Oral Answers to Questions
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in sending our deepest sympathy to the family, friends and neighbours of Joanne Penney, who was callously murdered in Talbot Green on Sunday. It is a shocking and horrific crime.
We have protected the smallest businesses and more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500, meaning that over half of small and micro businesses will pay less or no national insurance contributions at all. In Wales, small and medium-sized companies account for 99.3% of total enterprises.
Rebecca Smith
Businesses across Wales, like those across my constituency of South West Devon, are being hit not only by Labour’s job tax but by the increasing minimum wage, rising costs and other business tax increases. Each of those alone would force many to reduce their workforce, but the combination of all three means that businesses are thinking twice about filling job vacancies or creating new posts. What reassurances can the Minister give to businesses across Wales, and to companies such as Serpells in my constituency, that their business has a promising future between now and the next election, when the Labour Budget shows them the complete opposite?
Jo Stevens
If the Conservative party cares so much about employment and business in Wales, perhaps the hon. Lady should explain why her colleagues in the Senedd voted last week to block thousands of new apprenticeships and more than £300 million of support for businesses in Wales. Her party voted against that.
Mr Speaker
Let us go to the shadow Front Bench. I call the shadow Secretary of State for Wales.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Who is the Secretary of State battling for, Kazakhstan or Wales? Labour’s political choices mean countless jobs in Wales are at risk due to the national insurance rise. The damaging impact that is having in the Minister’s back yard is clear, with more than 1,800 jobs reportedly at risk at Cardiff University—in one of the many sectors that are desperately trying to stay afloat due to the Welsh Government’s jobs tax and the Labour Government’s impact on the Welsh economy. With Cardiff University ploughing on with its Kazakhstan campus, can the right hon. Lady be happy with the offshoring of those roles in that sector and many others because of the continued fallout from the autumn Budget?
Jo Stevens
I am not sure where the hon. Member has got the idea about outsourcing jobs. It was her party that told our universities across the country to go out and recruit international students, which they did. Now, because of that and because of what happened under her Government’s watch, those international students are not coming any more. She should, again, look to her colleagues in the Senedd. There is the education budget; her party voted against it. She needs to talk to her colleagues in the Senedd.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The national insurance increase is set to hit high streets in Wales hard, with many traders saying that they will lay off staff as a result. Last week, the Government announced £100 million of funding to be spent on reinvigorating Welsh high streets, but no towns in the Swansea, Neath or Amman valleys were on that list. Will the Secretary of State clarify the criteria used to select the successful towns and whether areas such as Ystalyfera can expect to benefit from future funding? That is one high street that is certainly worth investing in.
Jo Stevens
The criterion for the announcement last week is publicly available; I suggest the hon. Gentleman has a look at it.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Lefarydd. I am sure the House will join me in remembering the Llandow air disaster in which 80 people lost their lives 75 years ago.
Elaine’s Hair and Beauty Salon in Llanrug, Pitian Patian Nursery in Llanwnda and care homes and GP surgeries across Dwyfor Meirionnydd tell me that national insurance hikes coming in just a few weeks will stop them hiring new staff. The Secretary of State’s Government say they are cutting welfare to get people into jobs. What jobs?
Jo Stevens
Plaid Cymru’s manifesto for the general election had £5 billion of unfunded commitments. If the right hon. Lady’s party were in power, we would be facing the same legacy that we had from the Conservative party: a £22 billion black hole that has meant that we have had to take difficult decisions. Her constituents will want more investment in our NHS, more investment in our public services and more investment to support businesses; her party voted against all that in the Welsh budget.
Liz Saville Roberts
If the Government agreed with the Secretary of State’s counterpart in Cardiff, we would have the money from the Crown Estate as well. Back in 2015, the Secretary of State and I walked through the same Lobby to vote against what she then described as despicable Tory welfare cuts, and she dared the break the Labour Whip to do so. Given the evidence of her strong convictions on the issue, how can she justify remaining in a Cabinet that is intent on implementing Tory-style welfare cuts?
Jo Stevens
We inherited a Tory welfare system that is the worst of all worlds: it has the wrong incentives; it discourages people from working; the people who really need a safety net are still not getting the dignity and support that they need; and the taxpayer is funding an ever-spiralling bill. It is unsustainable, indefensible and unfair. Our principles for reform are clear: supporting those who need support, restoring trust and fairness in the system, fixing that broken assessment process and the disincentives and supporting people to start, stay and success in work. The right hon. Lady should support that.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
I recently met the Deputy First Minister to discuss a wide range of issues, including the Crown Estate. The UK and Welsh Governments are focused on taking maximum advantage of the opportunities that floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea presents for Wales, which could create over 5,000 jobs and £1.4 billion of investment to the UK economy in the coming years.
Stephen Gethins
In the 2011 Scottish National party manifesto, we committed to have the equivalent of 100% of Scotland’s electricity generated from renewables. The SNP met that target and then some, thanks to the devolution of the Crown Estate and to working with industry. It is now delivering jobs and clean, green energy to Scotland and throughout the UK. Why should Wales not have the same opportunity?
Jo Stevens
I will not take any lectures on the Crown Estate from the hon. Member, whose party’s mismanagement of the Scottish seabed resulted in Scottish assets being sold off on the cheap. We are focused on doing whatever it takes to secure more than 5,000 jobs in Wales and the billions of pounds of investment that the Crown Estate can unlock for Wales.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government’s priorities should be ensuring that the Crown Estate can unlock thousands of new well-paid jobs in Wales that will come with floating offshore wind, rather than being distracted by calls to devolve the organisation in the middle of this national mission, which would risk the investment, jobs and lower energy bills that Wales desperately needs?
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Like her, I want people in Wales to benefit from those 5,300 new jobs, particularly young people, so that they do not have to leave Wales, where they have grown up, to earn or learn. I want that £1.4 billion boost to the economy. We are not prepared to put all that at risk of market fragmentation, undermining or potentially destroying developer confidence in FLOW, and have to watch that investment go elsewhere in the world.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)
I have spoken to the farming unions in Wales, and I understand their strength of feeling. These changes are expected to affect around 500 claims across the whole UK, with very few in Wales. Meanwhile, most importantly, the Welsh Government and this Government have protected the farming budget at its current level, while the Welsh Conservatives tried to block that money from reaching farmers by voting against the Welsh Government’s budget last week.
John Cooper
The Scotland Office is conducting a series of agricultural roundtables, talking directly to farmers and putting together statistics to push back against the orthodoxy that only a tiny number of very wealthy estates will be affected, which is simply not the case. This increasingly looks like a war on farmers by the Treasury. What part is the Minister playing in fighting back against it?
Dame Nia Griffith
The Treasury is confident in its figures. Specific questions on the methodology are a matter for the Treasury, but I repeat that the changes to APR are expected to affect only 500 claims across the whole UK, with very few in Wales. As the hon. Member knows, we are committed to our farmers, through keeping the £337 million block grant, which the Welsh Government have passed on to farmers directly.
Charlie Dewhirst
Farmers across the UK have already been rocked by the changes to APR and BPR, and yesterday we had shock news that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will take no new sustainable farming incentive applications in England. What reassurances can the Minister give farmers in Wales that the sustainable farming scheme will be delivered in full and on time on 1 January next year?
Dame Nia Griffith
As the hon. Gentleman knows, my good friend the Deputy First Minister of Wales has spent a lot of time talking to farmers. We have absolutely protected the budget for farmers, as have the Welsh Government, so the full £337 million will go directly to farmers, despite his colleagues in the Senedd trying to block it last week.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
The Welsh Affairs Committee is launching its inquiry into farming in Wales this week, because we know that farming is a cornerstone of the Welsh economy. The Welsh Government budget contained over £300 million to support Welsh farmers. Does the Minister agree that it is a shame that the Opposition parties are playing fast and loose with farmers’ livelihoods by voting against the Welsh Government budget last week?
Dame Nia Griffith
Indeed, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is an utter disgrace that Opposition parties decided to vote against the budget last week. They were effectively trying to block money going to farmers—what a disgrace.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
The Government have said that they are concerned, as we all are, about our future security, so why is food security expendable in Wales and beyond? That is the message from farmer Stella Owen of the National Farmers Union Cymru, who has said that the Government’s actions are “destructive” and
“threaten the future of family farms”
across Wales. How many of those family farms is the Minister prepared to see go under before she and the Secretary of State step up and act in the interests of that key sector by helping the men and women who are livid, worried and fearing for their livelihoods?
Dame Nia Griffith
As I am sure the shadow Secretary of State has been reminded many times, difficult decisions had to be made to fund our public services, but the changes still leave a significant amount of relief in place. Farming parents will typically be able to pass on up to £3 million to their children without paying any inheritance tax at all, and above that amount inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%. Estates have up to 10 years to pay any tax due, and it will be interest-free. Those terms are not available to others. That fair and balanced approach maintains support for family farms while also fixing the public services on which we, including farmers, rely.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)
I have regular discussions with my Welsh Government colleagues about health. I am pleased to see clear progress in cancer services in Wales. In December, performance against the 62-day cancer target was the best we have seen since August 2021, but no one should ever be complacent about cancer, which is why our two Governments are committed to working closely on cancer, sharing best practice and delivering better outcomes for patients across England and Wales.
Clive Jones
Since August 2020, not a single health board in Wales has met its cancer target, leaving patients waiting months for their referral to start treatment, and despite recommendations to implement screening programmes properly, the standard for uptake is not being achieved, leading to poorer health outcomes. As the Department of Health and Social Care embarks on developing a strategy for England, how will the Secretary of State for Wales ensure that those issues are not repeated there?
Dame Nia Griffith
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is now positive progress on waiting lists. Both Governments are working together in a spirit of genuine collaboration to cut NHS waiting lists and build an NHS fit for the future. The Welsh Government have committed more than £600 million in extra funding to health and social care in their budget for 2025-26. They are also setting up a national cancer leadership board to improve cancer care. Thanks to those investments, Welsh NHS services are improving, including for cancer, and waiting lists are falling.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend outline how she is working in partnership with the Welsh Government to improve cancer and health outcomes? Could she try to help me understand why on earth, in the Welsh budget vote last week, the Conservatives and Plaid Cymru voted against £600 million more for our Welsh NHS?
Dame Nia Griffith
I really cannot explain why Conservative colleagues in the Senedd voted against that budget. Not only are the Welsh Government delivering £600 million; they are also delivering a specific package on cancer care. The initial phase, which is going to focus on breast, skin, gynaecological, lower gastrointestinal and neurological cancers, will improve productivity and efficiency in how health boards deliver care. This includes sending people straight to tests without an out-patient appointment. Alongside this, the Welsh Government are implementing a wider range of service improvements, from reducing smoking and tackling obesity to HPV vaccination and diagnostic and generic strategies.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
Wales has a world-class tourism offer. I fully support the Welsh Government’s support for the tourism sector through Visit Wales and other initiatives. Last month, the UK Government announced a £15 million investment for Venue Cymru in Llandudno and the Newport transporter bridge. These are two key projects that will help to boost the tourism and culture sector in Wales.
Joe Robertson
The tourism and hospitality sector in the UK is one of the most heavily taxed in Europe. Will the Secretary of State press the Chancellor to reduce the tax burden in this area to help drive local economies that rely on tourism in Wales and in constituencies such as mine on the Isle of Wight?
Jo Stevens
I would gently remind the hon. Gentleman that his party in government put the highest tax burden in 70 years on the people and businesses of this country, leaving a £22 billion black hole that we have had to try to sort out.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
More than 40 countries and holiday destinations around the world have introduced a form of visitor levy, including Greece, Amsterdam, Barcelona and California. What work is the Secretary of State doing with the Welsh Government to support our vital tourism industry?
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend has one of the most beautiful constituencies in Wales, and I know that tourism is critical to his local economy. Indeed, tourism probably remains the only way to see a Conservative MP in Wales after the general election. The visitor levy is set to raise up to £33 million for the tourism sector across Wales. Last week, Conservatives in the Senedd voted to block £15.6 million of support for Welsh tourism.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Sadly, there will be no more Easter family fun at Oakwood, which has made it clear that its final demise, after covid, is due to Labour’s looming tourism tax, the job tax and sky-high business rates from the Senedd, meaning that it is all over. How many more tourist and hospitality businesses need to tell the UK Government that their “closed” signs will be going up and staying up due to decisions made by the Treasury? Will the Secretary of State stand up for the businesses and jobs in Wales who know that they are being taken for the worst ride possible—frankly, even more vomit-inducing than Megafobia—by this Government of broken promises?
Jo Stevens
Last week, the hon. Lady’s colleagues in the Senedd voted against extra money for tourism—[Interruption.] They did! Maybe she should have a conversation with Darren Millar, her colleague in the Senedd, but I do not think they are having that sort of conversation at the moment because they are still arguing about who is leading the Tories in Wales.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
I regularly meet the First Minister to discuss a wide range of matters, including NHS waiting lists. The latest data shows positive progress in reducing long waiting times and the size of the waiting list, thanks to investment by both the UK and Welsh Governments.
Douglas McAllister
I am appalled to hear that Plaid Cymru voted against £600 million of extra investment to bring down NHS waiting list in Wales, but I am afraid that this is a familiar story for our Scottish Members. Does the Secretary of State agree that nationalist parties will always prioritise niche constitutional distractions over delivering priorities for working families and what they need and deserve?
Jo Stevens
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Plaid Cymru Members will have to explain to their constituents why they voted against £600 million extra for the NHS last week, blocking crucial funding from reaching our hospitals, NHS staff and patients in Wales.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
One of the issues with waiting lists in Wales, as is the case all across the United Kingdom, concerns those who have been waiting first for diabetes diagnosis and then for treatment. There used to be a strategy in Westminster that encompassed not just England, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Would the Secretary of State support a similar strategy for the four regions together to address diabetes and what it is doing to this country?
Jo Stevens
We are talking about nations and regions, rather than just regions, but I would be happy to have a discussion with the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber about that matter.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)
Our United Kingdom is going from strength to strength and is underpinned by a transformed relationship between the UK and devolved Governments. In Wales, that means a partnership between our two Governments delivering on the issues that matter most to people: reforming the NHS and public services, and attracting investment and new jobs through freeports, investment zones and our industrial strategy.
Graham Leadbitter
Today the Senedd will vote on a motion to redesignate High Speed 2 as an England-only project. Previous calculations suggest that Wales missed out on around £4 billion from the project. Welsh Ministers have now claimed that the amount is £431 million—quite the difference. With the Welsh Government abandoning their ambitions and the UK Government refusing to budge on full consequential funding, is the Labour party now waving the white flag on Wales’s missing billions?
Dame Nia Griffith
The Government absolutely acknowledge that the previous Conservative Government short-changed Wales for years on rail investment, including because of HS2. One of our top priorities is to reverse those years of historic underfunding in Wales’s infrastructure. The Secretary of State met the Transport Secretary and the Welsh Government Transport Minister Ken Skates immediately before Christmas, when they agreed on a direction of travel that we hope will deliver new rail investment in Wales. The UK and Welsh Governments have agreed a prioritisation of rail improvement projects developed by the Wales Rail Board. That would inform our respective Departments’ work in the run-up to the spring spending review.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
Investment in Wales by the UK Government demonstrates the strength of the Union. I was therefore delighted to see the UK Labour Government announce their plan for neighbourhoods, which will see a £100 million investment in Welsh communities, with £20 million of that going into my constituency, straight into vital local resources such as high streets and youth clubs. Does the Minister that this Labour Government are committed to bringing growth to areas of Wales that were previously ignored by the Conservatives?
Dame Nia Griffith
Indeed. With the UK and Welsh Governments working together, we have secured more than £1.5 billion in investment and hundreds of jobs in Wales. Of course, we have established investment zones in Cardiff, Newport, Wrexham and Flintshire to provide a rocket-boost to sector strengths, such as advanced manufacturing.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)
The UK Government have delivered the biggest Budget settlement in the history of devolution, with £21 billion of new money for the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government are investing almost £200 million this year to support school standards across Wales, plus a further almost £170 million next year. The hon. Member’s Welsh Conservative colleagues tried to block that funding by voting against the Welsh Government Budget last week.
Sir Ashley Fox
Children in Wales have the lowest PISA —programme for international student assessment— scores in the United Kingdom and are significantly below the OECD average. Does the Minister believe that that could be related to 26 years of Labour government in Wales?
Dame Nia Griffith
I will take no lectures from the Conservatives. Their attacks ring hollow given the chronic underfunding of education and public services over the 14 years they were in power. Now, the UK and Welsh Governments are working together to ensure that every young person has the opportunity to succeed, by investing over £260 million extra in education and more than £260 million in local government, which sets school budgets in Wales. In spite of the shenanigans of Plaid and the Conservatives voting against the Welsh Government’s Budget, Labour is getting on and delivering certainty and support for teachers across Wales through increases to education and local authority budgets.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the additional £20 million announced by the Welsh Government last week to improve education standards, on top of the £262 million extra in total for education in Wales? Is she as perplexed as I am as to why the Conservatives and Plaid Cymru voted against extra money for education in the Welsh budget?
Dame Nia Griffith
Like my hon. Friend, I am absolutely astounded by the way that Plaid Cymru and Conservative Senedd Members voted against the budget, but the important thing is that this year the Welsh Government will be investing an additional £1.1 million in literacy, numeracy and science support in schools. The Welsh Government have also announced a £10 million investment package for literacy and numeracy in the coming year, increasing local capacity to support schools, national support programmes and interventions to support budding learners.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I welcome the progress of talks between Ukraine and the United States. We must now redouble our efforts to get a lasting, secure peace. On Saturday, I will convene international leaders to discuss how we can make further progress.
I pay tribute to the bravery and dedication of all those responding to the ship collision off the east Yorkshire coast. Our thoughts and, I am sure, the thoughts of the whole House are with the family of the crew member who is sadly presumed dead.
This week we introduced landmark legislation to get Britain building, paving the way to restoring the dream of home ownership for working people across the country. We are also driving forward our Employment Rights Bill, the biggest boost to workers’ rights in a generation. That is our plan for change in action.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mike Martin
Russia has abducted at least 19,000 Ukrainian children and transferred them to Russia. They have been told that their parents do not love them, placed in Russian homes and been re-educated. For that despicable crime and others, the International Criminal Court has issued six arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and his gang. I note the Prime Minister’s previous fulsome support for the ICC and his comments just last night about the support that the UK will offer to Ukraine in achieving a just and lasting peace. Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House that British peacekeeping troops will be deployed to Ukraine only if the peacekeeping deal includes both the return of Ukraine’s children and Putin’s prosecution?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue, because it is an absolutely terrible case of abduction and kidnapping. When we say a lasting, just settlement for peace in Ukraine, it must of course involve dealing with that issue. As he would expect, we are raising it continually with our allies.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is quite right. The Conservatives ran an open borders experiment that saw numbers go up to almost 1 million, and the Leader of the Opposition was the cheerleader, thanking herself for the lobbying that she did. The Rwanda scheme cost £700 million of taxpayers’ money to remove four volunteers. What a contrast: we have got the flights off and removed 19,000 people who should not be here. As with the NHS, prisons, the economy and everything else, we are clearing up the mess that they left.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Later today, the Prime Minister is meeting the family of Sir David Amess. Sir David gave this House and our country 40 years of service. I hope the Prime Minister will agree that getting the response to his murder right is vital not just to his family but to our democracy.
Every week, I speak to businesses that are letting go of staff or closing. Has the Prime Minister been given an estimate of how many people will lose their jobs because of his Budget?
The Prime Minister
On the question of Sir David, he was a deeply loved and respected colleague—behind me is his plaque, and there is the plaque in front of me for Jo Cox. I know that this was deeply felt by the House, but particularly, as I acknowledged at the time, by the Conservative party, which lost a colleague and a friend in the most awful of circumstances. I am meeting the Amess family later on today, and I will make sure that they get answers to the questions that they ask.
In relation to businesses, I am really pleased to say that we have thousands of new jobs in the economy. We have got more investment in than in the last 20 years—an absolute record. Wages are up higher than prices, and there have been three interest rate cuts—the best boost for the cost of living for a very long time.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister needs to get out more. Inflation is up, and estimates of job losses are between 130,000 and 300,000. His tax rises are hurting every sector of the economy. Things are getting worse for nurseries, which are writing to stressed parents right now telling them that fees will go up because of his jobs tax. Can he explain how more expensive childcare is good for the economy or for working families struggling to make ends meet?
The Prime Minister
We are putting in childcare—look at the breakfast clubs; there are two in the right hon. Lady’s constituency. She is rather forgetting the £22 billion black hole that the Conservatives left, which we had to deal with. That is why we had to take the necessary but right measures that we did in the Budget. What is her response? It is not that she would reverse them—oh no, she does not say that. She attacks what we have done, but she does not say that she would reverse it, because she wants all the benefits of our Budget in terms of investment, but does not want to pay for it. That is how we got into the mess in the first place.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is out of touch. He should know that nurseries are charging more than £2,000 for full-time care—that is £24,000 a year after tax—and he is talking about 60p breakfast clubs. He has no idea what people out there are experiencing.
It is not just families: even councils must pay the Prime Minister’s jobs tax. To cope with that, the average council tax bill is increasing by more than £100 in April, after he promised to freeze it. Hard-working families’ money is going to the Chancellor instead of to social care and fixing potholes. Why should these families pay more for less?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady really should not denigrate what I think she called “60p breakfast clubs”. She should be welcoming them. She asks about council tax. The Tories put up council tax every year for 12 years. Their Local Government Association manifesto says that Government should:
“Remove the caps on Council Tax”.
Hampshire county council, which is Tory, wanted a 15% increase, and we said no. Slough borough council, which, again, is Tory, wanted 3%, and we said no. Windsor and Maidenhead council, which was Tory and is now Lib Dem, wanted 25%, and we said no. We are the ones doing the right things to get this country on the right track.
Mrs Badenoch
The point is that the Prime Minister promised to freeze council taxes, and they are going up. If he wants to talk about councils, let us look at Liverpool, or maybe Birmingham, where the rubbish is piling up so high. People vote Labour, and all they get is trash—just like what he is saying at the Dispatch Box.
People all over the country are suffering, not just in Birmingham. Millions of elderly people have had their winter fuel payments snatched away. At the same time, care home fees are set to go up by a devastating £3,000 because of the Prime Minister’s jobs tax. How does he expect pensioners on a fixed income to make ends meet?
The Prime Minister
This is why it is so important that wages are up higher than prices. It is why it is so important that interest rates are coming down. This is the biggest boost for the cost of living for a very long time. What we are doing is picking up and fixing the mess that the Tories left.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is not looking at what is happening out there. Every day, I speak to businesses that are telling us that they think they are going bust, and as if businesses and families did not have enough to worry about, supermarkets say that food prices will increase by over 4% because of the jobs tax. That is before we get to the immoral family farm tax on the very farmers who work so hard to produce our food. What does the Prime Minister have against farmers, anyway? Does he not see that his Budget is killing farming in this country, and that he is making life so much harder for everyone else?
