it not have been better set up as a Conservative
Party task force, to report to the leader of the Conservative
Party, rather than being able to get Civil Service support when
it is clearly just a Conservative Party body?
(Con)
My Lords, I disagree. As to the first part, of course I
acknowledge that I answer on behalf of government, but the
competence of a Minister to answer on specific questions outside
his departmental responsibility is not always the same as that of
the Minister responsible. I refer comments on, as I said in
another answer. Concerning the second part of the noble
Baroness’s question, it is entirely reasonable for any Prime
Minister to seek blue-sky thinking, and ideas outside and in
parallel to the Government. Mr Blair, for example, did exactly
that when calling in the noble Lord, .
(Con) [V]
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm whether the remit covers
the plight of part-time working women, particularly those who
work, for example, in supermarkets on zero-hour contracts and who
have no rights to paid holidays, sick pay or pensions? What is
the value of what would be a worthwhile exercise in having the
task force if the results are not to be published?
(Con)
My Lords, I did not say that the results were not going to be
published, but that it would be a matter for the Prime Minister
whether they will be. That will happen after the report is
presented, at the end of April. On the specific issues concerned,
as I have said before, I will draw my noble friend’s points to
the attention to those responsible. I am sure that within the
terms of reference it would be open to them to look at some of
the issues she describes.
(CB)
[V]
On 31 January,
wrote in the Daily Telegraph that
“Despite what the naysayers have said, their worst predictions
have not come to pass—goods continue to flow”.
In fact, the ONS reports that exports to the EU were down 40% in
January, in part due to the increased regulation brought about by
Brexit. Does the Minister believe that will
bring a suitably realistic approach to chairing the task force,
rather than the sort of blue-sky thinking in that Telegraph
article?
(Con)
My Lords, my right honourable friend has
an extraordinarily distinguished record in government in working
on behalf of underprivileged people and the poor. I am sure that
he will bring a very open mind to this task.
(Lab) [V]
I declare an interest in that I am a member of the GMB trade
union, which has spent the last five years fighting legal battles
on behalf of Uber drivers. The Supreme Court ruled last month
that Uber drivers were indeed workers, which means that they are
entitled to holiday pay, the minimum wage and all the other
benefits of being classified as workers. Does the Minister
welcome the Supreme Court’s decision and undertake that the
Government will bring forward emergency legislation to clarify
the position of gig economy workers and address the problem of
bogus self-employment?
(Con)
My Lords, again, that goes beyond my specific remit but I will
draw my colleagues’ attention to what the noble Baroness says. Of
course the Government consider with respect any judgment made in
the courts. I assure her that among those organisations which I
understand the task force has reached out to are trade unions.