The Prime Minister
The Budget provided £5 billion for farming over the next two years—that is a record amount. We have set out a road map for farming, which has been welcomed by farmers, and many thousands of farms have benefited from the farming schemes. The right hon. Lady talks about prices; wages are going up higher than prices. It is the first time in a long time that that has happened, so families across the country are better off under Labour.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister has got no answers today. What the farmers are complaining about is the sustainable farming incentive, which he has just scrapped, or withdrawn.
The Government are making mistakes with this Budget, which is why in two weeks, the Chancellor will come to this House to present an emergency Budget that the Prime Minister said we would not need. They will try to make out that it is because of global events, but the truth is that the Government trashed the economy with their bad choices. They said that they would look after pensioners, then they snatched away winter fuel payments. They said that they would be pro-business, but they hiked taxes on jobs, and the Prime Minister promised to freeze council tax, but it is going up by £100. This is a high-tax, low-growth, job-killing Government. Will he use the emergency Budget to fix the mess he has made?
The Prime Minister
Under the Tories, inflation was 11%, with a £22 billion black hole and a mini-Budget that made us the laughing stock of the world, and they want to give us lectures on the economy? No, thank you very much.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I come from a family that dealt with disability through my mother and brother over many years, so I understand the concerns he has raised. We inherited a system that is broken. It is indefensible, economically and morally, and we must and will reform it. We will have clear principles: we will protect those who need protecting, and we will also support those who can work back to work. Labour is the party of work, and we are also the party of equality and fairness.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I would like to begin by giving a shout-out for Young Carers Action Day, which is today, but I promise the House that I will not sing.
The Prime Minister has rightly spoken about the need to get more people into work—he has repeated that today—so that people have more dignity, we can get the economy going, and we can cut the benefits bill after the disgraceful legacy left by the Conservatives. Does the Prime Minister recognise that the best way to help many disabled people into work is to support them properly, through more special equipment, training, better healthcare and so on? Will he also today calm anxieties that he himself has raised for many of us by saying that disability benefits for people who simply cannot work will not be cut?
The Prime Minister
As I have just said, we will support those who need support, but help those who can work into work. Those will be the guiding principles. What we have inherited is shocking—[Interruption]—and those on the Opposition Benches ought to be silent. One in eight young people is not in education, work or training—that is a lost generation. That is the inheritance. [Interruption.] They have plenty to say now, but they did nothing for 14 years, and that was a terrible inheritance.
Ed Davey
Turning to international issues, can I congratulate the Prime Minister on helping to secure the restoration of US military and intelligence support for Ukraine? Can I press him on progress to persuade President Trump against the damaging metal tariffs that are already hitting British industry? The Prime Minister knows that we on the Lib Dem Benches believe that we must be more robust with President Trump, like the Europeans and the Canadians. Will the Prime Minister fly out to Canada as soon as possible to show its new Prime Minister and the Canadian people that Britain stands with its Commonwealth allies against Trump’s threats and Trump’s tariffs?
The Prime Minister
Canada is an ally, and a very important ally, too. I have spoken to our allies on many occasions about the situation in Canada. On the question of tariffs, like everybody else, I am disappointed to see global tariffs on steel and aluminium, but we will take a pragmatic approach. We are, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, negotiating an economic deal, which covers and will include tariffs, if we succeed, but we will keep all options on the table.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
Lá Fhéile Pádraig shona daoibh agus Seachtain na Gaeilge daoibh. Deis lenár dteanga agus ár gcultúr a cheiliúradh ar fud an domhain. Happy St Patrick’s day, everybody, and happy Irish Language Week. It is an opportunity to use Irish language and celebrate Irish culture across the world.
It is an increasingly turbulent world, and relationships and norms have been turned upside-down over recent weeks, which is why I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach on re-establishing a warm and firm relationship at their summit last week. It is reassuring for all of us to know that whatever our constitutional future, that bond is lasting and refreshed. Will the Prime Minister join me in wishing a happy St Patrick’s day to all who value our shared bonds? May I take this opportunity to invite him, in August 2027, to Belfast, which was announced this week as the host of the Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann for the first time?
The Prime Minister
I join the hon. Lady in wishing everybody celebrating a very happy St Patrick’s day. She is right that we need a strong and settled relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland, and the need for that has never been greater. That is why I was delighted to host the Taoiseach in Liverpool last week at our first annual UK-Ireland summit. We have turned the page and started a new era in our relationship with Ireland. I would be happy to go to Belfast in 2027, but I want to go much sooner than that.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Everyone should be equal before the law, and that is why the Lord Chancellor has taken up the issue with the Sentencing Council, but the hon. Gentleman needs to do his homework. The proposal that he complains about was drafted in 2024, and the last Government were consulted. When they were consulted, what did they say? They said they welcomed the proposal. I understand that the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), is taking the Sentencing Council to court. Perhaps he should add himself as a second defendant, so that he can get to the bottom of all this.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the subject of those deeply concerning reports. It is completely unacceptable for anyone to experience racism, discrimination or prejudice in the health service, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary takes such reports extremely seriously, because it is a fundamental principle that the NHS provides care and treatment for everyone, regardless of race, faith or background.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
But it’s okay in the justice system?
The Prime Minister
This is a really serious issue. The hon. Gentleman has let himself down, and he knows it. I expect all trusts and healthcare providers to take necessary action against any staff who have expressed views that do not reflect the views and values of the NHS.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as the House knows, I am committed to strengthening those relations. The United States is an indispensable ally, and we are working together to try to secure a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. I have spoken to the President on a number of occasions, including this week.
Dave Doogan
I agree with those sentiments. This week’s ceasefire negotiations are a cause for great optimism, and I welcome the efforts of the Prime Minister’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, in leading on that priority. However, last week the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), that he had no knowledge of the United States’ planning to withdraw military aid from Ukraine, which the United States did the following day. It is against that backdrop that I ask the Prime Minister—because I know he wants a just and lasting peace in Ukraine that respects Ukraine’s borders and territorial integrity—what reassurance he can give the House that when he is impressing that priority on the President of the United States, the President is actually listening.
The Prime Minister
Let me give this reassurance. As soon as that step was taken, my team and I started work to try to ensure that we could return to a situation of full support for Ukraine. I will not detail everything that was involved over the last week, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that a huge amount of hard work, discussions and diplomacy was used with all our allies, and others, to ensure that we could get yesterday to go as well as we hoped it would. I am pleased that we made progress—I think that is very important for Ukraine—and I am extremely pleased that support has been put in, backed by the UK. So that is what I did once I understood what had happened. I am pleased with where we have got to, but, as ever, we must go further.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The Conservative party left a broken welfare system that locks millions out of work, and that, in my view, is indefensible, economically and morally. Of course we must support people who need support; we must help those who want to work to get back into work, and I think there is a moral imperative in that. My hon. Friend talked about a wealth tax. We have raised money through the energy profits levy, taxing non-doms and air passenger duty on private jets, but this is not a bottomless pit, and we must kick-start growth to secure the economic stability that we need.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right: we have to get the houses that we need built in his constituency and elsewhere—something that the Conservative party failed to do. That is why we have introduced the infrastructure Bill, which I think he welcomes. That Bill will get Britain building, so that we can deliver on those 1.5 million new homes through our plan for change. On the issue he raises, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) have been working together to try to resolve this issue, as I understand it, and I am happy to ensure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister, if that would help in taking it further.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a dedicated campaigner for his constituents. We know who has been standing in the way for the past 14 years: the Conservatives, and they have learned absolutely nothing. The Leader of the Opposition claims that she has never opposed growth or development, but that is not what she is telling her constituents. Only last month, she wrote in her newsletter that she will
“keep working with Conservative colleagues”
to block a vital energy infrastructure project in her own backyard. She is not alone; the shadow Foreign Secretary, the shadow Defence Secretary, the shadow Environment Secretary—they are all at it. What a bunch of blockers!
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the question of special constables, who play a very important role in our communities in keeping us safe. The number of special constables dropped under the last Government. We support the existing employer-supported policing scheme, and we will support our special constables, but the number dropped under the last Government.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; it is important to hear about the important work that the James Cook hospital is doing in his constituency. We are investing £350,000 in research on interventions that support people with functional neurological disorders, in order to rehabilitate them within the community. Of course, our plan for change invested £25 billion to cut waiting lists, speed up treatment and shift more care into the community. In relation to the hospital, I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the Minister to see what further can be done.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister look at the case of my constituents Mr and Mrs Adrian Fenton, who returned home from visiting France in their motorhome to discover an illegal immigrant concealed in the bike rack? They reported the matter immediately to the police, only to receive a fine of £1,500 from Border Force. Does he agree that my constituents ought to be thanked, rather than punished, and does he accept that this action will deter anybody from acting responsibly in the future?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this important case on behalf of his constituents. I have seen some of the details, and I am concerned about it. I do think it is important, as he says, that the Home Office look into it, and therefore we will do so. I will ensure that he is updated in relation to that in due course.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We owe an extraordinary debt to our veterans. We are committed to renewing the nation’s contract with those who have served, and that includes the guarantees of homes for heroes for those who have served, dedicated mental and physical healthcare pathways in the NHS and dedicated support to help those leaving service using their skills to find new and fulfilling careers.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Yesterday, with no notice, DEFRA closed sustainable farming incentive applications, leaving thousands of farmers who want to deliver public goods waiting for a year without support. Can the Prime Minister assure British farmers that they will not be left stranded and unable to support environmental and food resilience goals due to lack of Government support?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Member knows, the SFI schemes have operated to provide quite considerable support so far. There have been a number of schemes: they have closed and then a new scheme has been put in place. In 2022 and 2023, the Conservatives closed them without the six weeks’ notice. But we do support farmers and we will be putting forward more details at the spending review. The difference in this Government is that we are funding the farmers, whereas the Conservatives failed to spend part of the budget.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
I am really appalled by Israel blocking aid when it is needed at greater volume and speed than it has ever been needed. Blocking goods, supplies and power entering Gaza risks breaching international humanitarian law and it should not be happening, and we are doing everything we can to alleviate that situation.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In his extremely important upcoming discussions with other nations about Ukraine, will the Prime Minister focus on the fact that it was standard Russian procedure to take over other countries by having bogus elections and installing puppet Governments? Will he therefore impress on other colleagues the need to be very wary of calls to hold elections in Ukraine during a wartime situation, which could result in the subversion and takeover by Russia of the entire country?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for raising a really important point. The track record is there for all to see. On top of that, we in this country did not hold elections when we were at war. That is a perfectly reasonable and normal course of behaviour. That must be part of our discussions as we go forward, including the meeting that I am convening on Saturday.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about making Britain a clean energy superpower. We are committing £2.3 billion to support hydrogen projects, and I recognise the huge potential of South Dorset to become home to a storage hub. We are ensuring that public and private investment work together, which is exactly what the Crown Estate Act 2025 does, unlocking significant investment, boosting offshore wind and kickstarting economic growth.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
As the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned, the Prime Minister will meet today the family of our dear late colleague, Sir David Amess, who was so brutally murdered at his constituency surgery three and a half years ago. I plead with the Prime Minister to reverse the decision to deny the family a public inquiry, despite similar inquiries being held into other tragic instances. Will he please stop this shameful saga and heed the call from the Amess family—a heartbroken family—for a judge-led public inquiry into David’s death and the related failure of the Prevent programme?
The Prime Minister
May I acknowledge just how heartbroken they are? It is difficult to imagine what they have gone through and what they continue to go through. That is why it is very important that I meet them this afternoon, which I will, to discuss all the questions they want to raise with me. Sir David was a colleague respected and loved across the House. As I say, I absolutely understand how his family must feel about the tragic circumstances in which he died and everything that followed thereafter.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
Tomorrow marks 29 years since 16 children and their teacher were murdered at Dunblane primary school. In recent weeks, my constituents have raised with me the alarming fact that adverts offering handguns for sale are appearing on technology platforms such as Google and YouTube. Does the Prime Minister agree that technology companies have an obligation to all of us to do everything proactively possible to prevent such illegal advertising, and not to rely on a reactive, “We will remove it when it is reported,” approach, which is simply not good enough?
The Prime Minister
The thoughts, I am sure, of the whole House are with the victims of the Dunblane massacre, 29 years after the tragic event. The Online Safety Act 2023 will require online services to proactively remove such content from their platforms and prevent it appearing there in the first place. Those duties fully take effect from Monday and then we will ensure that all companies meet their obligations.
Sustainable Farming Incentive
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the sustainable farming incentive.
We stand on the edge of an unprecedented global transition for British farming. From leaving the European Union to the challenges of climate change and geopolitical events, we are asking more of farmers than ever before: to continue to produce the food that feeds the nation and to protect the environment on which our long-term food security depends. We are determined to create the conditions for farm businesses to be profitable and succeed. We are proud to have secured £5 billion for farming over two years: the largest budget for sustainable food production in our country’s history. That is £1.8 billion for customers already in agreements, £1 billion for farmers now in SFI agreements and a further £150 million for farmers in the SFI pilot.
Labour has got that money out of the door and into farmers’ pockets. We have invested it to bring thousands more farmers into environmental land management schemes, which were vastly underspent by the previous Government, to make a record number of capital items available for the coming year to help farmers carry out actions under the SFI and countryside stewardship, with £600 million available for productivity, animal health and welfare innovation, and other measures to support agricultural productivity, as well as 50 landscape recovery projects across the country. We have responded directly to calls from the sector to roll out a new higher-tier scheme, and to increase payment rates so that higher-level stewardship agreement holders—many of them upland farmers—are fairly rewarded for their work.
More than half of all farmers are now in schemes, with 37,000 live SFI agreements and 50,000 farmers in ELM agreements. Under the SFI, 800,000 hectares of arable land are being farmed without insecticides, 300,000 hectares of low-input grassland are managed sustainably, and 75,000 km of hedgerows are being protected and restored, which is a huge success for nature. I thank all farmers involved and reassure them that all existing SFI agreements will be honoured.
Farmers will continue to be paid under the terms of their agreement for its duration. If they entered into a three-year SFI agreement earlier this year, they will be paid until 2028. If they submitted an SFI application but this has not yet started, that will also be honoured. All farmers who took part in the SFI pilot will be able to apply for an agreement.
With the high uptake of the scheme, however, the fact is that it is now fully subscribed. This Government inherited SFI with no spending cap, despite a finite farming budget, and that cannot continue. We will continue to support farmers to transition to more sustainable farming models including through the thousands of existing SFI agreements over the coming years and a revamped SFI offer. But this is an opportunity to improve how we do that under a fair and just farming transition, which supports farms to be profitable businesses in their own right through fairer supply chains, better regulation and greater market access, and directs public funding in a fair and orderly way towards the priorities that we have set out on food, farming and nature. We will be strategic in how we design our schemes, and responsible within the available budget. This is about using public money in a way that supports food production, restores nature and respects farmers as the business people they are.
SFI can and must work better for all farms and for nature, and I will set out the details of the revised SFI offer following the spending review, including when it will open for applications. We will work closely with the sector to design an improved scheme so that they can tell us what works best for their businesses. We will also put in place strong budgetary controls so that SFI is affordable to the public purse. The revised offer will align with our land use framework to better target SFI actions fairly and effectively, focusing on helping less productive land contribute to our priorities for food, farming and nature.
The underlying problem facing the sector, however, is that farmers do not make enough money. The Government are changing that. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh but businesses do need to make money; they might need to know that. We announced a new set of policies at the National Farmers Union conference last month aimed at improving farm profitability, securing our food security, and protecting nature. Through our farming road map, we are creating the conditions for farmers to run profitable businesses that can withstand future challenges.
This decision is about investing in long-term stability. It is about a future where farmers are supported to run profitable businesses, and where public money is used in a better way to better restore nature and to secure long-term food security.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I thank the Minister for an advance copy of his statement, which I am going to pull apart in a moment. I thank you as well, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question that forced the Minister to the Dispatch Box, because the Government sneaked this statement out last night, presumably hoping nobody would notice; but, guess what, the countryside has noticed, because the question we are all asking ourselves is: what have this Government got against farmers and the countryside?
They sneaked out this announcement that they were halting the sustainable farming incentive scheme immediately. The scheme replaced the EU’s common agricultural policy scheme when we left the EU. We set up this scheme with our Brexit freedoms to establish a farming policy that works for farmers, the environment and food production, yet Labour pulled the plug without warning last night.
The SFI scheme is popular with farmers, but the Minister does not have to take my word for it. To quote one:
“The…schemes have the potential to be the most progressive and environmentally responsible schemes of their kind anywhere in the world.”
Those are the words of the former president of the Country Land and Business Association, and father of the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell), who I am sure will agree with his father’s analysis. Why, then, would this city-dwelling Government stop such a successful scheme? In the words of the CLA president, Victoria Vyvyan:
“Of all the betrayals so far, this is the most cruel. It actively harms nature. It actively harms the environment. And, with war once again raging in Europe, to actively harm our food production is reckless beyond belief.”
Does the Minister think she is wrong?
The Secretary of State, by the way, is missing in action. This is a significant statement, yet he is sending out his junior Minister to take the heat. Perhaps it is because the Secretary of State did not want me to remind him of his own words in November, when he said that farmers
“feel ignored, alienated and disrespected”.
I do hope the Minister will tell us how that is going.
This Government’s farming policy can be summarised in three sentences. First, they will halt any farming and environmental scheme on which farmers rely without warning or consultation, using criteria they have never before defined. Secondly, the state will seize their farmland at will through the compulsory purchase orders that were announced yesterday in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Thirdly, if families have managed to cling on to their farms despite all that, then Labour will tax them for dying. However, I am delighted to hear that the Minister for farming himself can see that farmers do not make enough money—I hope he will be changing the family farm tax.
It all adds up to nothing less than an outright assault on the countryside. As a proud rural MP—someone who actually likes the countryside—I am already being contacted by constituents and farmers across the United Kingdom who have had the door slammed in their face with no notice, asking how they are meant to diversify, make a living and protect our countryside.
The Prime Minister has said he understood the significance of losing a farm, acknowledging that it “can’t come back”, and warned against “constantly moving the goalposts” for the agricultural sector, yet that is exactly what his Government are doing. The statement issued by the Government last night was a masterclass in Orwellian doublespeak. It says that the SFI scheme has “reached completion”. What criteria have they used? They have not set those criteria out before. The Government’s own website stated that up to six weeks’ notice would be given for the withdrawal of SFI. Why was that disregarded last night? Does the Minister recognise that, in doing so, this Government have betrayed the trust of the farming community yet again? How many farmers does his Department believe will now be caught out without an SFI agreement during the transition period of at least a year? Just as with the family farm tax, Labour has got its figures wrong.
The CLA has asked me to ask the Minister some questions. What are his Government’s ambitions for the two thirds of farmers in England who are not currently in environmental schemes? How much have the vast cuts to payments under the basic payment scheme saved his Department, and where has that money gone? How will the Secretary of State support upland farmers who were intending to move on to the sustainable farming incentive scheme?
Then, of course, there are the legal problems cause by last night’s announcement. How will the Government meet their legally binding environmental targets, given that they rely so heavily on the SFI scheme? I do hope that the Minister will be able to give us a good, clear legal analysis on the impact of the changes to SFI on internal market competition law between England and other devolved authorities.
Any words that the Minister uses about food security are meaningless in the face of this policy, particularly as we all know that this Government have been delaying consideration and grants of these applications since the general election. The figures that the Minister is using are wrong and the theory behind this policy is very questionable, yet the Government would have us all believe that he understands farming and the impact that this measure will have on farmers. Farmers are in despair.
My message to farmers is clear: we have got your back; we will help you, so please hang on in there for the next four years; we will axe the family farm tax; and we will sort out this shocking mess of SFI, to help build a bright future for British farming with British farmers.
Daniel Zeichner
Well, really! I had hoped that the shadow Secretary of State would understand how the schemes that her own Government created actually work. Let me explain the problem that we inherited—there are some on the shadow Front Bench who, I think, understand this better than her. This time last year, these schemes were undersubscribed; they are now oversubscribed. It is not a complicated thing to say that, when the budget is spent, a responsible Government responds to that. The budget is spent. [Interruption.] The budget has been spent and what we are doing in a sensible, serious way—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should actually be celebrating the fact that so many farmers are now taking up these schemes. I am confident that we will be able to sort out the mess that we have inherited. Basically, if you set up schemes without proper budgetary controls, you end up in this kind of position. We have had to take the hard decisions that the previous Government ducked.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Minister confirm that environmental land management scheme agreements will remain in place under this Labour Government, including SFI, and that there will be a new and better targeted SFI on offer as soon as possible, with details to follow in the spending review?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She makes absolutely the right point. We should be reassuring people out there that farmers who are in schemes are absolutely safe and are carrying on as before, but the basic point is that when a scheme is full, it is full.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The closure of the SFI from 6 o’clock last night came without warning or consultation, and it constitutes the breaking of the Government’s word to farmers. Farmers are already losing their basic payment this year, but they are now excluded from the very scheme designed to replace that. Has the Minister not broken his word to farmers and to all who care about nature? Will he clarify how much money he will save from the BPS cuts this year and say that it is not true that SFI is overspent? Is it not true that when the BPS cut is taken into account, more than £400 million of the £2.5 billion farming budget will remain unspent? A bigger budget is pointless if we do not spend it. This money was supposed to reward farmers for nature restoration and sustainable food production. Does this not damage both?
There are 6,100 new entrants to SFI this year, yet only a mere 40 of them are hill farms. Because of the failure of the Conservatives in the previous Administration, the big landowners and the corporates are already comfortably inside the tent, but the farmers who are outside and now locked out without warning are Britain’s poorest farmers in beautiful places, such as mine in the lakes and the dales. As the Tories oversaw a 41% drop in hill farm incomes in just five years, is this not a bitter and unbearable blow for our upland farmers?
This betrayal will outrage everyone who cares for our environment, our upland nature and landscapes and it will outrage everyone who cares about food security and it will outrage everyone who cares about our tourism economy. It will also outrage everyone who clings to that old-fashioned expectation that Governments should keep their word. On Monday, the Secretary of State came to my beautiful constituency to pose for pictures by Windermere. I wonder whether he might come back tomorrow and face up to the farmers who steward the stunning landscapes around our beautiful lakes, and who he has abandoned so shamefully. Will he reopen SFI and honour his promises, or turn his back on the very people who feed us?
Daniel Zeichner
Again, I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman’s comments. He is a thoughtful person, and he and I have debated these issues many times. I am sorry that he did not welcome the uplift in higher level stewardship payments, which he and many others have been asking to see for a long, long time and which will benefit upland farmers. I take him back to the many discussions that we have had about the importance of getting the farm budget out to farmers. That is what has happened. The full budget is actually being spent and that should be celebrated.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
The fruit and vegetable aid scheme is an important lifeline for our producers. Collaboration between producers has meant that we have had a huge increase in our tonnage of various fruit and vegetables. Given that the scheme finishes on 31 December 2025, what plans do we have to support further collaboration between fruit and vegetable producers in 2026 and beyond?
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend asks an important question. This is, of course, an EU legacy scheme, and we are considering the best way of taking that forward in the future, but we are absolutely committed to supporting and working with the horticultural sector.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have around 35 minutes remaining. Questions must be short and the Minister’s response must be on point and tight. I call the Father of the House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Will the Minister leave for a moment the hallowed cloisters of Cambridge and accept my invitation to take a rural ride through Lincolnshire, the breadbasket of England, to meet my farmers? Does he agree that sustainable farming is the key to food security, and therefore will he take up with his colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero why they are covering 15% of Lincolnshire with solar farms in addition to taking away this grant?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I am always happy to visit Lincolnshire; I have done it on a number of occasions. But on the question of how we allocate our land, it is important that we ensure that the new land use framework works effectively, as that is the most rational way of making those decisions.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is extremely welcome that, under this Government, more money is being spent on schemes and that more farmers are in schemes than was the case under the previous Government. However, there are smaller farms, such as those in my constituency in north Cumbria, that would not have had their plans as far advanced as their larger neighbours and their consultants. Can the Minister outline what support will be available to those small farms going forward?
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend touches on the critical point. The schemes that we inherited had no way of prioritising properly; it was a first-come, first-served scheme. Therefore, the kind of farmers she describes were disadvantaged. We have had to work with a scheme that we inherited. I was very clear when I took over that we would not immediately overturn the existing system; we wanted to give people confidence about the future. However, when we come to redesign the scheme, we can design it better to address the issues that she has raised.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I note the Minister’s complaint that he inherited an uncapped budget. Can he tell the House whether that was something that he just noticed on Monday, which meant that he had to close the scheme without warning on Tuesday? On 14 January, the director general from his Department in charge of food biosecurity and trade told my Select Committee:
“I do not think we can expect that every single farm will be viable but if we are talking about 92%, 93% having the opportunity of productivity improvement, that is what we are aiming for.”
In other words, the Government’s aim is to lose 7% to 8% of our farms. What will that figure be after today’s announcements?
Daniel Zeichner
I am always grateful to receive questions from the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Those figures on future farm viability go all the way back to the Agriculture Act 2020, when a serious attempt was made to assess future farm viability. That is why the Secretary of State and I are so determined to address those problems around farm viability. Farmers will not be supported forever by the public purse—we know that—so it is very important that we address the whole range of issues, but I am very happy to have a further conversation with him.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister shares my wish to see a bit more humility from Conservative Members, given their failure to get the agricultural budget out of the door. [Interruption.] I would ask the Minister—if I could hear myself think—to ensure that every penny in SFI arrangements will be paid to farmers, and also that those who have already applied and who are eligible for the scheme will have their applications taken forward.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I very much enjoyed visiting his constituency and talking to farmers there about these issues. I can absolutely give him that commitment.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
How does the Minister expect those who have farming businesses to plan for the future when he sneaks an announcement out like his Department did last night, despite a message on his website saying that they would give six weeks’ notice of any closure? What does the Minister have against our farmers and food producers?
Daniel Zeichner
The only thing I have anything against is the previous Government, who set up the scheme in the first place. They set it up in a way that meant that SFI ’22 and SFI ’23 were closed in exactly the same way. SFI ’24 is only different in one sense, in that it is now oversubscribed rather than undersubscribed. As a consequence, it would not have been possible to give notice because it would have led to a further spike in applications.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
As the Minister has just alluded to, the scheme is called SFI ’24. Might there be a clue in the title that makes this less surprising than people are saying, given that it is now 2025?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She makes a sensible point, which is that we saw a succession of schemes announced by the previous Government. I want to get to a scheme that will work for the long term. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the way the scheme was set up by the previous Government meant that it was first come, first served.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The overnight withdrawal of the funding is yet another blow to many of my farmers in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire. The Minister still has not answered the question as to why he has broken his word, which was clearly set out on the Government website, to give at least six weeks’ notice, nor the one asked by the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), which was that if the reason for doing so was because the budget had become exhausted, when that first came to the Minister’s attention. Was it really yesterday afternoon?
Daniel Zeichner
It first came to my attention five years ago during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020, when I warned that exactly that would happen. If we move from a basic payments system, where everyone has an entitlement, to a system that is based on bidding, that is what happens. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have woken up five years ago.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House to make a statement. However, I woke up this morning to many emails in my inbox from farmers across Lancaster and Wyre. I invite the Minister to join me, because I am going to accept the invitation from my constituent Cath to visit her farm. Her SFI application was ready to go as she was coming out of the countryside stewardship agreement. She has therefore been left in limbo. Will the Minister join me in meeting farmers across Lancaster and Wyre?
Daniel Zeichner
As I have said to many hon. Members, I am always happy to try and meet farmers whenever I can, and I will add my hon. Friend to my list. I absolutely understand her point, but there was a fundamental problem with the schemes as designed, which we inherited. We need to do better in future. That is what we will do as we redesign them.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
What assurance can the Minister give farmers in my constituency? A site of special scientific interest has recently been designated in the Penwith area, which is supported by a recent designation of landscape recovery. We now seem to be in a position where there will be no support for that at all. How will my farmers adjust to the new regime, and what assurance can the Minister give them that the funding will be in place to support their actions in the SSSI?
Daniel Zeichner
There is some complexity in that question that I might need to address directly with the hon. Gentleman. Landscape recovery is absolutely not affected, so it depends on the exact nature of the application.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm more about the timetable for SFI ’25 to provide some reassurance to my farmers in Penrith and Solway that we will deliver? Will he also explain a little more about how we can ensure that more of my hill farmers get into the SFI scheme, which the last Government failed to deliver on?
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend’s question is important. We will work with farmers and organisations to redesign the schemes, and that addresses that very question. That will take place over the summer this year, and once we have had those conversations we will be able to announce exact timings. My hon. Friend is right to raise the point that there has been no fair allocation of resources; it has just been done on a first come, first served basis.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Minister’s statement says,
“This decision is about investing in long-term stability.”
First, we had the body blow of the family farm tax, the reduction in BPS and the pulling of capital grants, and now we have the cancellation of SFI. How is any farming business expected to invest in the long term?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman is a sensible person and I have had many discussions with him over the years. When he says “pulling”, what he means is that the budget was completed. It is exactly the same in this case. I think it is important that Conservative Members understand that we cannot spend the same money twice. They lived in a world of cakeism; we do not. Once the money is spent, we have to move to a new set of schemes when the money is available.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for bringing the statement to the House and for showing such honesty about the challenges in the scheme. May I urge him not to take any lectures from the Conservative party, which oversaw chaos in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and a £300 million underspend? That is a shameful record. Will the Minister assure the House that he will outline details to ensure that future schemes get the money out the door and into farmers’ pockets and stop the waste and bureaucracy that we saw under the previous Government in DEFRA?
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid I was genuinely dismayed, but perhaps not entirely surprised, by what I found when I came into the Department. We have spent the last six or seven months trying to get control of the situation because if we have a scheme that is not capped or managed, or has no budgetary control, there is a problem. The figure of £5 billion overall is the biggest amount for farming that we have had. We will make sure the money gets out to farmers.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Coming at a time of record low confidence in farming, many farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton will feel that the sudden closure of the SFI scheme will bring them closer to closing their farm gates for the very last time, and at a time when food security is at an all-time low. What communications will go to affected farming businesses and what support will DEFRA give to those who are dealing with vulnerable farmers at the sharp end?
Daniel Zeichner
I do not agree with some of the hon. Lady’s question, because the food security report published at the end of last year did not bear out her analysis. The Rural Payments Agency has written to farmers today setting out exactly the situation to give people reassurance.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the Minister surprised that the Conservative party is now crying crocodile tears when it failed to get £350 million of SFI out and into farmers’ hands and failed to stop speculative acquisition of farmland by tax dodgers?
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid that, as on so many other issues, we have to clear up the mess that we inherited. That will take time. We are setting out a clear path to the future that, I hope, over time people will come to support.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I do not know how to break this to the Minister: I do not know if he realises this, but when the thousands of farmers come to Westminster, they do not come to thank him or the Secretary of State. Yesterday, we had the sustainable farming incentive announcement. Today, there is an announcement that there is to be no extension to the fruit and vegetables aid scheme, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). That, of course, follows the family farm tax.
The Minister’s announcement today speaks very ill of the financial management of his Department. I make no apologies for repeating the questions asked by my right hon. and hon. Friends. When did the Minister know that he was hitting his budget ceiling? When had he set that as a criterion? What discussions has he had with the Treasury to increase the budget? Why was he deliberately, I presume, misleading farmers by pledging a six-week notice period, when it was not even six seconds?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Just before the Minister responds, the hon. Member knows that he cannot use the term “deliberately misleading”. I ask him to withdraw that statement.
Daniel Zeichner
I will take the hon. Gentleman back to the origins of this debate. When we moved from basic payments to these schemes, there was always going to be a point when the budget was spent.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Having spent several weeks and months encouraging farmers to access the scheme, naturally I am disappointed with the closure and hope that there will be a replacement in short order. However, is the fact that so many farmers in my constituency were not accessing the scheme not evidence that the Conservative party failed farmers over many years?
Daniel Zeichner
Many farmers are now in these schemes and are benefiting from them. We are also getting the environmental benefits that the whole transition away from basic payments to the environmental land management schemes was designed to achieve. Let me give some credit to the Opposition—they set this train in motion, but what they did not do was set up the schemes in a way that could properly be managed. That is what we are now doing.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Yesterday, the Government shamefully pulled the rug out from underneath thousands of farmers by cancelling the SFI with zero notice, despite saying that they would give six weeks’ notice, and without putting in place anything to support farmers in future. This morning, my inbox was full of emails from despairing farmers who were on the point of submitting an application, had no way of planning for this and now are utterly left in the lurch. How does the Minister expect the UK to make the vital transition to nature-friendly farming and boosting UK food production if this is how he treats farmers?
Daniel Zeichner
I am astonished by the hon. Lady’s contribution. She should be celebrating the fact that so many farmers are now farming in an environmentally sensitive way. I invite her to help us ensure that these schemes work better in future. This is actually a cause for celebration of the benefits of the environmental land management schemes.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I have also been contacted by concerned and impacted farmers in North East Hertfordshire. Will the Minister assure me that, for the remainder of this Parliament, the revamped SFI that he alluded to will allow farmers to plan seasons ahead, as they need to?
Daniel Zeichner
Clearly, over the past five years we have all known that this transition was happening. There was always going to be a point in the transition from basic payments to environmental land management schemes where it would be down to people applying for these schemes. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. I encourage farmers to apply early to these schemes. It was a first come, first served scheme before. In future, we will try to ensure that there is a better allocation process, but that is the system we inherited.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
One of the key messages from farmers at the that forum that I held in my constituency was that they have lost trust in this Government and in investing in sustainable farming. Does the Minister recognise that ending SFI with no warning has only worsened the loss of trust? What plans do the Government have to restore Yeovil farmers’ confidence in this Government?
Daniel Zeichner
I hear the hon. Gentleman, but the fact that we have so many people in agreements, and so much land being farmed within them, shows that many people in this country have absolute confidence in what we are doing.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
How on earth does the Minister correlate his statement that he wants to work with the sector with the Government last night giving just 30 minutes’ notice to the NFU—the sector—of this shameful cut to the SFI budget? What does that say about DEFRA’s previous commitment to transparency, co-operation and co-design?
Daniel Zeichner
This process has been going on for five years now. Perhaps the hon. Member should have looked a bit more closely at what was about to happen.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Trust between farmers and this Government is well and truly broken. Farmers feel betrayed and let down, and many are at breaking point. The closure of the SFI is a bitter and, I believe, calculated blow on top of the family farm tax grab. It will be the final straw for many British farmers—the people who feed us. How can the Minister justify sending over £500 million to farms in Africa, Asia and South America, while stripping support for our home-grown farmers?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, but I point out to her that this scheme relates to England. The different devolved Governments have different schemes. She asked about international aid. The key thing for us is to ensure that we support our farmers here, which is why we are spending a record £5 billion on farming over the next two years.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The one thing in the Minister’s statement that farmers in my constituency would agree with is that they are not making enough money. When, as I hope, the Minister takes up the invitation from the Father of the House to visit Lincolnshire, will he meet my farmers face to face and explain to them exactly what his Government are doing to increase their profitability?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman and I have had many exchanges across the Chamber over the years. I would be very happy to speak to his farmers and to talk to him about the important work that we are doing on supply chain fairness.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Farmers in North Shropshire are really keen to improve the environment and farm in a friendly way, but they are also running businesses and they need to plan. There are farmers in my constituency who were hoping to apply for grants to raise the water table in peat soil areas, but had not yet applied because those grants were not yet open. Now, the opportunity is gone. What will the Minister do to enable farmers to plan, and what will the replacement scheme look like?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Lady raises an important point. SFI is only one part of the set of Department’s schemes to work with farmers on nature restoration. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), has told me that £300 million is available for peat restoration, so other schemes are available.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
No notice and the scheme immediately closed. The Minister says it is full. When did he know that? Why did he not tell the farmers that it was going to happen?
Daniel Zeichner
I think there is still a misunderstanding about how these schemes work. If there is a first come, first served scheme and people have known for weeks and weeks—months—that it would be full at some point, there comes a time when we have to make a decision. If the Department is working within its budgets properly, it can hardly say a week or two before that suddenly it will close, because there will be a spike in applications. It is like a run on a bank. Basically, when the scheme is finished, it is finished.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
Nature, food, farming and farmers are the foundation of British life in every sense. This change is deeply regrettable. Can the Minister assure the House that every support will be given to farmers to adapt to these changes and to give them help with the technology that they do not have? They are already on their knees. Will the necessary support be given to stop them from buckling under the load of these successive changes?
Daniel Zeichner
I hear the hon. Lady, but I repeat that we have 50,000 farmers in ELM agreements. The majority of farmers are already working with us to make that change to environmentally friendly farming. It was never clear how many farmers overall would make the transition into the new schemes. Obviously, it is not a matter of compulsion. We invite people to apply, and they were invited last year. When the new scheme comes along, I will invite people to apply.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Minister is ducking and dodging questions like a Poundland Alastair Campbell. He started out with, “We knew five years ago,” but that very quickly it turned to “just weeks ago”. He said that this is “cause for celebration”. I do not think that any of my farmers will be celebrating this. Will he come and say these things directly to my farmers’ faces and see the response that he gets? Does he really want to be a Minister that much that he is willing to say such ridiculous things? He can find money for lots of other projects. He should come to Fylde and speak to the farmers.
Daniel Zeichner
I was going to say that I was grateful for the hon. Member’s question, but I am not sure that I am. I invite him to come and talk to people who are engaged in nature-friendly farming, who benefit from these schemes and who are undertaking the transition, for which I give the previous Government credit for starting. We wanted to move away from the common agricultural policy to a new system. That is what we are doing. The schemes were not designed well enough, and we are now addressing that.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I was contacted by members of the Great Big Dorset Hedge initiative three weeks ago, who told me that capital grants under SFI had already been frozen. Can the Minister confirm when the decision to close was actually made, whether applications submitted will be granted and how long applicants will have to wait? As farmers are already obliged to improve hedges with more than 10% gaps under their agreements, how will they access funding to do so to enable their existing funding to be maintained?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Lady raises an important set of points. We now have 75,000 km of hedgerow within these schemes. The basic point is that we have a fixed budget and, just as with the capital grants, when they are spent, they are spent. Another set of grants will be available, and I invite her constituents to apply at that point. We cannot get away from the fact that there is not an endless supply of money. We have to work within the budgets.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I understand the Minister’s point that it has been known all along that at some point the fixed budget would be exhausted. A simple question for him: on which day were Ministers first informed that that budget had been exhausted?
Daniel Zeichner
We made the decision yesterday because we reached that point.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is beginning to feel a little like a game of Top Trumps in who can cause the most financial unpredictability to farmers, be it through the botched ELMS roll-out or the cancellation of this scheme at a moment’s notice. Half of Britain’s fruit and veg farmers expect to go out of business. The Minister says that he will support farmers to be profitable through fairer supply chains, but will he explain what that will look like?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that very big question. I point her to the fair dealing powers in the Agriculture Act 2020, some of which have already been brought forward in the dairy sector, and we will be working on the pig sector soon. Basically, sector by sector, we are trying to sort out the improvements that are needed to get fairness throughout the supply chain. That is a big, difficult and complicated question, but it is essential for the future.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
The announcement was sneaked out with no notice last night. If the Minister knows anything about farming, he will know that it takes months, if not years, to plan. Farmers had no notice of this. Will he tell us what will replace the SFI, when he will consult, and when it is likely to come into operation?
Daniel Zeichner
Over the next few months, through the spending review, we will review how we can improve the scheme to avoid the very point that the hon. Gentleman has just made, and I will report back to the House later in the summer.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I met young farmers at Duchy College in North Cornwall last week, and it was clear that confidence in the farming sector is at an all-time low, with many looking for alternative careers. In the light of the Government’s hammer blow to SFI payments, on top of the family farm tax, how does the Minister plan to incentivise young people to get into farming, now that they face huge tax bills upon inheriting their family farms and will no longer be incentivised to undertake environmental stewardship and sustainable farming?
Daniel Zeichner
I completely disagree with the premise of the question, as the hon. Gentleman will probably realise. He is right to say that we need generational change in farming, and there are a number of ways in which that can happen—
Daniel Zeichner
I am not laughing. This is a very serious point. I am genuinely concerned about the future of the farming sector if we do not get generational change. We will look closely at how we can do that. The £5 billion budget that we secured was a very good first step for stability.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Farmers in Chichester are exhausted by the ever-changing schemes and the time it takes to apply for them. Imagine their surprise when they found out that the SFI scheme had been closed, not with no notice—I think that is unfair—but with the NFU given 30 minutes’ notice, as opposed to the six weeks that it was promised. At a time when BPS schemes are being significantly reduced, what communication and support will be provided to the family farms that have missed out on this round of SFI funding?
Daniel Zeichner
It should have been clear to people for a long, long time that this transition was coming. It was the move away from a system based on entitlements for every farmer through the basic payment scheme to a system that relied on people applying to what was essentially a fixed budget. I agree with the hon. Lady and many other Members that the way the system was set up did not allow for proper prioritisation or fairness in allocation. That is what we would like to change in future, but it is the system that we inherited, and I am afraid that that is where we are at the moment. The House should remember that the majority are already in schemes, and to those who have not yet come forward, I gently say for the future that the advice in these kinds of schemes is that it is better to apply early rather than to wait.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The sudden completion of the SFI scheme will be a worry for many farmers and local people. I am also very concerned by reports that the NFU was given only 30 minutes’ notice on such a huge change. To give my local farmers the confidence that they need, can the Minister assure them that DEFRA will learn lessons from the poor communication and lack of clarity that have plagued this and past initiatives?
Daniel Zeichner
Let me repeat the point: this is not about communication. If we suddenly say that a scheme with a fixed amount of money in it will close in two or three weeks, we would get a surge in applications and have to close it the same day. That is a flaw in the way the scheme was originally designed, and we want to do better in future.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
International events have pushed national security right up the agenda, and I am sure that we have cross-party acknowledgment that food security is a vital part of national security. Given the changing geopolitical situation, has an impact assessment been undertaken on changes to and stressors for family budgets and cash flow, such as the removal of SFI, and their effect on food security?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I refer him to the food security report. There has been no change to the amount of money available. The £5 billion budget is there; this is a discussion about who gets it.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Will the Minister explain to farmers in Horsham why he did not feel any need to consult any farming stakeholders in advance of this announcement?
Daniel Zeichner
Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the point that I made earlier. If we started a consultation on a first come, first served scheme, everybody would apply that day and we would have to shut it at that point. That is a flaw in the way the scheme was designed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is much liked in this Chamber, as we all know. However, it is disappointing to hear that new applications for the sustainable farming incentive have been paused in England. It is understandable that that is seen as a betrayal by so many farmers. Agricultural support is different in Northern Ireland, but the funding comes none the less from central Government. Will the Minister assure me that funding for Northern Ireland farmers, which comes from here, will not be reduced or falter as a result of today’s announcement, and that steps will be taken to protect our agriculture industry and our farmers, who are the backbone of our economy?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, and I suspect that we shall renew our acquaintance in Westminster Hall this afternoon. I can assure him that this announcement will make no difference to the funding arrangements for Northern Ireland.
Points of Order
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), has been asked repeatedly why no notice was given to farmers of the closure of the SFI scheme. He has given a range of answers, including that “people have known for weeks and weeks—months”. He even stretched it to five years ago. This is important, not least because business decisions are having to be made on the fly today, but also because there may be legal consequences to the answer that the Minister has given. How can we encourage the Minister to correct the record and state the fact that no notice was given to farmers?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of Ministers’ statements in the House, but she has put her point of order on the record. I do not believe that the Minister wishes to respond—
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
indicated dissent.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to correct the record and make a declaration of interests. In my excitement while making my first intervention during proceedings on the Employment Rights Bill yesterday, I did not point Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests or mention my proud membership of the Community, GMB and Unison unions. I would like to ensure that that is on the record as well as in the register.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for advance notice of her point of order. I know that she has been diligent in seeking advice on how and when to declare an interest. That is now on the record.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 21 May 2024, the former Defence Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), published records of blood and urine tests relating to nuclear test veterans. He said at that time that there were 150. It has now become clear from the correspondence of a court case brought by the British nuclear test veterans that there are 370 documents mentioning blood and urine. That includes 265 that were previously unseen and unreleased. That raises the possibility, as you will appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Atomic Weapons Establishment misled Ministers about the number of records, and that, inadvertently and entirely innocently, the Minister brought the wrong information to this House. I seek your guidance on how the Government can correct the record and publish those extra records. The nuclear test veterans deserve nothing less.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of ministerial statements in the House, but he has put his point on the record and no doubt those on the Treasury Bench are taking note and listening.
Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme (Report)
Wednesday 12th March 2025
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberMother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme (Report) Bill 2024-26 View all Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme (Report) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the potential merits of disregarding payments received under the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme operated by the government of Ireland for the purposes of taxation, means-tested social security payments and social care capital limits; and for connected purposes.
Philomena Lee was 18 years old when she became pregnant in 1952 and was sent to the Sean Ross Abbey mother and baby home in Roscrea, County Tipperary, in Ireland. There Philomena gave birth to her son Anthony, and there they both lived until Anthony reached the age of three and Philomena was cruelly forced to give him up for adoption. Anthony was sold to a couple in the United States. Philomena would never see him again. Almost 60 years on, Philomena’s story reached a global audience when it was made into the Oscar-nominated film “Philomena”, starring Dame Judi Dench and Steve Coogan. The film chronicled the time Philomena spent in Sean Ross Abbey and her painstaking search for her long-lost son decades later, with the help of author Martin Sixsmith.
I wish Philomena’s story was an isolated one. Sadly, it is not. Philomena is one of tens of thousands of women and their infant children who spent time in mother and baby homes across Ireland for the perceived sin of becoming pregnant outside of marriage. The women were regularly used as unpaid labour, and infant mortality was alarmingly high. They experienced harsh conditions, mistreatment and abuse, both physical and psychological. In certain homes, women were routinely separated from their children, with some being adopted against the wishes or even without the knowledge of their mothers, as happened to Philomena Lee and her son Anthony.
As a direct result of the abuse and trauma they experienced, many mother and baby home survivors moved to England. In some cases, they came here because they thought that disappearing from their home country was the only way to protect their family’s reputations, and so for decades thousands of survivors lived in secrecy and shame, including here in Britain. It was not until 2021 that they finally received an apology from the then Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, for what he described as a
“profound generational wrong visited upon Irish mothers and their children”.
That was followed by the mother and baby institutions payment scheme, which opened to applications last March. The scheme represents a measure of accountability for what happened, recognising the lifelong impact that time spent in those institutions will have had. The impact will be felt in all corners of a survivor’s life, from earning potential and financial security to physical and mental health and wellbeing.
Ultimately, the scheme aims to acknowledge the suffering and improve the circumstances of former residents of mother and baby homes, which is why it is wrong that up to 13,000 survivors living here in Britain today risk losing their benefits if they accept this compensation. Under our current rules, any money accepted through this payment scheme would be considered savings and could see them lose means-tested benefits and financial support for social care. For some, it is deterring them from making any application at all. It is one of the reasons that only 5% of survivors in Britain have applied so far.
For others, having received a compensation offer, they are now having to weigh up whether it is worth accepting the money, or whether to do so would sink them into a worse financial situation overall. Among them is a survivor from the north of England who has shared her story with me. This woman, who experienced harrowing abuse over several years, applied to the payment scheme in September last year and received an offer soon after. She told me:
“When I first heard about the payment scheme, I thought that it was marvellous and I was excited. I couldn’t take it in—I had never had money at any point in my life. I was going to use this money to visit a half-brother in America—he had been born less than 16 miles away, but I did not know that him or his brother and sister existed until we did some family tracing. It would have been lovely to meet him, but I do not feel that I can use the money for this as my benefits would be affected.”
The whole point of the payment scheme was to recognise the suffering that survivors experienced while resident, but for many it has become an additional burden, a process that has forced them to revisit their most traumatic experiences, seemingly to no avail.
Fortunately, there is a solution and it is a relatively simple one. The introduction of an indefinite capital disregard, which my Bill proposes, would remove any risk to an applicant’s benefits. There is strong precedent for such a disregard; the same arrangements have been applied to similar special compensation schemes in the recent past, including those introduced for the victims of the 7/7 London bombings and for payments made under the Windrush compensation scheme.
I want to pay tribute to some of the many incredible organisations in Britain that continue to support mother and baby home survivors. They include: Rosa and the team at Irish in Britain; Séan and the team at the London Irish Centre in Camden; the Irish Cultural Centre in Hammersmith; the Fréa network supporting the Irish community in Leeds, Manchester, Merseyside and beyond; Coventry Irish Society; Luton Irish Forum; Irish Network Stevenage; and many more.
I would also like to pay tribute to the mother and baby home survivors here in Britain, in Ireland and elsewhere, who summoned the courage to share their personal experiences and to recount their most traumatic years in the name of justice. Their bravery not only secured the apology from the Irish Government and subsequently brought about the payment scheme, but perhaps more importantly contributed enormously to the hard and crucial work of dismantling the stigma and secrecy that has long been associated with time spent in mother and baby homes. That, of course, includes Philomena Lee, whose own story brought this injustice to a global audience. I am delighted that Philomena’s daughter Jane and her grandson Joshua are here in the Gallery with us today.
Ireland’s mother and baby homes were cruel institutions. Over seven decades, tens of thousands of Irish women were sent there for the perceived sin of becoming pregnant outside of marriage. They were subjected to the most horrific mistreatment and abuse, physical and psychological. Women were used as unpaid labour. They had their children forcibly adopted, sometimes overseas, never to be seen again. The women and children fortunate enough to leave the institutions often came here to Britain. They came here to escape the stigma and shame and build a new life, and there are more than 13,000 survivors living here today.
Last year, the Irish Government opened a long-awaited compensation scheme for those survivors. It is a small but important mark of accountability and redress for what happened to them, but thousands of survivors in Britain today cannot access this compensation without being penalised for it. If they access it, they lose any means-tested benefits or financial support for social care. Just as we did for the Windrush families, we must now change the law to ensure that compensation payments for victims and survivors are ringfenced. This Bill, Philomena’s law, named after the inspirational and courageous Philomena Lee, will achieve that. I am proud to bring it to the House today, and I hope in the months ahead we will see a change in the law so that we can deliver justice for survivors and show them the kindness and respect they have so often been denied in life.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Liam Conlon, Claire Hanna, Colum Eastwood, Deirdre Costigan, Lola McEvoy, Damien Egan, Uma Kumaran, Sarah Coombes, Helena Dollimore, Florence Eshalomi, Rachel Hopkins and Tom Rutland present the Bill.
Liam Conlon accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March, and to be printed (Bill 198).
Employment Rights Bill
Wednesday 12th March 2025
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberEmployment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2025 - large print - (12 Mar 2025)
17:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 337 / Noes: 98 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 168 / Noes: 314 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:24 - The House divided: - Ayes: 164 / Noes: 324 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:37 - The House divided: - Ayes: 167 / Noes: 328 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:51 - The House divided: - Ayes: 333 / Noes: 100 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 333 / Noes: 100 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 40—Political funds: requirement to pass political resolution.
Government new clause 41—Industrial action ballots: support thresholds.
Government new clause 42—Notice of industrial action ballot and sample voting paper for employers.
Government new clause 43—Period after which industrial action ballot ceases to be effective.
Government new clause 44—Power to give notice of underpayment.
Government new clause 45—Calculation of the required sum.
Government new clause 46—Period to which notice of underpayment may relate.
Government new clause 47—Notices of underpayment: further provision.
Government new clause 48—Penalties for underpayment.
Government new clause 49—Further provision about penalties.
Government new clause 50—Suspension of penalty where criminal proceedings have been brought etc.
Government new clause 51—Appeals against notices of underpayment.
Government new clause 52—Withdrawal of notice of underpayment.
Government new clause 53—Replacement notice of underpayment.
Government new clause 54—Effect of replacement notice of underpayment.
Government new clause 55—Enforcement of requirement to pay sums due to individuals.
Government new clause 56—Enforcement of requirement to pay penalty.
Government new clause 57—Power to bring proceedings in employment tribunal.
Government new clause 58—Power to provide legal assistance.
Government new clause 59—Recovery of costs of legal assistance.
Government new clause 60—Power to recover costs of enforcement.
New clause 8—Prison officers: inducements to withhold services—
“In section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (Inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline)—
(a) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (a);
(b) omit subsection (1A);
(c) omit subsection (7).”
This new clause would repeal provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that prohibit inducing a prison officer to take (or continue to take) any industrial action.
New clause 9—Inducement of prison officers: exempted persons—
“After section 127A of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline), insert—
“Section 127B: Prison officers and trade unions: exempted persons
Section 127 (inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline) does not apply to—
(a) Any listed trade union representing prison officers, or
(b) any person acting on behalf of a listed trade union representing prison officers.””
This new clause would repeal, with respect to trade unions representing prison officers, provisions that prohibit the inducement of industrial action or indiscipline by a prison officer.
New clause 19—Right to be accompanied—
“(1) Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) person who has been reasonably certified in writing by a Professional Body as having experience of, or as having received training in, acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary or grievance hearings, or”
(3) After subsection (7) insert—
“(8) In this section, “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (9).
(9) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.””
This new clause would expand the right to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings.
New clause 28—Enforcement against companies subject to insolvency or voluntary liquidation—
“(1) A Labour Market Enforcement Strategy under section 81 must include—
(a) the Secretary of State’s assessment of—
(i) the scale and nature of non-compliance with employment tribunal awards due to insolvency or voluntary liquidation during the period of three years ending immediately before the strategy period;
(ii) the scale and nature of such non-compliance involving phoenixing during the same period; and
(iii) the likely scale and nature of such non-compliance during the strategy period;
(b) a proposal for the strategy period setting out how enforcement functions of the Secretary of State are to be exercised in relation to such non-compliance.
(2) An annual report under section 82 must include―
(a) an assessment of the effect of the applicable strategy on the scale and nature of non-compliance with employment tribunal awards, including non-compliance due to insolvency or voluntary liquidation, and
(b) an assessment of the effect of the applicable strategy on the scale and nature of non-compliance involving phoenixing.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “phoenixing” means the practice of dissolving or otherwise closing a business and establishing a new one with a similar purpose, with the effect of avoiding the enforcement of employment tribunal awards or other debts.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to include, in the Labour Market Enforcement Strategy and annual reports under this Bill, information about non-compliance with employment tribunal awards by, and enforcement against, companies ordered to pay such awards that have been subject to insolvency or voluntary liquidation, including in instances in which the directors go on to set up a similar company to avoid enforcement.
New clause 29—Trade union representatives: right not to suffer career detriment—
“(1) In Part V of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Protection from suffering detriment in employment), after section 47(1A), insert—
“(1B) This section applies where the detriment in question relates to matters of internal promotion or progression.”
(2) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended in accordance with subsections (3) to (6).
(3) In the italic title before section 137, after “Access to employment”, add “and career progression”.
(4) After section 138, insert—
“138A Career progression
(1) An employer must ensure that any employee undertaking trade union representative duties does not experience detriment in matters of internal career progression as a result of the employee’s trade union activities.
(2) Where an employee who is a trade union representative has not been appointed to a more senior role, in circumstances in which the employee met the minimum criteria for the role and demonstrated that criteria through the application, the employer must provide a written statement.
(3) The written statement under subsection (2) must include evidence to demonstrate that the decision not to appoint the employee was not affected by the employee’s trade union activities.
138B Career progression: support for trade union representatives
An employer must have in place a policy to support the career progression of employees who are trade union representatives. The policy must set out―
(a) how the employees will be supported in matters of internal progression and promotion; and
(b) how the employer will consider trade union experience in assessing applications for more senior roles.””
(5) In section 140(1), after “section 138” insert “or 138A”.
(6) In section 142(1), after “section 138” insert “or 138A”.””
This new clause would enhance protections to trade union representatives, extending them to cover detriment in matters of career progression, and would require employers to demonstrate that they have not denied promotion to trade union representatives as a result of their trade union activities. It would also require employers to have a policy in place to support the career progression of employees who are trade union representatives.
New clause 31—Removal of secondary action provisions—
“In the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, omit section 224 (secondary action).”
New clause 64—Duties of trade unions—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 219 (protection from certain tort liabilities), after subsection (4) insert—
“(5) But subsection (4) does not have effect in relation to any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute which relates wholly or mainly to proposals by an employer to vary terms and conditions of employment of two or more employees accompanied by the threat (explicit or implied) of dismissal if that variation is not agreed.””
New clause 65—Personal Liability for breach of tribunal orders—
“(1) Where, in relation to a body corporate—
(a) a financial order made by an employment tribunal or agreed by the claimant and the body corporate; or
-(b) an order of reinstatement or re-engagement made by an employment tribunal or agreed by the claimant and the body corporate
has not been fulfilled by the date specified in the order or agreement, without reasonable excuse, and that failure is proved—
(a) to have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer of the body, or
(b) to be attributable to any neglect on the part of such an officer,
that officer shall be personally liable to reimburse the claimant in whose favour the order had been made or agreed.
(2) An officer found liable for reimbursement under subsection (1) may be disqualified as a director or prevented from becoming a director.”
New clause 66—Public sector contracting: trade union recognition—
“(1) The Procurement Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(2) In Part (2) (principles and objectives), after section 14A insert—
“14B Obligations of contractors to recognise trade unions
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that any contract entered into by a—
(a) government department;
(b) executive agency of government;
(c) non departmental public body; or
(d) non Ministerial department,
is compliant with the requirements set out in subsection (2).
(2) A contract under subsection (1) must─
(a) recognise an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining, and
(b) take steps to ensure that any sub-contractor to the contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract recognises an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “recognises”, “independent trade union” and “collective bargaining” have the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
(4) An independent trade union may make a complaint against a contracting authority, which is a party to a public contract, that it or a contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract is in breach of the term in subsection (2).
(5) The complaint may be made to the Central Arbitration Committee.
(6) If the Central Arbitration Committee finds the complaint to be well founded, it shall grant a declaration to that effect.
(7) Where the Central Arbitration Committee makes a declaration in accordance with subsection (6), it shall order that the respondent contracting authority shall take whatever steps appear to the Central Arbitration Committee as necessary to ensure that the contracting authority and every contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract comply with the implied term in subsection (2).
(8) The steps that may be taken under subsection (7) include termination of the contract, which shall not be regarded as a breach of contract by the contracting authority concerned if a principal reason for the termination is compliance with an order of the Central Arbitration Committee under (7).
(9) An appeal lies on a point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal by either party to proceedings brought under subsection (5).””
New clause 67—Sectoral collective bargaining: 80 per cent coverage—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an action plan to achieve, within five years, that the principal terms and conditions of employment of at least 80 percent of workers in the United Kingdom are determined by collective agreement.
(2) The action plan under subsection (1) must be informed by consultation with organisations representing employers and trade unions.”
New clause 68—Sectoral collective bargaining: other sectors—
“(1) Regulations under this Act may include regulations for collective bargaining in other sectors of the economy.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1)—
(a) may only be made following consultation with representatives of workers and employers in those sectors; and
(b) may provide that agreements reached by such collective bargaining shall apply to the workers and employers in the relevant sector save to the extent that a previous or subsequent collective agreement has provided a more favourable term or condition.”
New clause 69—Statement of trade union rights—
“Every employee, worker and self-employed person has the right—
(a) to join an independent trade union of his choice, subject only to its rules;
(b) to take part in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time, subject only to its rules.”
New clause 70—Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces—
“In part 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (trade unions), before Chapter 5A, insert—
“Chapter 5ZA
RIGHT OF TRADE UNIONS TO ACCESS WORKPLACES
70ZA Right of access
(1) A designated official of an independent trade union shall have a right to enter premises occupied by an employer in order to access a workplace or workplaces, subject to the conditions set out below.
(2) An employer shall not—
(a) refuse entry to a designated trade union official seeking to exercise his or her right of access under sub-section (1), or
(b) otherwise obstruct such an official in the exercise of his or her right of access under sub-section (1).
(3) A “designated trade union official” means a person nominated by the trade union to exercise the right of access on its behalf.
70ZB Access purposes
(1) The right of access may be exercised for the access purposes.
(2) The access purposes are to—
(a) meet, represent, recruit or organize workers (whether or not they are members of a trade union); and
(b) facilitate collective bargaining.
70ZC Notice to employer
(1) The right of access may be exercised only after the designated official of an independent trade union has given notice of an intention to do so to the employer whose premises it is proposed to enter for the purposes of access to a workplace or workplaces.
(2) The notice must be—
(a) in writing; and
(b) given at least 24 hours before it is intended to exercise the right of access;
(3) The notice required to be given under subsection (2) shall—
(a) specify the purpose for which entry is sought; and
(b) identify the workers or categories of workers the designated official intends to meet, represent, recruit or organize.
(4) The right of access may be exercised without giving notice where there are exceptional circumstances such as to justify access without prior notice.
(5) Whether circumstances are exceptional shall be determined by having regard to the relevant provisions of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS.
70ZD Access conditions
(1) The right of access is subject to the following conditions.
(2) The right of access may be exercised—
(a) only at a reasonable time, and
(b) subject to reasonable conditions imposed by the employer.
(3) What is reasonable for the purposes of subsection (2) shall be determined by having regard to the relevant provisions of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS.
70ZE Dwellings
(1) The right of access does not apply to any part of premises which are used exclusively as a dwelling.
(2) Where sub-section (1) applies and only where sub-section (1) applies, the employer shall provide a reasonable, suitable, and alternative venue to enable the right of access to be exercised.
(3) What is reasonable and suitable for the purposes of subsection (2) shall be determined by having regard to the relevant provisions of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS.
70ZF Enforcement of right of access
(1) Where an employer refuses or obstructs access contrary to section 70ZA, a complaint may be made to the CAC by the trade union of which the designated official is a representative.
(2) Where the CAC finds the complaint to be well-founded it shall make a declaration to that effect and may make an order requiring the employer to comply with section 70ZA, subject to such conditions as the CAC may determine.
(3) If the CAC makes a declaration under subsection (2) the trade union may, within the period of three months beginning with the date on which the declaration is made, make an application to the Employment Appeal Tribunal for a penalty notice to be issued.
(4) Where such an application is made, the Employment Appeal Tribunal shall issue a written penalty notice to the employer requiring the employer to pay a penalty to the trade union in respect of each refusal or obstruction of access unless satisfied, on hearing representations from the employer, that the refusal or obstruction of access resulted from a reason beyond the employer’s control or that the employer has some other reasonable excuse.
(5) If the CAC makes an order under subsection (2) the order shall be recorded in the High Court and on being recorded may be enforced as if it were an order of the High Court.
70ZG Penalty notice
(1) A penalty notice issued under section 70ZF(4) shall specify—
(a) the amount of the penalty which is payable;
(b) the date before which the penalty must be paid; and
(c) the failure and period to which the penalty relates.
(2) A penalty set by the Employment Appeal Tribunal under section 70ZF(4) may not exceed a prescribed amount.
(3) Matters to be taken into account by the Employment Appeal Tribunal when setting the amount of the penalty shall include—
(a) the gravity of each refusal or obstruction of access;
(b) the period of time over which each refusal or obstruction of access occurred;
(c) the number of occasions on which each refusal or obstruction of access occurred;
(d) the reason for each refusal or obstruction of access;
(e) the number of workers affected by each refusal or obstruction of access; and
(f) the number of workers employed by the undertaking.
(4) The Employment Appeal Tribunal shall also take into account any previous refusal or obstruction of access to a designated official of the independent trade union to which the application relates.
(5) If the specified date in a penalty notice for payment of the penalty has passed and—
(a) the period during which an appeal may be made has expired without an appeal having been made; or
(b) such an appeal has been made and determined, the trade union may recover from the employer, as a civil debt due to it, any amount payable under the penalty notice which remains outstanding.
(6) The making of an appeal suspends the effect of a penalty notice pending the outcome of the appeal.
70ZH Other provisions relating to trade union access
(1) Sections 70ZA-70ZG are in addition and without prejudice to any other provisions relating to trade union access to workers.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, the latter include but are not confined to—
(a) Section 188(5A) of this Act
(b) Sections 198A and 198B of this Act;
(c) Schedule A1, paragraphs 26 and 118 of this Act;
(d) ACAS Code of Practice on time off for trade union duties and activities issued under section 199 of this Act, for the time being in force; and
(e) Any collective agreement which makes more favourable provision.””
New clause 82—Fair Work Agency: review of resourcing—
(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the resources available to the Fair Work Agency.
(2) The review must be published and laid before Parliament within six months of this section coming into force.”
This new clause asks the Secretary of State to review the resources available to the Fair Work Agency to ensure that enforcement of provisions in the Act are effective.
New clause 88—Rules as to political fund—
(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) of section 84 (Contributions to political fund from members of the union), after subsection (1), insert—
“(1A) An opt-in notice under subsection (1) must include the member of the trade union’s consent to annual renewal of the contribution to the political fund (a “renewal opt-in”).
(1B) The renewal opt-in must be sent by the member of the trade union─ (a) within six months of the initial opt-in and every six months thereafter, or (b) each time payment is due, at least 28 days before payment is taken, whichever is longer.
(1C) If the member of the trade union does not provide a renewal opt-in, the trade union must provide a date by which the member must notify the trade union of their consent to continued contribution towards the political fund, which must be no earlier than 28 days before the next payment to the political fund is due.
(1D) If the member has not—
(a)opted into an arrangement under subsection (1A) or (1B), or
(b) given notification of their consent to continued contributions by the date specified under subsection (1C),
their payments to the political fund must cease before the renewal date.””
This new clause will ensure that trade union members are asked whether they wish their contribution to the political fund to renew automatically and would require that, if the member does not wish to renew their contribution, the union must provide a date by which the member has to confirm they wish to continue to contribute.
New clause 89—Certification Officer: growth duty—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 254 (The Certification Officer), after subsection (2), insert—
“(2A) In discharging the functions of the Certification Office, the Certification Officer must, so far as reasonably possible, act in such a way as to advance the following objectives—
(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom; and
(b) economic growth of the United Kingdom in the medium to long term.””
This new clause would require the Certification Officer to advance the objectives of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.
New clause 90—Regulations under Part 4—
“When making regulations under Part 4 of this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives—
(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom; and
(b) the economic growth of the United Kingdom in the medium to long term.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State, when making regulations under Part 4 of the Bill, to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.
New clause 98—Pressure to impose union recognition requirement—
“In the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, omit section 225 (Pressure to impose union recognition requirement).”
This new clause would remove section 225 from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 on pressure to impose union recognition requirement.
New clause 99—Electronic balloting—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a statutory instrument containing an order under section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004.
(2) That order must specify that—
(a) permissible means may, in the case of any description of ballot or election, include (or consist of) electronic voting; and
(b) any ballot or election including (or consisting of) electronic voting must be conducted pursuant to section 230 (Conduct of ballot) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
(3) The Secretary of State must not make an order under this section until a consultation with the Trades Union Congress and the Certification Officer has been conducted.
(4) An order under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make an order for electronic voting in a ballot or election pursuant to section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004 within six months of the passing of this Act, and following consultation with the TUC.
New clause 100—Notice to employers of industrial action: amendment—
“In section 234A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, omit subsections (3) to (9) and insert—-
“(3) For the purposes of this section a relevant notice is one in writing which—
(a) identifies—
(i) the day or the first of the days on which, at the time of the service of the relevant notice, the union proposes to call industrial action; and
(ii) the categories of employee the union intends to call on to take industrial action; and
(b) must be provided to the employer as early as practicable after the ballot result is known and the decision to take industrial action in furtherance of it has been taken.
(4) If the industrial action relates to an event which has already taken place, no relevant notice shall be required.””
This new clause replaces the provisions in section 234A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to define a relevant notice for industrial action, when one must be provided and when one is not required.
New clause 103—Public sector contracting: trade union recognition—
“(1) The Procurement Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(2) In Part (2) (principles and objectives), after section 14A insert—
“14B Obligations of contractors to recognise trade unions
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that any contract entered into after the coming into force of this Act by a—
(a) government department;
(b) executive agency of government;
(c) non departmental public body; or
(d) non Ministerial department,
is compliant with the requirements set out in subsection (2).
(2) A contract under subsection (1) must require the contractor to such a contracting authority to—
(a) recognise an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining, and
(b) take steps to ensure that any sub-contractor to the contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract recognises an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “recognises”, “independent trade union” and “collective bargaining” have the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
(4) An independent trade union may make a complaint against a contracting authority, which is a party to a public contract, that it or a contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract is in breach of the term in subsection (2).
(5) The complaint may be made to the Central Arbitration Committee.
(6) If the Central Arbitration Committee finds the complaint to be well founded, it shall grant a declaration to that effect.
(7) Where the Central Arbitration Committee makes a declaration in accordance with subsection (6), it shall order that the respondent contracting authority shall take whatever steps appear to the Central Arbitration Committee as necessary to ensure that the contracting authority and every contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract comply with the implied term in subsection (2).
(8) The steps that may be taken under subsection (7) include termination of the contract, which shall not be regarded as a breach of contract by the contracting authority concerned if a principal reason for the termination is compliance with an order of the Central Arbitration Committee under subsection (7).
(9) An appeal lies on a point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal by either party to proceedings brought under subsection (5).””
This new clause is designed to ensure that all public contractors comply with the duty to recognise a trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining and that such contractors take steps to ensure that any sub-contractors do the same. The terms “contracting authority” and “public contract” are defined in section 2 and 3 of the Procurement Act.
New clause 106—Collective bargaining—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 209, after “industrial relations” insert—
“and in particular to encourage the extension of collective bargaining and the development and, where necessary, reform of collective bargaining machinery.””
This would add duties around collective bargaining to the general duty of ACAS.
New clause 107—Whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) For section 179, substitute—
“179 Whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract
(1) A collective agreement shall be conclusively presumed to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract unless the agreement—
(a) is in writing, and
(b) contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties do not intend that the agreement shall be a legally enforceable contract.
(2) A collective agreement which satisfies those conditions shall be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract.
(3) If a collective agreement is in writing and contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties intend that one or more parts of the agreement specified in that provision, but not the whole of the agreement, shall not be a legally enforceable contract, then—
(a) the specified part or parts shall be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract, and
(b) the remainder of the agreement shall be conclusively presumed to have been intended by the parties to be such a contract.
(4) A part of a collective agreement which by virtue of subsection (3)(a) is not a legally enforceable contract may be referred to for the purpose of interpreting a part of the agreement which is such a contract.””
This new clause replaces Section 179 on whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
New clause 108—Industrial action: workers’ rights—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 219, insert—
“219A Right to strike
Every worker shall have the right to take industrial action, whether or not in breach of any contract, subject to the provisions of this Part.”
(3) Omit section 223 (Action taken because of dismissal for taking unofficial action).”
This new clause would establish a clearer right to strike and remove provisions from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that make strike action unlawful on the grounds that it turns out (retrospectively) that the action the worker took was unofficial.
New clause 109—Industrial action and ballots—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit—
(a) section 224 (Secondary action)
(b) 225 (Pressure to impose union recognition requirement)
(c) 226A (Notice of ballot and sample voting paper for employers)
(d) 228 (Separate workplace ballots), and
(e) 228A (Separate workplaces: single and aggregate ballots).
(3) In section 234 (Period after which ballot ceases to be effective), omit subsections (1) to (5) and substitute:
“(1) Industrial action that is regarded as having the support of a ballot shall cease to be so regarded when─
(a) the dispute which gave rise to it ceases, or
(b) the union has taken no steps to pursue the dispute for a period of six months.”
(4) In subsection (1) of section 244, (Meaning of “trade dispute" in Part V)—
(a) omit “a dispute between workers and their employer” and substitute “a dispute between workers and one or more employers”.
(b) omit “which relates wholly or mainly to” and substitute “connected with”.
(5) In subsection (5) of section 244, omit “a worker employed by that employer” and substitute “a worker employed by an employer”.”
This new clause would remove provisions that ban all forms of secondary action; make changes to the definition of “trade dispute”; enable industrial action to be taken to achieve recognition for collective bargaining; remove obligation on a TU to provide a ballot paper to the employer; give TUs more freedom to choose which constituencies they will ballot; and remove an obligation on the union in a long running dispute to re-run the ballot every six months.
New clause 110—Review into the impact on small businesses—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a review on the impact of Part 4 (Trade Unions and Industrial Action, etc) of this Act on small and medium-sized enterprises.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must have regard to—
(a) administrative costs;
(b) legal costs; and
(c) tax changes affecting small and medium-sized enterprises taking effect from the 2025-26 financial year.
(3) For the purposes of this section, small and medium-sized enterprises are businesses employing 250 or fewer employees.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a review on the impact of Part 4 of this Bill, on Trade Unions and Industrial Action, on SMEs within 3 months of the passage of this Act.
New clause 111—Legal aid in employment tribunals—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the options for expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the impact employers' compliance with measures contained within this Act; and
(b) the impact on employees’ personal finances.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals within 3 months of the passage of this Act.
New clause 112—Review of single enforcement body—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a review on the impact of a single enforcement body as provided for under Part 5.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must assess the impact of the single enforcement body with the impact between 2019 and 2025 of the following four enforcement bodies—
(a) Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA)
(b) Employment Agencies Standards Inspectorate (EAS)
(c) His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC)
(d) Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
(3) The review under subsection (1) must have regard to—
(a) business compliance costs
(b) Employers’ compliance with employment law
(c) the number of employees seeking support in relation to employment disputes.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of a single enforcement body compared with separate enforcement bodies within 3 months of the passage of this Act.
Amendment 270, page 61, line 14 leave out clause 50.
New clause 70 is intended to replace clause 50.
Government amendments 162 to 164.
Amendment 282, clause 50, page 61, line 31, after “workplace” insert, or
“(b) the right to use to any digital communications tools used by workers in the workplace.”
This amendment aims to ensure that access for unions to workplaces includes digital means of communication with workers.
Government amendments 165 to 185.
Amendment 271, clause 51, page 69, line 18, at end insert—
“(2A) In paragraph 22 (collective bargaining: recognition)—
(a) leave out sub-paragraph (1)(b) and insert—
“the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf’.”
(b) leave out subparagraphs (3), (4) and (5).
(2B) In paragraph 25 (collective bargaining: recognition)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (3)(a) leave out “20 working days” and substitute “10 working days”, and
(b) leave out sub-paragraph (3)(b).
(c) after sub-paragraph (4)(a) insert “(aa) by secure electronic voting,”
(d) in sub-paragraph (4)(c) leave out “and b” and substitute “to (c)”
(e) after sub-paragraph (4)(c) insert—
“(d) only amongst those who are employed in the proposed bargaining unit and were so employed at the time the application was made”.
(2C) In paragraph 26 after sub-paragraph (4) insert—
“(3A) In the event that the union (or unions) consider that such access has been unreasonably refused, it (or they) may apply to the CAC for a declaration and order that access be granted and in the event that such a declaration or order is made and the union (or unions) consider that such a declaration or order has been breached it (or they) may apply to the High Court for relief.”
(2D) In paragraph 26 after sub-paragraph (4B) insert—
“(4BA) The sixth duty is to refrain from any act or omission, direct or indirect, likely to encourage a union member or members to resign from union membership or likely to discourage a person from joining a union or any particular union.
(4BB) It shall be unlawful to compel a worker or workers by threat of detriment or dismissal to attend any meeting in which the employer, its servants or agents expresses the view directly or indirectly that—
(a) membership of a union or any union; or
(b) recognition for the purposes of collective bargaining of a union or any union by the employer,
is undesirable.”
(2E) In paragraph 27B(2) leave out “must be made on or before the first working day after” and substitute “must be made within 20 working days after”.
(2F) In paragraph 29 (collective bargaining: recognition) leave out sub-paragraph (3)(b).
(2G) In paragraph 35(1) leave out “a collective agreement under which a union (or unions) are recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining” and substitute “a collective agreement under which an independent union (or independent unions) are recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining”.
(2H) In paragraph 35(1) after “in the rules” insert “‘in relation to all pay, hours and holidays”.
(2I) In paragraph 39(2)(a) leave out “years” and substitute “months”.
(2J) In paragraph 40(2)(a) leave out “years” and substitute “months”.
(2K) In paragraph 41(2)(a) leave out “years” and substitute “months”.
This amendment makes changes to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 regarding union recognition and balloting.
Amendment 291, page 71, line 1, leave out clause 52.
Amendment 292, clause 52, page 71, line 6, at end insert—
“(2A) In subsection (1) of section 82 (Rules as to political fund), after paragraph (d) insert—
“(e) that trade union members who have not opted out of the political fund must signal, in writing, their agreement to continue contributing to the fund at the end of a period of 12 months after last opting into the fund, and
(f) that trade union members must be given an annual notice about their right to opt out of the political fund.
(1B) A notice under subsection (1)(f) must include a form that enables the member to opt out of the fund.””
This amendment would require trade unions to notify their members every year of their right to opt out of the political fund, and to obtain an annual opt-in to the political fund from their members.
Government amendments 186 to 191.
Amendment 293, page 73, line 6, leave out clause 54.
Amendment 294, page 74, line 14, leave out clause 55.
Amendment 296, clause 55, page 75, line 3, after “employee”, insert—
“, and
(c) in relation to a public sector employer, the performance condition is met.
(3A) The performance condition is met if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the public sector employer is meeting any performance standards set out in a relevant enactment.”
This amendment prevents facility time for equality representatives from being provided unless the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory targets for performance.
Amendment 295, page 78, line 5, leave out clause 56.
Amendment 299, page 78, line 30, leave out clause 58.
Government amendments 192 to 199.
Amendment 315, page 79, line 28, leave out clause 60.
This amendment would leave out Clause 60 on electronic balloting for industrial action. NC99 is intended to replace clause 60.
Government amendments 200 to 201.
Amendment 297, clause 61, page 80, line 6, leave out “seventh” and insert “fourteenth”.
This amendment would increase, from seven to 14 days, the notice period that trade unions are required to adhere to when notifying employers that they plan to take industrial action.
Government amendment 202.
Amendment 348, page 80, line 9, at end insert—
“(3) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is also amended as follows.
(4) In section 231 (Information as to result of ballot), omit from “shall” to after “told” and insert—
“display, reasonably prominently on its website, on a webpage reasonably easy to find and which is freely accessible to the general public—”
(5) Omit section 231A.”
This amendment would change the requirements for notification about the results of a union ballot.
Amendment 346, clause 62, page 80, line 19, at end insert—
“(3) In section 220 (Peaceful picketing)—
(a) in subsection (1), after “attend”, insert “a place of work”;
(b) omit subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b); and
(c) omit subsections (2) to (4).”
This amendment, along with amendment 348, would remove the restriction confining pickets to a worker’s place of work.
Amendment 300, clause 63, page 83, line 9, at end insert—
“236E Actions short of a strike: exemption
(1) The right of a worker not to be subjected to detriment under section 236A does not apply in cases where the worker is involved in one or more of the following activities—
(a) intimidation at picket lines;
(b) protests organised by trade unions in furtherance of a dispute—
(i) at the premises of a company;
(ii) at the private residences of senior managers; or
(iii) at the premises of other organisations that are connected with the dispute;
(c) harassment or bullying of non-striking workers, or those who are covering for striking workers;
(d) victimisation or harassment of senior managers; or
(e) action aimed at damaging property or disrupting business contingency planning.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that the circumstances under subsection (1), in which the right of a worker not to be subjected to detriment do not apply, are set out in a code of practice.”
This amendment would disapply the right not to suffer detriment as a result of industrial action in certain circumstances.
Government amendments 203 to 226 and 236 to 239.
Government new schedule 2—Trade union recognition.
Government amendments 247, 249, 251 to 261.
New clause 77—Employment Law: Scotland Act—
“(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows—
(2) In Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, omit section H1 (Employment and industrial relations).”
This new clause would remove matters related to employment from the list of the reserved matters that remain the responsibility of the UK Parliament alone and would enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate on those matters.
Justin Madders
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare my membership and financial interests in trade unions, as I have done throughout the passage of the Bill.
I thank Members from both sides of the House for their contributions to yesterday’s debate. I look forward to another good debate today as we work together to ensure that the Bill works in practice for workers and businesses of all sizes across the whole country. Similarly to yesterday, I will use my opening remarks to explain to the House the amendments put forward by the Government in parts 4 and 5 of the Bill.
The Government are moving a number of amendments that represent a significant step forward in modernising our industrial framework. Amendments to clause 50 will strengthen the provisions of trade union access rights. They will ensure that the framework functions effectively and delivers on our commitment to modernise working practices. They will streamline access provisions by allowing a single Central Arbitration Committee member to make a fast-track decision on whether access should take place. In making a decision about whether it is a single person or a panel that will consider the application, the CAC will be required to have regard to the complexity of the case, as well as whether the proposed terms of the agreement are model terms. Various criteria will be prescribed in secondary legislation following consultation.
The amendments will also clarify that supporting a worker is a legitimate purpose for access, and they will provide a power to bring forward secondary legislation to make further provision as to how the CAC is to determine the level of penalty fines for non-compliance with access agreements. They will expand access rights, enabling access agreements to cover communicating with workers in ways that do not involve entering premises—for example, connecting digitally using technology—therefore modernising our antiquated industrial relations framework.
New clause 39, new schedule 2 and associated amendments insert new provisions into the Bill, replacing clause 51, and will address unfair practices and access arrangements in the recognition and derecognition process. The amendments will extend the application of unfair practice protections to the point at which the CAC accepts an application for recognition or derecognition, and will ensure that employers cannot increase the size of the bargaining unit for the purposes of the recognition application after the application is made. That will end the deliberate gaming of the system that we have seen in recent years.
The amendments will also delete the second test for determining an unfair practice complaint, which currently requires the CAC to consider how an alleged unfair practice may have affected workers’ votes in the recognition, or derecognition, ballots. They will extend the time limit in which unfair practices can be reported after the ballot closes to five working days. They will ensure that an employer cannot recognise a non-independent trade union after receiving a request for voluntary recognition from an independent trade union as a means of thwarting the independent trade union’s subsequent application to the CAC for statutory recognition.
We will bring forward and formalise the process for agreeing access arrangements between the employer and the union during the recognition and derecognition process. These amendments will streamline the recognition process, reduce opportunities for unfair practices to occur, and ensure that unions that seek recognition have a fair and transparent statutory route to enable them to do so.
Today’s amendments on industrial action rules will reduce the costly, complex and bureaucratic requirements on unions in relation to industrial action and ballot notices, while ensuring that employers have the necessary notice and information to prepare for industrial action. New clause 42 will simplify notice to employers of industrial action ballots and industrial action, reducing the chance of spurious challenge and making the information required more proportionate. New clause 43 will extend industrial action mandates from six to 12 months, reducing the need for repeated ballots. Amendments to clause 61 will mean that the notice period for industrial action will be set at 10 days, giving businesses time to prepare and safeguarding workers’ rights. Amendments to clause 58 will mean that the 50% ballot turnout threshold repeal will be subject to commencement on a date to be set in secondary legislation.
Turning to political fund ballots, new clause 40 and associated amendments remove the requirement for unions to hold a ballot every 10 years on maintaining a political fund. Instead, unions will provide reminders about members’ right to opt out every 10 years, ensuring transparency without imposing costly and time-consuming ballots.
The Bill will bring together the various agencies and enforcement bodies that enforce employment rights in the new Fair Work Agency, so that where employers are not doing what is right, a simplified and strengthened enforcement system will protect workers and ensure justice in the workplace. The Fair Work Agency needs the right tools to do the job. A series of amendments form a package that will give the Fair Work Agency the tools that it needs to hold all employers to account more effectively. That is fair for workers and businesses.
The Government are moving amendments to introduce new powers that are key to the Fair Work Agency’s core enforcement role. New clauses 44 to 56 create a civil penalty regime. Under the regime, enforcement officers will be able to issue notices of underpayment, and impose a penalty on employers who have underpaid individuals, in breach of statutory pay rights that are within the remit of the Fair Work Agency. As a result, the agency may be able to help workers get the money they are owed more quickly than if they had to go through an employment tribunal. Where proceedings before the tribunal are necessary, we want the Fair Work Agency to be able to support individuals and ensure that the tribunal’s time is used as effectively as possible. New clause 57 does that by enabling the agency to bring proceedings before the employment tribunal if individuals are unwilling or unable to. Under clause 58, the agency can also offer advice and assistance to individuals bringing employment-related cases before the courts or tribunals.
The Government are also moving amendments to upgrade the powers that the Fair Work Agency will need to tackle labour abuse effectively. The Bill Committee heard from stakeholders, including Eleanor Lyons, the UK Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, about bad practices in the social care sector. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority is prevented from investigating many cases because they do not meet the modern slavery threshold. The Fraud Act 2006 covers situations that amount to labour abuse but fall short of being modern slavery. Today we are bringing forward two amendments that will deliver the Government’s commitment to give the Fair Work Agency the strong powers that it needs to tackle labour exploitation. We will enable Fair Work Agency enforcement officers to use their powers to investigate such cases, helping the agency to protect the most vulnerable in the workforce. We will also give enforcement officers the ability to issue special warnings following arrests. In practice, that means telling suspects that if they refuse to answer questions about certain items or their whereabouts, that could be used against them in court.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Only 21 employers have been prosecuted for national minimum wage violations since 2007. The measures that the Minister is bringing forward will improve enforcement. He touched on the Modern Slavery Act 2015, but he did not address the points made in the debate yesterday. Will he use this opportunity to say more about the Government’s intention to update the Modern Slavery Act?
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Chair of the Select Committee’s intervention. We accept that there are gaps between the modern slavery network enforcement processes and current employment rights enforcement. We are working with the Home Office and the GLAA to improve that. These are things we can continue to work on as we develop the scope and remit of the Fair Work Agency.
As well as reforming and strengthening the powers, the Government are moving amendments to expand the remit of the Fair Work Agency to ensure effective enforcement of statutory sick pay and holiday pay. Today’s amendments will bring Northern Ireland SSP legislation into the scope of the Fair Work Agency, and will introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the Northern Ireland Executive before bringing any further devolved legislation in scope. Further amendments will bring within the agency’s scope the duty in the working time regulations for employers to retain records relating to holiday pay and annual leave for six years. It is the Government’s intention for the Fair Work Agency to take on enforcement of new protections relating to zero-hours contracts. That is subject to a consultation on the detail, and to the outcome of the spending review.
New clause 60 gives the Fair Work Agency the power to recover the cost of taking enforcement action from businesses that are found to be non-compliant with the law. That is in recognition of the “polluter pays” principle. It is similar to how other regulators operate, such as the Health and Safety Executive. We will consider carefully and discuss the matter with businesses as appropriate before exercising that power, but it is an important principle that where there is wrong, the person in the wrong makes some contribution towards the cost to the taxpayers of enforcing the law.
To sum up—I know many people are eager to speak in the debate—the Bill will ensure that workplace rights are fit for a modern economy, empower working people and contribute to economic growth. I urge hon. Members to support the Bill and the amendments that we are moving today, which show that we are pro-business, pro-worker, pro-family and pro-growth.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Ahead of getting into the detail of the many amendments before us, which the Minister rattled through in just 10 minutes, let me say that overnight we learned that the Government are moving the responsibilities of one quango to another. They are moving the responsibilities of the Payment Systems Regulator to the Financial Conduct Authority, putting one quango into another. Conveniently, they already share a building. The Prime Minister has hailed that as “the latest step” in the Government’s attempt to “kick-start economic growth”, though the amendments we are discussing do the very opposite.
The Chancellor said:
“The regulatory system has become burdensome to the point of choking off innovation, investment and growth”,
but that is precisely what the Bill does. I do not know how the Government can say that with a straight face when, as we stand here today, blocking regulatory burdens cost every business in the land—small, medium or large—£5 billion.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
In the Chamber yesterday, it was quite clear that the Minister and his team did not fully understand the definition of a small business. I am sure that my hon. Friend the shadow Minister does understand it. Does he agree that that is fundamental to understanding why the balance of this legislation is wrong?
Greg Smith
My right hon. Friend makes a superb point, as she always does. Every single small business that I have talked to in my constituency is very concerned about the measures in this—
Greg Smith
I will if, 24 hours on, he can name a small business that supports the Bill.
Justin Madders
I am asking the shadow Minister to give way, but the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) could have intervened on me during my speech. One of the reasons why there is so much confusion about the definition of a small business is that the shadow Minister moved an amendment in Committee that said that a small business
“means an organisation or person employing 500 or fewer employees”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 3 December 2024; c. 177.]
So if there is any confusion, it is on the Conservative Benches.
Greg Smith
Twenty-four hours later, the Minister still cannot name a small business that supports the Bill. That shows how out of their depth this trade union Government are when it comes to supporting businesses in this land. In the words of the Chancellor, this Bill is
“choking off innovation, investment and growth.”
To pretend otherwise would be taking the public for fools.
On new clauses 89 and 90, almost everything this Government have done is contradictory to the objective of growth, if that remains their objective this week. Whether it is the national insurance jobs tax, the changes to business rates or this Bill, everything they do seemingly goes against growing the economy. It is little surprise that, under Labour, the economy is flatlining.
The Prime Minister said earlier this year that everything the Government do will be subject to a “growth test”. However, the details of that test have been sparse, at best—so sparse, in fact, that people may well think it does not exist.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Could the shadow Minister describe Liz Truss’s growth test?
Greg Smith
Well, cut red tape for a start. We see from Lib Dem Members that “The Orange Book” tradition of the Liberal Democrats is well and truly dead; they now position themselves firmly to the left of the Labour party.
There is no greater evidence that the growth test does not exist than the Bill, because if such a test did exist, this Bill would fall at the first hurdle, but today I come with good news: I have two amendments that the Government can back this afternoon to help them to grow the economy. Those amendments are, of course, new clause 89 and new clause 90.
New clause 89 would require the certification officer to advance the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy, and new clause 90 would require the Secretary of State, who is again not in his place, to have regard to international competitiveness when passing regulations under part 4 of the Bill concerning the trade unions. The Government have been asking regulators for ideas to boost growth—it is a contradiction in terms to ask the regulator to boost growth—but we are happy to help them with their quest. The Government should be able to support these amendments. If they cannot, it shows that they are not serious about economic growth and, more tellingly, that they do not intend to use the powers in part 4 of the Bill to achieve growth or international economic competitiveness, because they do not intend to exercise them in a way that is compatible with those objectives.
New clause 88 on trade union political funds will, I am sure, get the Government a little bit hot under the collar. This is a “Labour party first, country second” Government. Nowhere is that clearer than in the changes that the Government are making to the political fund through the Bill. Let us be in no doubt that the changes have one simple purpose: to bolster the coffers of the Labour party.
Clause 52 will mean that members of trade unions will automatically contribute to their trade union’s political fund without being asked about it first. Members will have to opt out, rather than opt in, as they do at present. [Interruption.] Did someone want to try to defend that? No? Okay. If trade union subscriptions are to be used for party political campaigning, it should be a conscious decision of the trade union member to endorse such campaigning.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The shadow Minister may recall that in Committee, every single Labour member of the Committee declared sponsorship by the trade union movement. Does he agree with me that this clause is simply payback for the trade union movement, after its financial support for the Labour party?
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend served assiduously on the Committee, raising many good points, including the one that he just made, which I absolutely agree with. The public will be asking serious questions about this.
Greg Smith
If the hon. Gentleman wants to try to defend that, I will give him the opportunity.
Gareth Snell
I am happy to declare my interest as a member of three trade unions, but I got less from them than the shadow Minister got from a small business—I think his declaration is £12,500. Does he feel the need to declare that, given that he is now making a case against legislation that would impact that company?
Greg Smith
I am making a point about the trade union movement, which I have never been a part of, and certainly never received any money from. I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to look at all my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Gareth Snell
We can find out, Madam Deputy Speaker; I believe it is. Can you advise whether Conservative Members who received money from businesses affected by this legislation should make a declaration in the same way that we trade unionists do?
Madam Deputy Speaker
This is going to end up in a back and forth on things that are not a matter for the Chair. Declarations are the responsibility of individual Members to make appropriately through the right processes.
Greg Smith
For the avoidance of all doubt and in all transparency, I declare all my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for all to look at. They are all there for anybody to see.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
This argument about opting in and opting out of trade union levies goes back to at least the 1970s—probably beyond—when I remember arguing about it as an undergraduate. If there are to be levies that people have to opt out of, a defensible case can be made for them provided that the process of opting out is easy and advertised to every member. Does my hon. Friend know whether the Government propose to institute mechanisms to make it known to every member how easily they can opt out?
Greg Smith
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. If we look at the detail of this Bill, it is very clear and obvious that the Government are trying to make it as difficult as possible for people to opt out of the trade union political fund. That is the very point of them changing this legislation.
Greg Smith
I will make a bit of progress, then I will come to the hon. Lady.
An opt-in is the default under consumer protection law and information law. Combined with the 10-year reminder change, it is highly likely that many trade union members will not be aware that their subscriptions are being used in this way or that they are eligible to save money on their trade union fees by not being a member of the political fund. Despite all the talk of supporting working people, it is clear that that concern simply does not apply when working people’s money is being taken to fund the Labour party and other political causes. We have tabled amendment 291 because we believe fundamentally that people should consent explicitly to what is, in effect, a subscription trap. Amendment 291 would simply maintain the status quo; it is the right thing to do.
Mrs Russell
I draw attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of Community and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many times such a ballot has actually resulted in the closure of a political fund? I think he will find that the answer is none.
Greg Smith
The hon. Lady is putting up a smoke-and-mirrors argument to try to cover the fact that the Government are changing the status quo from an opt-in system to an opt-out system. To me, it is just straightforward common sense that people would expect to have to opt in rather than, in this particularly egregious case, being casually reminded every 10 years that they could save a bit of money by opting out of a cause that they perhaps did not even agree with in the first place.
In fact, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), pledged to end auto-renewal subscriptions. When the Conservatives were in government, we passed the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which contained two significant proposals on subscription contracts that are notable here. One of those was reminder notices. Businesses need to provide notices to consumers to remind them that their subscription contract will renew and payment will be due unless the consumer cancels. The second proposal was to allow consumers to be able to exit a subscription contract in a straightforward, cost-effective and timely way. Businesses need to ensure that the process for terminating is not unduly onerous and that consumers can signal their intent to end the contract through a single communication.
The Labour party, which was then in opposition, supported those aims—in fact, the Bill did not go far enough for Labour at the time. On Report, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) tabled new clause 29, which the Labour party voted to add to the Bill. The new clause had a two-pronged approach. It required traders to ask consumers whether they wished to opt into subscriptions renewing automatically either
“after a period of six months and every six months thereafter, or…if the period between the consumer being charged for the first and second time is longer than six months, each time payment is due.”
The second aim of the new clause, which the Labour party used to support, would have required that if the consumer did not opt into the arrangement described, the trader had to
“provide a date by which the consumer must notify the trader of the consumer’s intention to renew the contract, which must be no earlier than 28 days before the renewal date.”
If the consumer did not provide a notification, the subscription contract could not renew.
Where am I going with this? [Interruption.] Government Members are chuntering too early, because there has been a considerable shift in the Labour party’s policy position on subscription traps. It seems to believe that consumers should be given every possible opportunity to cancel subscription contracts with businesses, but that it should be as hard as possible to cancel a subscription to the trade union political fund. Under amendment 292 and new clause 88, trade union members would have the same rights, pushed for by Labour, as other individuals with a subscription.
New schedule 2 could be used to give sweeping powers to Labour’s trade union paymasters, as the Secretary of State could reduce the threshold for trade union recognition to as little as 2% of the workforce. Trade unions could easily be imposed on workplaces across the country, with small employers being particularly vulnerable. In a workplace of 200 workers, fewer than five of them would be required for workplace recognition. Paired with the other measures in this Bill, that will strike fear into business owners across Britain, who could now be forced to deal with all-powerful trade unions as part of Labour’s return to the 1970s. The way in which Labour has gone about this is just another example of the shoddy nature of this Bill and of Labour’s approach to workplace regulations. The Attorney General has said that
“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values I have already outlined,”—
I am quoting him—
“but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.”
On facility time, amendments 293 and 295 would remove clause 54, “Facilities provided to trade union officials and learning representatives”, and clause 55, “Facilities for equality representatives”. They would remove the requirement to provide reasonable time off for facility time, the creation of facility time for equality representatives and clauses that will reduce transparency requirements over facility time, respectively. Together with amendment 296, they would prevent facility time for equality representatives from being provided unless the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory targets for performance. Trade union facility time already costs the Government nearly £100 million a year. Under the last Labour Government, the civil service spent 0.26% of its annual pay bill on facility time, compared with 0.04% in the private sector. Under the last Conservative Government, in 2022-23, the average for the civil service was 0.05%.
Labour councils are still the worst culprit. The transparency data collected by the Government in ’22-23 shows that Transport for London under the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has 881 full-time equivalent union officials on the books, costing £8 million a year. Bankrupt, Labour-run Birmingham city council has 30 full-time equivalent union officials on its central books, costing £1.2 million—no wonder that it went bankrupt. Furthermore, the council had 12 full-time equivalents in its maintained schools, costing £583,000.
Clauses 54 and 55 will increase that cost by giving more time off to public sector union officials at the taxpayer’s expense. That is not right when the Chancellor is asking Ministers to make cuts to their Departments across the board. Public services will be worse and the taxpayer will be expected to contribute more.
Furthermore, the Bill extends the right to facility time to equality representatives, who will now be allowed paid time off work to carry out activities for the purposes of
“promoting the value of equality in the workplace…arranging learning or training on matters relating to equality in the workplace…providing information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace…consulting with the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace”
and
“obtaining and analysing information relating to equality in the workplace”.
Those are all noble goals, but that should not be done at the taxpayer’s expense.
Sir Ashley Fox
Does the shadow Minister agree that the only jobs that will be created by these Bills are for people employed by trade unions?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before Mr Smith responds to that intervention, I must add that we have just shy of 40 people hoping to contribute to this debate, and I want to get them all in.
Greg Smith
As ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take your advice and will speed up. [Interruption.] The Minister urges me to carry on, but of course I would not ignore your advice—never say never again.
I make no comment on the value that those activities will add to public sector employers and their productivity. What I will say is that we have already seen this Government being happy to hand over large pay increases to trade unions with no guarantee of anything in return. That is why we have tabled amendments 293, 295 and 296, in an attempt to ensure that the taxpayer gets something out of this latest concession to the trade unions.
On amendment 297, trade unions can create significant disruption in the economy, whether by stopping work from taking place or preventing people from getting to work, school, hospital appointments or many other activities. We must strike a fair balance between the ability of trade unions to strike and the public whom we all serve.
Our amendment 297 will mean that vital public services such as the NHS can better plan and prepare for strikes. It simply seeks to keep the status quo of two weeks’ notice. Without adequate warning, constituents of Members from across the House are more likely to miss hospital appointments, not be able to travel to see loved ones or get to work, or suffer greater disruption when schools close due to strikes. That is part of the reason why, in the consultation on thresholds, 58% of those who responded supported retaining the 14-day period as it currently is, with 7% preferring a longer period. Two thirds of respondents therefore wanted the period to stay the same or be longer. Labour promised that it would work with business on this Bill, but its response to that consultation is just another example of the Government having their fingers in their ears and simply not listening. The reduction to 10 days is against the wishes of business and will do harm to all our constituents. That is why we have tabled amendment 297 to retain the notice period of 14 days.
On amendment 299, strikes should only take place when there is a clear mandate for them, but clause 58 will mean that strikes can happen with low thresholds by removing the 50% turnout requirement and the 40% support requirement. Combined with Government amendments to extend the mandate for strikes from six months to 12 months, this Bill allows unions to unleash waves of low-support, rolling strikes. Those costs will come on top of the national insurance jobs tax and changes to business rates—mistakes that the Government are already making—making it more difficult to run a business. That is why we have tabled amendment 299, which will remove clause 58.
There is much in this Bill to speak to, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will not test your patience or the patience of the House further by going into those things. I look forward to a thorough debate that will further point out—not least through Conservative Members’ contributions—why the amendments to this Bill that the Government have tabled this afternoon will harm our economy, destroy jobs, and just give more power to the trade unions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Is it pertinent to the actual debate?
Jerome Mayhew
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. As we all know, Members are required to draw attention to any potential conflicts of interest prior to speaking, in order to avoid any impression of, among other things, paid advocacy. Given that clause 52 will lead directly to increased payment of money from unions to Labour Members of Parliament, I ask for guidance on the proper declaration of interests. Most Labour Members due to speak this afternoon have received thousands of pounds from the unions—totted up, I make it £283,974.86. In addition to a general reference to their entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in this instance, where there is a direct link, should they not also set out the actual amount of money they have received?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Obviously, further clarity on this issue is required, as it was raised earlier. It is the responsibility of individual Members to ensure that they declare their interests properly. The procedure for raising a complaint of this sort is by writing to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The guide to the rules sets out the rules relating to the declaration of interests in debates. This is not otherwise a matter for the Chair. I hope that brings some further clarity to the issue.
I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
Liam Byrne
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will start with my declaration of interests, as a former member of the Confederation of British Industry and a current member of the trade union Unison.
I will try to introduce a few points of consensus to the debate. I am old enough to remember when Conservative Members such as the former Member for Harlow were writing pamphlets for think-tanks such as Demos with titles like “Stop the union-bashing; why conservatives should embrace the trade union movement”. Of course, that was an echo of something that Harold Macmillan famously used to say in the 1950s: “We used to think that we could not have a modern industrial society without trade unions. I still think that.”
I think we would all benefit from a little acknowledgment that industrial relations in this country have not been in a good place. In 2023 more days were lost to strikes than at any point in the past 30 years, and the Office for National Statistics calculated at the back end of 2022 that 2.5 million days had been lost to strike action. That is not a record that any one of us in this House should be proud of. It is incumbent on all of us to modernise industrial relations in this country, so that we are not divided in the workplace in this way.
As such, I welcome the measures in this Bill. I hope that the Minister will seize the moment—not only the fact that we have the Bill, but the advent of an industrial strategy that will introduce governance arrangements that get businesses and unions around the table to talk about economic growth in our country. That is a big opportunity; it is a big moment in which we can bring our country together around a modern industrial strategy. I hope that once the Minister has got this Bill done and has had a little bit of a rest—maybe gone on holiday for a bit—he will think about how the Government will then publish a modern industrial strategy for the future, backed by the restoration of some of the data that we used to have in this country, such as the workplace employee survey. We had that until about 2012, when it was stopped. We need to be more thoughtful about harmony in the workplace, because that is in the interests of the constituents we serve.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The right hon. Member used the term “modernising industrial relations”, which sounds a little like a euphemism. Taking him at his word, however, is he not therefore surprised that the pay rises that have been given to doctors, train drivers and a number of other unions since this Government came in have not been accompanied by any requirement for increased productivity? If we are to have modernised industrial relations, surely the increased pay that unions want should be combined with the productivity gains that this country needs.
Liam Byrne
The hon. Member will no doubt have heard the remarks made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the weekend. I suspect that the hon. Member, like every Member of this House, will see some pretty radical steps taken in the comprehensive spending review to improve the efficiency of the civil service. Of course, the civil service grew very significantly in the years after covid, and now it has to be reinvented for new times. I am confident that those productivity gains will come.
My second point was to draw the House’s attention to some of the evidence taken by our Select Committee. That evidence is contained in our report, which I commend to all hon. Members. What struck me about the evidence we heard from the most productive firms in the country, such as Jaguar Land Rover, Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems, was that those are world-beating companies—some of the most productive companies in our country—and what characterises the workplace arrangements of all of those companies is that they have very long-standing, robust and deep partnerships with good trade unions. Those trade unions help make decisions, help de-conflict things and help businesses thrive and succeed. That is why stronger collective rights are important.
We also took evidence from companies where, I am afraid to say, there was not that harmony, such as Amazon. It has had to call ambulances to its warehouses 1,400 times in just five years. We on the Committee received whistleblower evidence from workers who were literally having to urinate into bottles because they did not dare take time out from their tasks to go to the bathroom and back. We heard all kinds of whistleblower complaints about injuries being sustained, and pay is rising much more slowly than sales.
When we had executives from that company in front of us, they could not—or would not—tell the Committee why strike action had been taken by workers in their firm. If a company executive cannot explain to a Select Committee of this House why so many of their workers are on strike, that is not a story of harmony or a recipe for success. That is why the measures that the Minister has brought forward in this Bill to improve the opportunities for trade unions to organise—in a way that was recommended by the former Member for Harlow, actually—are a good thing.
The Minister has gone some way in recognising recommendations made by our Committee, such as improving the window in which complaints can be heard beyond 24 hours, bringing in template access agreements and strengthening the role of the Central Arbitration Committee in dispute resolution. There is just one further step that I suggest, which is the subject of amendment 282. We suggest that access rights for trade unions should include digital access rights, because in the modern workplace, of which Amazon is a case in point, there simply is not an opportunity for workers to get information about the opportunities to join a trade union and make a fair choice one way or the other in the way that there could be in the modern economy.
My final point is about enforcement. The first factory Act passed by this House was the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802. It was celebrated in parliamentary history as an Act that failed because there was no enforcement attached to it. Enforcement of this Bill is essential if it is to succeed, but labour market enforcement today is much too weak. Just 21 employers have been prosecuted for minimum wage enforcement since 2007, despite the fact that we all know that abuses of this sort are taking place in our constituencies.
Spending on labour market enforcement has been flat since 2014, and we are well off the International Labour Organisation target of one labour market inspector for every 10,000 workers. New clause 82 in my name would require the Secretary of State to set out a road map for reaching that ILO target, for ensuring there is greater use of penalties where appropriate, and for much stronger partnerships between the Home Office, the police and the Fair Work Agency. We cannot have a situation in this country where the best of British firms are being undercut by the worst labour market practice.
In conclusion, I welcome this Bill. Some of the amendments that have been tabled would improve it, but ultimately we have to remember that if we want to create a genuinely pro-business, pro-worker economy, the measures in this Bill are long overdue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I rise to speak to parts 4 and 5 of the Bill, and specifically to new clause 19, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), and new clauses 110, 111 and 112, which stand in my name. I wish to put on record my thanks to my two Liberal Democrat colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay and for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson), for their work in the Public Bill Committee, alongside many other Members of the House.
Overall, throughout its passage, we Liberal Democrats have indicated our support for many aspects of the Employment Rights Bill, such as those we debated yesterday, including boosting statutory sick pay, strengthening parental pay and leave, and giving people on zero-hours and low-hours contracts more certainty. However, a lot of crucial detail has been left to secondary legislation, to lots of new Government amendments and to continuing consultations, which makes it impossible to explicitly endorse the Bill as a whole at this stage. Even with 264 amendments in Committee and 457 Government amendments on Report, major issues are still yet to be determined, especially in part 4. Even after all those amendments, the Government say that they intend to
“consult further on modernising the trade union landscape following Royal Assent”
of this Bill, including on admissibility requirements, a code of practice and secondary legislation. It is therefore clear that part 4, which we are debating today, is still far from finalised.
We Liberal Democrats believe that employee participation in the workplace is vital, but we also believe that it should go hand in hand with wider employee ownership. That is so important for diffusing economic power, promoting enterprise, increasing job satisfaction, improving service to customers and getting long-term economic stability and growth. The Government’s proposals on trade unions are aimed at strengthening employee rights in what can often be a combative and confrontational working environment, and we Liberal Democrats see this Bill as a missed opportunity to improve employee engagement and ownership to provide collaborative working environments and long-term growth, whether by reforming company purpose rules or putting a duty on employers to encourage employee ownership in large listed companies. However, given what we have before us, we have tabled a few amendments.
First, new clause 19 is about the right to be accompanied, and it does what it says on the tin. It would expand the right for staff to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings. That is a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy, and I hope it is not too controversial, as it simply rectifies an anomaly. The current law allows only trade union representatives or colleagues to accompany an employee, and that leaves many without proper support. Some sectors, such as the medical profession, already allow accompaniment by non-union companions, yet that is not reflected in law. Our targeted amendment would fix that anomaly, and I urge the Government to accept it.
New clause 110 simply requests that the Government conduct a review on the impact on small business. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have expressed concern about the cumulative impact of all the Government’s work in this area and the impact it will have on small businesses in particular. Just the other day, the Federation of Small Businesses told me that it spends thousands and thousands of hours giving advice to small businesses on employment matters, and these new obligations will create a huge amount of extra law for them to understand, interpret and apply.
Small businesses do not have the same resources as big business. They often have no legal department, no compliance team and perhaps no human resources specialist. Because small businesses are often rooted in their community, they are conscious of their reputation. They know their employees and they want to get things right. That means it will take extra time, effort and cost for them to navigate and comply with this part of the Bill, and that is before we get to everything else that the Government are seeking to introduce.
Small businesses are telling me that, taking the measures of the employment Bill together with the changes to national insurance and business rates and everything else, they feel overwhelmed. All that new clause 110 does is ask the Government to conduct an impact assessment. We know that small businesses are passionate about their employees. Small businesses are often the ones to give people their first job. They are often the companies that give people a second chance. They provide part-time, flexible working and opportunities to return to work, so I encourage the Government to look at the impact of part 4 on small businesses.
New clause 111 is about introducing legal aid in employment tribunals. When legal aid was first introduced, the intention was for it to become the NHS of the justice system, but we know that today legal aid is far from that. Our amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on options for expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals. We already know that many employees cannot afford legal representation, and that creates an imbalance of power when facing well-resourced employers. The amendment simply asks the Government to look at the options that might be available in that regard.
New clause 112 asks for a review of the single enforcement body. We Liberal Democrats positively support the Government’s efforts to create a single point of contact, rather than four. A similar measure was in our manifesto, where we called for a powerful new worker protection enforcement authority. As a matter of good practice, when putting different organisations together, it is important to make sure that no gaps are created in that protection. The review we ask for is not just a formality, but an important safeguard to ensure that employment rights enforcement is effective, fair and fit for purpose.
There is much in the Bill that we Liberal Democrats welcome, but there are many parts of it that we simply cannot support because it is not yet clear what the Government’s intentions are. We urge the Government, in the strongest possible terms, to look at the impact on small business, as it is an area about which we are deeply concerned.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, following the speech from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). I have to remind him that trade unionists are the bedrock of our communities. They are the producers of the wealth in this country. They are taxpayers, and they are ordinary, hard-working people. They should not be described as, basically, the dirt on the shoes of other people. The shadow Minister could hardly hide his disdain for ordinary working people; he could not hold himself back from opposing everything in the Bill.
I begin by declaring my interest as a proud trade union member—a member of the National Union of Mineworkers and Unite the union, and an honorary member of the Prison Officers Association—and as the chair of the trade union group of Labour MPs.
It is a pleasure to speak about a piece of legislation that turns the tide on decades of anti-trade union laws—laws that have restricted the power of workers and seen the wealth of those at the top grow exponentially. On a personal note, let me say that it is fitting that the Bill should be before the House this week. Last Wednesday marked 40 years since I—along with my father, who has sadly passed on, my brothers and thousands of my colleagues—marched back to work at the end of the miners’ strike. The fact that, although bruised and battered, I am still here today speaking about the Bill proves that while the party of vulture capital may have won a victory in 1985, they did not win the war. This is a good Bill, but it could have been a lot better. Through further time, further discussion and further legislation, it will prove to be a great Bill, and I believe that the new clauses and amendments that I have tabled would strengthen and enhance it.
Workers in the UK have never, ever had the right to strike, but since 1906 their unions have had protection against common-law liability, subject to the meeting of statutory conditions. New clause 108 would establish a positive right to strike, bringing the UK into line with most of the democratic world. It would also remove provisions that make strike action unlawful if it turns out, retrospectively, that the action the workers took was unofficial. That is important, because workers currently have to take it in good faith that the union has managed to navigate the bureaucracy of taking action, and that unscrupulous bosses cannot summarily dismiss them if it has not.
New clause 109 is wide-ranging. The UK’s ban on secondary action is almost unique in the world, condemned on every occasion when the International Labour Organisation has considered the position since 1989. When P&O Ferries flouted its legal obligations by not consulting over mass dismissals and by dismissing people unfairly, the unions were unable to react by calling on dock workers, lorry drivers and workers in other industries on the dockside to boycott the vessels in dispute. That was outrageous: we need to bring back solidarity action. I want to support people in industrial disputes, and new clause 109 would put situations like that right by ending the ban on secondary action. It would remove the need to provide a ballot paper to the employer, remove the obligation on unions in long-running disputes to rerun the ballot every six months, and enable industrial action to achieve recognition for collective bargaining.
Amendments 347 and 348 would change the requirements for notification about the results of a union ballot, meaning that they could be displayed online with easy access for the public. Amendments 345 and 346 would remove the restriction confining pickets to the worker’s workplace. The reason secondary picketing was banned in the first place was the fact that it was a tool that benefited workers and advanced their cause. Solidarity action should be an important part of seeking the resolution of disputes.
The Bill brings measures that aim to end discrimination and place equality at the heart of the workplace. It gives key workers in social care and school support more say in pay and conditions through their unions. It brings measures to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts, gives protection against unfair dismissal from day one, and extends sick pay rights. It repeals minimum service level laws and the majority of the reactionary Trade Union Act 2016, provides greater rights for workers to organise collectively through their trade unions, and reduces bureaucracy affecting trade unions during industrial action processes.
The howls of derision from Opposition Members show that the Labour Government are doing the right thing. This is a good Bill that should mark the start of a process. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has done a fantastic job, understands that we are all just trying to strengthen the Bill through our amendments. While we accept those howls of derision from the Conservatives, it is worth reminding the House, and indeed the country, that the turquoise Trumpian Tories in Reform have also opposed the Bill at every step of the way. Perhaps it is because, as a company—for that is what they are—they want to ensure that their workers, such as the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), are limited in how they can address workplace bullying by the owner; or perhaps it is because, while they masquerade as a party for the ordinary men and women of this country, in reality they are simply a Margaret Thatcher tribute act with a sprinkle of bigotry, determined to advance her destructive agenda at all costs, regardless of its impact on working people across our country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. More than 30 Members wish to speak. I do not want to set a time limit, but if Members can police themselves and keep their speeches to just shy of eight minutes, everyone will definitely get in.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I wish to develop some of the detailed and eloquent arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), and to speak in particular about the amendments relating to part 4 of the Bill and the trade union movement.
Before he leaves, let me thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) for his very measured comments. I enjoyed his referral back to the industrial relations of the 1950s, although I should point out that we have moved on a little since then; I will say more about that shortly. I also thought that he simplified the Opposition’s position. We are not here to bash the unions. We support a progressive, modern trade union movement in which the balance is struck correctly between employer and employees. Unions should not and do not run businesses, but they are an important part of our industrial relations landscape.
There can be little doubt that this is, unfortunately, a Bill drafted by the few to the detriment of the many, and the numerous provisions that will largely abolish the Trade Union Act 2016 threaten to drag the country back to the dark days of the 1970s. The very enjoyable speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) perhaps illustrates that return to the 1970s. I am pleased to see a number of his friends from the rebellious left on the Government Benches, and I look forward to hearing their comments in due course.
The Trade Union Act 2016 was brought in by the last Conservative Government to reflect the modern British economy and workplace. It moved the trade union movement into the 21st century and ensures that hard-working people are not disrupted by little-supported strike action.
Mrs Russell
In my constituency of Congleton, we have been blighted by approximately seven years of strike action by Northern. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the key to modern industrial relations is to have good industrial relations, not to pull apart Bills that make things better?
Charlie Dewhirst
I think the best solution would be proper privatisation of our railways, including nationalised services like Northern, which is constantly on strike. I would use Hull Trains, which serves a lot of constituents in my area and is very rarely, if at all, on strike, as an example of an excellent, private open-access firm. Rail franchises that have been nationalised have a far greater problem with strike action than those that have not.
I wish to go back briefly to the ’70s—the height of the trade union movement. The number of trade union members peaked in 1979, at around 14 million. Since then, the number has declined considerably to around 6 million, the majority of whom are in the public sector. It is often for good reason that people in the public sector are members of a union, but it means that the landscape has changed. We have moved away from being a society and an economy of heavy industry and large manufacturing, and of towns that may have been built on one or two industries, or one or two factories, where everybody in that area was largely employed, either directly or indirectly, in those places. That was where the trade union movement was required, where it was strong and where it was needed.
The modern workplace is very different. We are now largely a services-based economy, and the relationship between employer and employee is much more modern and much more flexible. We have heard about the need for the traditional trade union movement, and about a return to secondary action, flying pickets and so forth. Clearly, there is no place at all for that in the UK now.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) suggested that we should have a return to secondary action. What is my hon. Friend’s view?
Charlie Dewhirst
I do not want to speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), but he made his views very clear. I am sure that we will hear more in that tone as we go through the afternoon.
It is really important that the Bill does not take us back to a place where growth is stifled. The Government talk about the importance of growth but, taken together, this Bill and the Budget will cause us a very severe problem, because there is very little point in having extra trade union representation if unemployment is going through the roof. Those who are unemployed will not be represented.
My big fear is that, overall, this Bill is an act of economic sabotage. It protects the dinosaurs from extinction, it damages the UK economy and it ensures only that trade union donations continue to flow into the Labour party.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
My membership of Unison, and of the national executive of Unison prior to my election, is well documented. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
What people on this side of the House probably do not know is that I am also an associate member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the professional body for the people profession, and I have spent over 20 years as a manager and an employer. I have therefore spent most of my career working with people, managing people and employing people. I have ensured that staffing levels are maintained on the hours that people are contracted and available to work, and I have managed their flexibility without having to resort to bank or agency staff every week. However, as a trade union rep, I have prepared for and worked on consultative ballots, statutory industrial action ballots and—oh yeah—political fund ballots. I have done the hard yards: I have walked the wards at 3 o’clock in the morning to speak to the night shift, and I have gone out to remote workplaces to engage with people. But I have also met management to agree on what essential levels of service are.
I pay tribute to all of those who have worked on this Bill to get it to the place where it is today, and I welcome its coming back to the House. I believe in fair work; a relationship between the employer and the worker that is based on equality; a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work; and the right of an individual to withdraw their labour should workers collectively vote to do so. We discussed yesterday what a healthy employment relationship looks like, and it is about more than just pay. It is about how people are treated at work, and it is about ensuring that work pays and that people have not only a job but guaranteed hours, if that is what they want. If someone wants to work full time, they should not have to work two or maybe three contracts with the same employer to make up those hours, or to work the same excess hours every week for months and months—until they want to take an annual leave day, when they lose their entitlement to that.
Today’s amendments focus on two main aspects of the Bill: the rights of trade unions to organise in a way that we recognise in the 21st century, and how this vital piece of legislation is enforced. As we have been reminded, the world of work has changed fundamentally in the last 20 years, and so has the world of trade unions. I listened very carefully, and with great respect, to the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), who spoke of the combative and adversarial nature of trade unions, but that is not the world that I recognise.
Daisy Cooper
I am grateful to the hon. Member for addressing some of my concerns, and I look forward to hearing what she says. Just to be clear, I was talking about what can be a combative working environment for employees and employers, and I said there was a missed opportunity to create more collaborative environments. I was not necessarily accusing the trade unions, but working environments can be combative.
Katrina Murray
Thank you very much for your intervention. I have 20 years’ experience of working in a partnership arrangement, and staff-side trade unions have been the agreed and recognised bodies for staff in the NHS. It is natural to sit down together and say, “These are our issues. How do we resolve them?” It is a lot more financially advantageous if we do not end up in a situation that is adversarial.
Electronic balloting has long been common practice, but not for statutory trade union ballots. This is not just about public votes on “Strictly Come Dancing” or “I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here!” I noticed that the Conservative leadership election in 2024 made great use of electronic balloting. It is absolutely time for trade union ballots to be brought into line with society, so I welcome the measures in the Bill to widen the methods of voting in industrial action ballots.
While I am on the subject of balloting, let me also say that I support the extension of the period of time before a re-ballot takes place to extend the mandate for strike action. The ultimate aim of any form of industrial action is for disputes to be resolved by all of the parties involved, ideally before any action is taken, before labour is withdrawn, before individuals lose their money and before the public are affected. The role of the Government should be to ensure that intransigent parties get round the table and talk in order to resolve any issues. Conservative Members have reminded us that when faced with that opportunity, they did exactly the opposite. They introduced the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, a piece of legislation that is so useless that it has stopped precisely zero strikes. It was used precisely zero times and is rightly being repealed as part of this legislation.
What Conservative Members do not recognise is that trade unions and trade union members do not take action lightly. I do wonder what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), was thinking, because he has obviously never talked to trade union members. People know their rights, they want to belong to things and they want to be involved. People collectively make such decisions, and they individually make decisions about their subscriptions—and by golly they know, because they have told me. These provisions have not been brought in with businesses kicking and screaming. Most businesses that work well with people know exactly what is going on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Miss Murray, you used the term “you”. If it makes it easier, you can speak focused on the Chair, and that way you will not make such a mistake. Saying “thank you” means thanking me, and it gets very complicated for Hansard, so it is best not to do that. Just focus on the Chair, and that will help.
I need to make a correction. I should draw Members’ attention to a printing error in Government new clause 52 as it appears in the printed version of today’s amendment paper. The closing words at the end of subsection (1) should read:
“the Secretary of State may withdraw it by giving a notice of withdrawal to the person.”
A corrected version of the amendment paper is available online.
Jerome Mayhew
This is a chaotic mess of a Bill, cobbled together in 100 days to satisfy a press release. We have the unedifying spectacle of an amendment paper that is 274 pages long, as the Government try to correct their many mistakes.
The main thing that I want to address in my short speech is the idea that Labour is beholden to the unions. That is often suggested, but let us just look at the facts, because we need to put this to bed. Between 2019 and 2024, Labour received only £31,314,589 from the unions, and in this Parliament more than 200 Labour MPs have been paid directly by the unions. The Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade have collectively received about £120,000 from unions. What are the unions paying for? Whatever it is, they have been handsomely repaid in the drafting of this Bill. To make it easier for Labour Members, who were all here to hear my point of order, perhaps they could put their hands up if they have not received any cash from the unions—oh dear, oh dear!
Clause 52 suggests that there should be a requirement to contribute to political funds when people join a union. It changes the rules on how union members should donate and how they should contribute political funds to the Labour party. Clause 52(2) changes subscriptions from an opt-in to an opt-out. That raises the question: why do we need this clause? What is the problem that the Labour party is trying to fix? Is £31 million just not enough? This clause encourages unions, when signing up members, to take advantage of their distraction, because members will not be focused on that and they will fall into what is in effect a subscription trap.
In other circumstances, the Labour party does not think that subscription traps are a very good idea. In fact, the Government sent out a press release on 18 November 2024 entitled, “New measures unveiled to crack down on subscription traps”. That sounds good so far. It says:
“Consultation launched on measures to crack down on ‘subscription traps’ and better protect shoppers…Unwanted subscriptions cost families £14 per month per subscription and £1.6 billion a year in total”.
It goes on:
“New proposals to crack down on subscription traps have been unveiled today…‘Subscription traps’ are instances where consumers are frequently misled into signing up for a subscription…It comes as new figures reveal consumers are spending billions of pounds each year on unwanted subscriptions due to unclear terms and conditions and complicated cancellation routes.”
The Business Secretary says:
“Our mission is to put more money back into people’s pockets and improve living standards across this country, tackling subscription traps that rip people’s earnings away is an important part of that.”
Clause 52 flies in the face of that press release.
Mrs Russell
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a massive difference between major corporations wanting to take money out of people’s bank accounts every month and trade unions wanting to represent people as effectively as possible in the workplace?
Jerome Mayhew
I do not accept that difference. Taking advantage of people’s inattention, as this clause expressly sets out to do, is taking advantage of people for financial gain. The difference is that the people who gain in this instance are Labour Members. That begs the question: why have they drafted this clause and why, shamingly, will they vote for it later?
Jerome Mayhew
I will in a moment.
Here we have it: a clause of direct financial interest to Labour Members. We have so far had two speakers who have both received very significant sums from the unions, to which they did not directly refer. The first was the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), who has received £20,000 from the unions, according to his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The second is the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), who has received £14,000 directly from the unions. This is germane to this debate.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
As has been said already in this debate, trade union donations have been declared, but donations from employers who have a direct private interest in particular sectors that we have debated in this place have not been declared. If any of the hon. Member’s colleagues have not drawn attention to such an interest, will he encourage them to do so? Does he agree with us on the Labour Benches that they were wrong not to make such a declaration?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. There were two points of order on declarations earlier, and I think I made the situation quite clear. I just wish to let Mr Mayhew know that, if he is referring to Members directly with any form of criticism, he is meant to give them prior warning, so he should be mindful of that for what comes next in his speech.
Jerome Mayhew
The intervention from the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) is a classic distraction technique. This Bill addresses the unions and union membership, and clause 52 moves money from unsuspecting union joiners directly to the Labour party. There is no other explanation for the clause.
Jerome Mayhew
I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I will make some progress.
Becky Gittins
The hon. Member is working incredibly hard to try to make a case for vested interests in relation to this Bill. Those vested interests are in the working people of this country. Nevertheless, I appreciate his efforts, and he certainly has earned his afternoon snack today. This precedes my time in this Chamber, and my hon. Friends may be able to help me, but was he as vociferous during the pandemic—a time of national crisis—when close relationships with senior Government figures secured contracts that produced no personal protective equipment when the country was in such desperate need?
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The hon. Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins) has just made a point suggesting that working people are not impacted by the behaviours of trade unions, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is the working people of this country who are hammered the most when Labour Members’ paymasters, the trade unions, go on strike?
Jerome Mayhew
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I cannot add any more to that. He has hit the nail on the head.
I support amendment 291, in the name of the Opposition, which would remove clause 52. At the moment, this is a circular Bill of self-interest: Labour Members get money from the unions, the Bill increases union powers and that clause increases the amount of money from the unions. The clause is brazen and shaming, and it should be removed.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my proud trade union membership—I am a member of the Communication Workers Union and the GMB. For too long, working families in Paisley and Renfrewshire South have been let down by outdated employment laws unfit for a modern economy, leaving too many workers trapped in insecure, low-paid jobs. When the Conservatives crashed the economy, who bore the brunt? Not them. People in insecure, low-paid roles were left to bear the brunt of their economic incompetence.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I would like to address the hon. Lady’s point that being pro-worker is pro-business. We Conservative Members believe that. The only problem is that this legislation is not pro-worker or pro-business. It will drive up unemployment and the regulation of businesses. The workers whom she purports to represent and support are exactly the people who will suffer as a result of this legislation. We Conservative Members absolutely get that.
I will talk in favour of amendments on the political fund, new clause 88 and amendments 291 and 299, and will refer to access to the workplace. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, not least because I worked in a small family business and retain an interest in the family business. Also, before being elected, I was president of the Greater Birmingham chamber of commerce, one of the largest and oldest chambers of commerce in the country and the world, representing thousands of small businesses.
Let us be in no doubt: this is a terrible piece of legislation. It is a love letter from the Labour Government to trade unions, and it will lead to a trail of socialist carnage and destruction that will leave the country reeling for many, many years to come. It harms business, undermines employment, will drive up unemployment and will do nothing to increase growth or investment in the United Kingdom, the purported aims of the Government. In fact, the Government’s original impact assessment, when the Bill was first introduced, talked about the cost to business being about £4.5 billion, reaching almost £5 billion. We are yet to see the impact of the new amendments—a further move to a more socialist version of the Bill—and their cost to businesses.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), who is a friend and neighbour, talked about the modern workplace. I agree that the workplace has changed since the 1950s and even the 1970s, but the Bill will take the workplace back to the 1970s. It fails to achieve a balance between working people and businesses, and a relationship between trade unions and businesses. In fact, it goes way, way down the line in favouring trade unions, and it makes it much harder for people to run businesses. When I was president of the chamber of commerce, I was perfectly fine with trade unions and having good relationships with them. I had friends who joined trade unions, even though they were not in a unionised workplace. I encouraged it. They needed representation, and I thought it was a good thing to do. I have no problem with trade union relationships in the modern workplace, but a balance must be achieved.
A comment was made about economic units. Economic units are the businesses that create economic growth. Of course workers are really important. My employees were really important to me, because my business could not run without them. The majority of business owners recognise that. Conservative Members recognise that there is a symbiotic relationship between the people who run businesses and the employees who work in them. Those individuals running businesses are drivers of economic change. They are innovators who come up with the ideas. They are the risk takers who turn a profit, which pays the taxes that fund our public services. Unfortunately, the Bill does not recognise any of that. In fact, businesses are anxious and are worried about what it is introducing.
Saqib Bhatti
They are absolutely are. The Deputy Prime Minister, when challenged to name a business that supported the Bill, could not do so. [Interruption.] I am sure the hon. Member will have an opportunity to speak on the matter in his own way.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is also badly drafted? Even if Members support the content, it is a badly drafted Bill that was brought before the House far too quickly. Such a huge Bill of this nature should have had time. It is hardly surprising that the Government are tabling so many amendments, because they are still writing it.
Saqib Bhatti
I could not have made the point better. The number of amendments, and the cost and regulatory burden being placed on businesses, large, medium and small, have worried many businesses, not just in my constituency but across the country. This will do immense harm, and it will take a long time to fix the mess that has been created.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
There are 24 Members sitting on the Government Benches. Would my hon. Friend like to issue an open invitation to them to name a single small business that has been in touch to say that it supports this legislation?
Saqib Bhatti
I am more than happy to extend that invitation. Madam Deputy Speaker may get annoyed with me if I take 24 interventions, although I do not see anyone jumping to their feet, so we will take that for what it is.
There is also anxiety about the clauses on access to the workplace. The Government have now gone further and talked about digital access. This is a huge burden to put on small businesses, and it is shameful of the Government wilfully and blindly to ignore their concerns. Labour Members will have to answer many questions from businesses in their communities. Those same businesses contribute to the Treasury coffers and pay for the public services that Labour Members champion. This will be really important, and the burden will of course increase.
Before—and after—the election, and during the passage of this legislation, Labour has said time and again that it was listening to businesses. Clearly that is not the case. Businesses continue to feel that they have been led up the garden path by this damaging Labour Government.
Johanna Baxter
We in Labour have listened to business. Ann Francke of the Chartered Management Institute has gone on record as saying:
“The Employment Rights Bill represents a significant step forward in improving conditions for the UK’s workforce.”
Saqib Bhatti
The hon. Lady should speak to the Deputy Prime Minister, who failed to name a single supportive business when challenged to do so.
In the short time I have left, I will make a couple of quick points. Labour Members keep saying that the Bill will lead to fewer strikes. It will not; it makes it easier to strike. In fact, the Transport Secretary today said that strikes will be necessary in the areas covered by her portfolio. The Bill will make it easier to strike, not harder. [Interruption.] Labour Members are exercised; I am sure that they will get a chance to comment. The country is at risk of being turned into a 1970s-style striking country. This Bill should be a wake-up call for all working people and businesses that will be undermined. As we have heard from Members from across the House, only the Conservatives will stand up for businesses.
I have questions for all Labour Members. People ask what this Labour Government stand for. They undermine businesses and working people, so that is a legitimate question. I fail to see who, other than trade unions, the Labour party now stands for. When people asked what we Conservatives stand for, Margaret Thatcher had a very good answer. She said that the Labour party—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who spoke before me, read out a quote; I think I should do so as well. Margaret Thatcher said:
“The Labour Party believes in turning workers against owners; we believe in turning workers into owners.”
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I proudly draw attention to my membership of the Unite union and my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I thank my friends at the GMB and ASLEF for their support of my election campaign.
I am in this place to stand up for working people, and that is what I will do. The best protection anyone can have at work is the support of their workmates, organised together in a union, and bargaining with management, sitting down with them as equals at the table, and making sure that the business grows and thrives, and that everyone takes home a fair wage. This Bill and the Government amendments will make it easier for working people to choose their union, be represented by their union, and get all the benefits of being in a recognised union, so that we have an economy where better terms and conditions at work go hand in hand with the growth that we need. Let us be clear: this Bill supports growth. It could add £13 billion to the economy through improvements to employee wellbeing, reduced stress, improved national minimum wage compliance, reduced workplace conflict, and increased labour market participation. That is the type of growth that we want.
Joe Robertson
I invite the hon. Lady to acknowledge the £5 billion cost to businesses that the Government’s own analysis says will be caused by the Bill.
Antonia Bance
I do acknowledge that, every single of which will go into the pocket of a working person in improved rights and higher wages, alongside £13 billion of increased productivity, reduced stress, better employee wellbeing and reduced conflict in the workplace.
On the amendments, I will start with access to workplaces, which are the key to getting more workers into unions. I strongly welcome provisions to give unions the right to access workplaces for meeting, representing, organising, recruiting and collective bargaining. I am glad the Government amended the rules to ensure they cover digital as well as physical access, and I am glad to see the Central Arbitration Committee oversight and penalties when employers do not comply, as is sometimes the case.
Once a union has established membership in a workplace, it will want to seek recognition. Most employers do not have to be forced to recognise a union—it is just what they do as a responsible employer—but where employers refuse, statutory recognition can be triggered. Until now that process has been absolutely mad and totally dysfunctional, and the cards are stacked against the working people and their union at every turn.
The worst example of this in recent years is at BHX4 in Coventry where a company dedicated to keeping unions out of its warehouses brought its US-style industrial relations to the UK, and took on its own workers who wanted no more and no less than for management to have to sit down and negotiate with their union, the GMB. Amazon is a £27 billion company in the UK yet its sales are growing three times higher than its frontline workers’ wages and it has had 1,400 ambulance call-outs in just five years. BHX4 in Coventry is not a safe workplace, with fulfilment centre workers getting injured, being asked to pick up too much, to load from the back of vehicles on their own, and to lift heavy weights above their heads. Those workers at that Amazon plant were forced to take 37 days of industrial action over poverty pay. At the Select Committee, the company’s badly briefed, evasive executives could not bring themselves to acknowledge that.
Recognising the GMB is a modest request, something 1,000 companies would have accepted without question, but not Amazon. At the Select Committee, the GMB organiser, Amanda Gearing, told us that Amazon flooded the bargaining unit; there were 1,400 workers when the GMB first sought statutory recognition but, strangely, just 27 days after that application went in the number went up to 2,749. Amanda told us how Amazon delayed the access agreement— 52 days to agree access to the workplace, a chance for the company to swamp the workers with anti-union propaganda. All the screens in the warehouse and the app used for work allocation were anti-union, threatening to close the site if workers unionised. When the access scheme was finally agreed, the GMB got a tiny number of screens and one 45-minute session with each worker, while Amazon had five one-hour sessions and screens everywhere. It induced GMB members to leave the union and in every way impeded access.
I pay tribute to the GMB leaders at Amazon in Coventry: Ceferina Floresca, Garfield Hylton, Paramanathan Pradeep and Mohammednur Mohammed—heroes, all of them. Standing up to huge intimidation and under huge pressure, they ran a brilliant campaign, but the deck was stacked against them, and they lost the ballot by a heartbreaking 29 votes. The GMB’s general secretary, my friend Gary Smith, is clear: if the legislation we are debating today had been in place, the GMB members at Amazon would have won their fight.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The hon. Lady is a fearsome campaigner on the Business and Trade Committee. She talks about intimidation and paints a lovely picture of unions working actively for their workers, but how can we square that with the version of intimidation that the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) seems to be referring to with the return of flying pickets?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before the hon. Lady responds, she will no doubt realise that she is close to eight minutes. I know she will want to speak for a little while, but not too much longer.
Antonia Bance
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my fellow member of the Business and Trade Committee for his intervention. As he will have seen from the amendment paper, the Government are not proposing the return of secondary picketing.
New schedule 2 will give unions greater protection from unfair practices during a recognition process and make winning it more likely. I wish that Ministers had gone the whole hog and deleted the three-year lockout; perhaps there will be an opportunity to take that forward.
In conclusion, as a whole, this package of modern industrial relations will lead to more sitting roundtables sorting out issues, fewer picket lines, fewer strikes, more productive relationships, more long-termism across our industrial base, better jobs, higher wages, higher skills and higher productivity. That is why the changes in this Bill to both collective rights and individual rights are so crucial, and so opposed by the Tories and the absent Reform party. This is the type of growth that my party stands for—the type of growth where proceeds are shared by all. It is time to make work pay.
Lincoln Jopp
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). She is such a compelling advocate that I am tempted to go on strike myself. I do sense a certain amount of antipathy between the two sides of the House, so, before I come on to make a fair point in support of amendment 292, I want to prepare the ground by doing two things.
First, I want to try to convince Labour Members that they missed an opportunity, because I am, at heart, a rabble-rousing potential motivator of people. When, about three Christmases ago, the ambulance drivers went on strike, it irked me that the soldiers who were going to stand in for them at no notice would have their Christmas ruined, so I started a campaign to try to get them an additional £20 for every day they stood in for the ambulance drivers. This plan was—the Chancellor would have loved this—net positive to the Treasury. Of course, the departments that employ the ambulance drivers and the arm’s length bodies do not pay them on strike days, and the pay differential between them and the £20 bung to the soldiers meant that the Government still saved money. I managed to get The Sun on board and get a letter into the paper, and did a bit of television.
Mrs Russell
Is the hon. Gentleman not ashamed that, under his Government, hard-working ambulance drivers felt they had to go on strike?
Lincoln Jopp
I think the hon. Lady has slightly missed the point of what I was saying. Reading the body language of Members on the Government Benches, I think they all wanted to hear how this story ended up.
It did help that the then Secretary of State for Defence was a friend of mine, with whom I served in the Scots Guards. We did get the £20 bung for all the service personnel who stood in—regardless of the fact, interestingly, that all the generals, air marshals and admirals were against it, as were all the officials. There you go—I very much have the same values at heart.
Secondly, to win over the other side of the House to the very fair point I will come on to make, let me pay tribute to the remark of the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), in respect of union membership, that he wanted people to
“make a fair choice one way or the other”.
I note that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) also referred to fair work. I want to come back to that theme of fairness in addressing amendment 292.
The Bill is, to put it politely, something of a cat’s cradle of clauses, so I will briefly remind the House that the Bill seeks to place on employers an obligation to give their workers a written statement that they have the right to join a union, and, if they do join, to contribute to the political fund. Amendment 292 would simply inject a bit of balance into the legislation by requiring trade unions to notify their members annually that they have a right to opt out of the political fund and to obtain an annual opt-in from their members.
This all puts me in mind of November 1988, when Mrs Thatcher was about to visit Poland. At Prime Minister’s questions, just prior to her going, an Opposition Member stood up and asked whether she would raise with Lech Wałęsa the right to join a trade union. There may be some Members present who were there—I will not be so ungallant as to ask. A roar went up from the Labour Benches, and the redoubtable Mrs Thatcher replied that she would raise with the Poles the right to join a trade union, but that she would also raise the right not to be a member.
The Bill seeks to whack the pendulum pretty hard in favour of union power; our amendment would bring it back into balance somewhat. We all know someone, after all, who has fallen prey to one of those charity muggers who stop people in the street and try to sign them up to whichever charity they are being paid by that day. I have known people who have done that job, and it is not an easy one. Similarly, any Member of this House who stood in a precinct and tried to sell their political brand and get people to sign up will attest to that completely. Sometimes, the charity collectors are successful, and the all-important direct debit details are extracted. In fact, I remember hearing a number of Labour Members railing against this practice in the previous Parliament.
Amendment 292 would remind workers that they still have an off-ramp, if they want one—they still have agency, and they still have freedom of choice. We have heard Member after Member stand up over the past two days of debate and declare—in some cases sheepishly, in some cases more proudly—the money they receive from the trade unions. This is only right and proper. The public can make up their own minds as to whether this money has coloured the judgment of Labour Members, or whether it is simply support from an organisation that shares their values. But to turn down amendment 292 would, in my view, be a dreadful look. This is a totally measured, balancing amendment and, if Labour Members vote against it, the public would be right to conclude that the Government are being motivated not by a sense of equality, fairness and justice, but instead by something else. I urge hon. Members to vote for amendment 292 and to give power to the people.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak for a second time on Report. I proudly refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Unite the union.
Much has been said about trade unions and strike action, as if the only purpose of a trade union is to get workers out on strike. It is a mischaracterisation of unions, as was so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). It is also a mischaracterisation of corporate Britain to think that everyone is exploitative and abusive. The majority of companies in our country adhere to environmental, social and governance principles, and they make that commitment; they want to demonstrate that they are responsible people. They want that for their investors and for long-term sustained investment, so we have to draw back on those views and step away from the disdain and the contempt for working people and for trade unions, which is not helpful.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Although I have broadly welcomed the Bill as it has progressed through the House, I have caveated that by stating that the Labour Government should be bolder and must go further in future for the rights and protections to become entrenched rather than rolled back. Indeed, on Second Reading I quoted the Scottish Trades Union Congress general Secretary, Roz Foyer, who summarised the Bill by saying:
“the Employment Rights Bill isn’t the terminus. It’s the first stop. This can be the foundations on which we can build.”
I agree.
Antonia Bance
The hon. Member may not have had a chance to look at the Government website and encounter the document entitled “Next Steps to Make Work Pay”, which sets out a programme of continuing work to improve rights at work and parental leave and the review of employment status to come. I am sure he will be glad to hear that.
Chris Law
No, I have not had the chance to look at the Government website, but I thank the hon. Member for raising that. As I have broadly said, I support the Bill, but there are reasons why I am contributing to the debate, not least because of a lack of devolution to the Scottish Parliament, which I will come to shortly.
On Second Reading, the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and local Government, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), made it explicitly clear that the foundations will not be built upon in the long term, as a future Conservative Government would simply repeal protections. He declared that
“many of the measures will be brought in through secondary legislation, therefore making it easier for a future Government to reverse some of the catastrophic changes.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 58.]
Employment rights for workers in Scotland cannot be dependent on the merry-go-round of Westminster politics. They have seen their rights attacked and diminished by years of Conservative Governments, and where the Bill reverses some of the worst excesses of those Governments’ policies, that must be protected and strengthened in the long term. Westminster cannot guarantee that for the people in Scotland, so I have tabled new clause 77, which would amend the Scotland Act 1998 to devolve employment and industrial relations to the Scottish Parliament.
Back in 2014, all Unionist parties, including the Labour party, promised maximum devolution for Scotland, as displayed on the front page of a national newspaper days before the independence referendum, in which Scotland voted no. This Labour Government have failed to devolve a single power to Holyrood since coming to power in July—not a single one—despite the Scottish Parliament voting for employment rights to be devolved.
In November, the STUC called on the UK Government to
“end the excuses and devolve powers over taxation, migration and, importantly, employment law from Westminster to Holyrood.”
Moreover, Scottish Labour’s 2021 election manifesto stated:
“We support further devolution of powers to Holyrood including borrowing and employment rights”.
Here is a question for Scottish Labour MPs: will they respect the wishes of the Scottish Parliament?
Chris Law
I care about the people of Scotland and what they say. Will Scottish Labour MPs listen to trade unions and deliver on the promises made by their party by supporting the new clause, or will they continue to follow instructions handed to them from No. 10? Silence. I thought so. They are too scared to stand up for the people of Scotland.
Johanna Baxter
The hon. Gentleman says that he is a big supporter of workers’ rights. Would he like to comment on the fact that for every year of the last nine years that I was lead negotiator for local government workers in Scotland, they had to have consultative ballots for industrial action just to get a decent pay rise out of the Scottish Government? Does that really mean standing up for workers in Scotland?
Chris Law
I thought I was asking a question of the Scottish Labour MPs, only to be asked another question. The hon. Lady will be well aware that the Scottish Government have worked collectively with both unions and other bodies to ensure that the living wage in Scotland is higher than in any other part of the UK. I remind her that it was Scottish Labour in November 2023 that voted with the SNP for employment rights to be evolved through the Scottish Parliament.
Throughout its existence, when powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, decisions are taken in the interests of the people of Scotland and outcomes improve: publicly owned rail and water, higher per-head education and health spend, free prescriptions, free tuition, a more humane welfare system and a progressive taxation system. Fair work practices are being delivered already by the SNP Scottish Government, such as supporting collective bargaining, achieving real living wage employer status and closing the gender pay gap faster than anywhere in the rest of the UK.
Katrina Murray
Does the hon. Member agree that it is an absolute failure of collective bargaining for the Scottish Government to have walked away from the commitments they made in a deal with health service unions two years ago on the reduction of the working week? They are failing to go through with reducing the working week by half an hour as of 1 April 2025.
Chris Law
I listened to the hon. Member with interest, but I suggest that she has that debate in the Scottish Parliament. After all, we are talking about the devolution of powers here in the UK Parliament.
A framework for collective bargaining in the adult care sector has been developed by the Scottish care unions—Unison, the GMB and Unite—along with the Scottish Government and care providers, with a Scottish social care joint council proposed. The Scottish care unions have intimated that the constitution, composition, remit and function of the Scottish social care joint council is preferable and should assume the role of the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body for England. Scotland already has a 10-year history of joint commitments to fair work, whereas England is only embarking on that journey. Furthermore, there is a need to extend sectoral bargaining to all sectors of the economy, not just adult social care.
Measures such as creating a single status of worker for all but the genuinely self-employed, strengthening protections for those with unfair contracts and increasing the minimum wage to at least the national living wage, and then in line with inflation, are all missing from the Bill. The SNP Scottish Government would support those measures if employment law were devolved, and they would be delivered if this Government respected the votes of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Labour manifesto.
Just as the Bill should be the first stop rather than the terminus, devolution is a process, not an event. Not only has devolution moved at a glacial pace, but we live in the world’s most asymmetrical political union, where each nation has differing devolved powers. Why is it that employment law is devolved in Northern Ireland but not in Scotland? I want to see employment rights strengthened continually rather than in a cycle of piecemeal progress when Labour is in power, only to be reversed when the Tories next get their turn. The gains for workers’ rights in the Bill must therefore be protected. That is why the SNP remains committed to advocating for, at a minimum, the urgent devolution of employment powers. That is the best way, short of independence, of protecting workers’ rights in Scotland.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have been a proud member of Unite the Union for over 35 years, although many Members may find that hard to believe given my youthful looks.
Baggy Shanker
Absolutely.
I welcome the measures in the Bill, which I know will make a real difference to the lives of working people and their families in Derby and across the UK. I will focus on how the Bill will, through Government amendment 163, transform employee access to trade unions, empowering more employees to act as a collective so that they can secure better pay and conditions. When I speak to business leaders in small and large employers, they all say that their biggest asset is their people. The Conservatives can harp on about trade unions as much as they want, but in practice the best solution is for employers to work with employees and trade union reps to create the best working conditions for businesses and individuals to succeed.
I know about the importance of union membership from first-hand experience. When I left school at the age of 16 and began work as an engineering apprentice, I joined the union on day two. I knew how important that would be in supporting me and my colleagues at work. Much later on, when campaigning to save Alstom in Derby last year, I saw how hard Unite and other trade unions fought to secure jobs at the Litchurch Lane facility. They stood up for working people in our local community when it mattered most.
However, employees cannot access the benefits that union membership can bring if they do not know about the support offered by trade unions in the first place.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his youthful appearance. Does he agree that, just as businesses are about the employees, trade unions are about their memberships and giving individual members their rights?
Baggy Shanker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about individual members coming together to do what is right for themselves, for their trade unions, and for the companies and businesses that they work for.
I welcome the Bill’s introduction of a right of access for unions to meet with workers. Government amendment 163 expands union access agreements, so that unions can communicate with workers digitally as well as by entering the workplace. I urge meaningful implementation of those digital access rights to enable direct conversations between unions and workers, as would take place during in-person meetings in the workplace.
When we work together, we get more done. It is important that workers have access to union representatives and know how joining a union can support them in the workplace. I welcome the measures in the Bill to expand that access, which will further strengthen the rights of working people in Derby and beyond.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
There are 5,310 businesses registered in my constituency of South Northamptonshire. Of those, 99.6%—or specifically 5,245—are small businesses. This Bill, among many of the Government’s policies, is a calamity for those small businesses. Not only are many of them rural, meaning that they will be affected by the family farm tax and now by the removal of the sustainable farming incentive, but as the chair of the Federation of Small Businesses has said, these small and medium-sized enterprises will struggle to adapt to the 28 major changes that the Bill makes to employment law.
First, it was the Government’s jobs tax, then it was their cuts to rate relief for hospitality businesses, and now they are smothering SMEs with red tape. Analysis published by the Department for Business and Trade says that this will impose a cost on businesses in the low billions of pounds per year, but that is not money that many of my small businesses can afford right now. This is why the Opposition have called for small businesses to be exempt from the parts of the Bill that would heap unsustainable costs on them.
Why do the Government seem to hate small businesses so much? Perhaps it is because the majority of the Cabinet have spent their careers in the public sector and have zero understanding of what life is like for the many entrepreneurs with SMEs across the UK, including in my constituency. We learned this week that, for the first time since records began in 2012, the number of companies registered at Companies House has fallen. Growth forecasts have been downgraded and the number of vacancies has declined. All this is a result of the choices the Government have made and continue to make in this Bill.
With all of this, the UK risks becoming a globally uncompetitive economy, particularly when other countries such as the United States are slashing regulation and unleashing their businesses to grow their economies. The Opposition have tabled new clause 90 for exactly this reason. It would ensure that when the Secretary of State makes regulations under part 4 of the Bill, he has to have regard to growth in the medium to long term. I join the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), in calling on the Government to support new clauses 89 and 90 to ensure that growth happens. Our economy is already struggling under the weight of Labour’s tax rises. Why are the Government opposing our efforts to ensure that they consider how burdensome regulation might impact on businesses?
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
A lot of people outside this place might feel that the answer to that question is that the trade unions have funded Labour Members—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), who is talking from a sedentary position, received more than £27,000 from two unions in the latest year of declarations and did not think it appropriate in this debate even to mention that number, which may well have influenced his thinking and led to the dire outcomes that my hon. Friend is explaining to the House.
Sarah Bool
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I think all Labour Members must reflect on this because we need the public to understand truly why this legislation is going through.
That the Government have seen fit to table 87 of their own amendments at this stage alone is indicative of how uneasy they must feel about the Bill. We are even told by the media that the Treasury has warned the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State about the consequences for the economy of enacting these laws, yet they seem to have seen fit to plough them through anyway. As per usual, Labour is paying lip service to growth while sticking true to form with their socialist ideology. I was not born in the 1970s but it appears that I am going to live through the equivalent in the years ahead, as Labour plays Abba’s 1976 hit “Money, Money, Money” for its trade union paymasters.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud trade unionist and a member of Unite the union. I have been supported from across the labour movement with the cleanest money in politics, which I do not think Conservative Members can say about themselves.
For over a year, Swedish Tesla workers have been on strike demanding the basic right to collective bargaining. Their struggle has inspired solidarity across industries. Postal workers, painters, electricians, cleaners and dock workers have all launched secondary action in support. Denmark’s largest trade union, 3F Transport, has also joined the fight, preventing Danish dock workers and drivers from handling Tesla shipments bound for Sweden. This level of solidarity is possible because Swedish trade unions are not shackled by restrictive laws designed to suppress collective action. Unlike here in the UK, the legislative landscape in Sweden does not act against the interests of organised labour. Almost 90% of Swedish workers are covered by collective agreements, and their labour laws ensure that workers have the right to negotiate and defend their conditions without undue interference.
As a result, Swedish trade unions are more than a match for billionaires like Elon Musk. When Tesla refused to sign a collective agreement, it was not just Tesla workers who fought back—the entire trade union movement did. That is what real industrial democracy looks like, and it is a powerful reminder of what British workers have been denied for too long by some of the most draconian anti-union legislation in the western world.
While I welcome the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and much of the Trade Union Act 2016, the fact remains that many of the worst Thatcher-era anti-union laws are still in place. One of the most damaging is section 224 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which makes secondary action unlawful. That ban on sympathy strikes isolates workers, weakens their bargaining power and prolongs disputes—all to the benefit of exploitative employers. That is why I have tabled new clause 31 to repeal that restriction and return power to working people.
Secondary action built the trade union movement as we know it. It helped us secure the very rights that we all benefit from today. But in an era of outsourcing and subcontracting, the ban is even more harmful than it was three decades ago. Under current legislation, two workers performing the same job in the same workplace cannot take industrial action together if one is directly employed and the other is outsourced. Employers exploit that loophole to divide workers. They shift responsibility through complex corporate structures, like what we are seeing at Coventry University in my constituency, and undermine union action by transferring work or hiving off companies. Workers are even prevented from taking action against parent companies and suppliers during disputes.
In many ways, secondary action is more essential than ever in the fight for fair pay and conditions. Most European nations, including Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands, allow secondary action in some form. Even those with restrictions, such as Germany, France and Spain, stop short of imposing an outright ban. Labour’s new deal for working people committed to repealing anti-union laws and ensuring that the UK’s industrial action laws comply with international obligations, including those under the International Labour Organisation and the European social charter. Yet, as it stands, the Bill fails to deliver on that promise.
International bodies have repeatedly condemned the UK’s ban on secondary action. The European Committee of Social Rights and the ILO criticised the UK for that restriction most recently in 2023 after the P&O Ferries scandal, when 800 crew members were sacked via video call and replaced with agency workers. P&O knew that it could get away with its disgraceful actions because the law prevents other workers from striking in solidarity.
I also support a number of amendments, including those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), such as new clause 61, which would define employment status in law to end bogus self-employment. That is long overdue. For too long, employers have exploited gaps in employment law to deny workers basic rights. Today, in our country, black and Asian workers are disproportionately trapped in precarious, low-paid jobs on bogus self-employment contracts and denied statutory sick pay, holiday pay and protection from unfair dismissal. This two-tier system must end.
Every single worker deserves dignity and respect in the workplace, and by strengthening the Bill with these amendments, we would be taking a step forward towards rebuilding the power of the working class. I urge Members across the House to stand on the right side of history and with the workers who keep this country running.
Gregory Stafford
I rise to speak again on the second day of Report stage to raise serious concerns about the role of the Bill in facilitating unprecedented and dangerous access for trade unions and the destruction of business, especially small businesses. I am glad the Minister is in his seat because yesterday he was challenged to name a small business that supported the Bill, and 24 hours later he still cannot. That is due not to the assiduity of the Minister, who I am sure is very assiduous, but to the simple fact that no small business supports the Bill.
Gregory Stafford
I have hardly started. There cannot possibly be anything that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene on me for just yet, but I will come to him.
Gregory Stafford
I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.
Yesterday, we heard that Labour clearly does not understand business, and today we get to what it really does understand: how it can support its trade union paymasters. Government Members have given us a masterclass in how to support trade unions. Opposition Members have mentioned the 1970s. When I heard Government Members speaking, especially the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), John Williams’s score from “Jurassic Park” soared in my mind. But instead of Jeff Goldblum being savaged by the dinosaurs, the dinosaurs that walk among us today will be savaging our economy. We know that because the growing influence of the unions, especially under the Bill, impose a heavy burden on corporations, stifling their ability to operate efficiently. As new businesses struggle to adapt to the new regulations, which the Government’s very own impact assessment predicts will cost £5 billion to implement, industry leaders have publicly shared their fears—
Andy McDonald
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had directions from the Chair on this matter, and I ask for your guidance. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) has just been immensely critical of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), who has a history of standing up to defend his industry, and who had the courage to go on strike for 12 months. Was he given notice that he would be named in this debate in that way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member, but he will be aware that that was not a point of order. As the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) has spoken in the debate, it is perfectly in order to refer to the comments that he made.
Gregory Stafford
I return to what industry leaders are saying. They have shared their fear about
“union influence slowing down decision making and hindering flexibility”,
making it harder for companies to remain competitive in global markets. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s survey found that 79% of organisations expect measures in the Employment Rights Bill to increase employment costs, placing further strain on companies that are having to grapple with increases to national insurance contributions and the rising national minimum wage. It is also likely that the measures will lead to
“more strikes, more disruptions, and ultimately less productivity.”
Antonia Bance
The hon. Member has referred a number of times to yesterday’s proceedings. I am sad that he was not able to join us in the Division Lobby in voting against the amendments and in favour of the Bill, given that 73% of his constituents in Farnham and Bordon support statutory sick pay for all workers from day one, and 67% of his constituents support banning zero-hours contracts.
Gregory Stafford
I am sorry that I am such a disappointment to the hon. Lady, but maybe she will get over it.
The Bill is a roll-back of the most important changes that we made when we were in government. It is no surprise that trade unions have warmly embraced the legislation, over 200 amendments having been hastily shoehorned in to satisfy those who line the Government’s pockets. Perhaps it is purely coincidental that their wishes have been granted, although one might wonder if the £5.6 million in donations the Labour party has received since July has something to do with it.
Graham Stuart
Despite her proud membership of trade unions, the last Labour Member to be called to speak, the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), did not mention the more than £9,000 that she received just in the last year, any more than the Labour Member who spoke before her, the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), mentioned the £24,000 plus that he received. If Labour Members were truly proud of the way that they have been bought and paid for by the trade unions, perhaps they would be open about how much they have received.
Gregory Stafford
My right hon. Friend makes a key point. The change since yesterday has been interesting. Yesterday, Labour Members were clear about declaring that they were members of trade unions, but only today have they suddenly realised that they should be declaring the amount of money that they are receiving directly.
We heard yesterday from the shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), that the legislation will allow unions to bypass current rules, such as the rules on opting out of political donations. It must be fantastic news to the Labour party that it will now receive donations from workers by default, while businesses will face reduced notice periods for strikes, leading to even more disruption and economic damage. It is clear to me, and to the hundreds of businesses that have pulled their support for this Government, that this is not about protecting employment rights, but about consolidating union power.
Let us briefly look at some of the amendments. Amendment 292 would require trade unions to notify their members every year of their right to opt out of the political fund, and to obtain an annual opt-in. That change would ensure that unions do not continue to fill Labour’s piggybank, and do not lock workers into automatic donations unless they actively opt out, which is as much a memory test as an admin task. Unamended, clause 52 is not about transparency, but about keeping the money flowing to the political party with the most to gain.
Likewise, there are new clauses and amendments that would have introduced transparency about the facilities provided to trade union officials, learning representatives and equality representatives. Clauses 54 and 56 are designed to reduce transparency and accountability for union spending, allowing union officials to continue to benefit from facility time without proper scrutiny.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir Gavin Williamson
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an interesting contrast in the Government’s approach? They are quite happy to put extra burdens, responsibilities and work on businesses of all sizes, yet when it comes to any element of transparency or giving members of trade unions a real choice and understanding of where their money is going, they refuse to do that.
Gregory Stafford
The disparity—I will put it no stronger than that—that my right hon. Friend mentions is stark. Anybody watching these proceedings outside this House will absolutely agree that the Government want to put extra burdens and regulations on business, but when it comes to the trade unions, transparency goes out the window. Why is that happening? The answer is simple and clear: unions have significant influence over this Government. While the Deputy Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues are pushing for these changes, they do not even do what the measures state. Key figures including the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary are all guilty of hiring under terms that are odds with the new regulations. Why would they introduce such a Bill when they themselves do not comply with it?
Just like the more than 200 Labour MPs who have taken union donations, the Deputy Prime Minister has her own interests to consider. In her opening remarks yesterday, she proudly disclosed her union membership while conveniently admitting to the £13,000 in union donations that she has taken. It is clear that union influence is driving this legislation and most likely writing the speeches of Labour Members. The Government claim to be
“pro-growth, pro-business and pro-worker”—[Official Report, 21 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 46.]
Gregory Stafford
I will not, because I have only a minute to go.
Perhaps it is time that the Government started listening to the real industry experts—those with practical experience in the sector—not just the trade unions or those within the confines of Whitehall. The Conservatives have tabled key amendments to support growth, in new clauses 89 and 90; international competitive duty, in new clause 87; and a limit on trade union influence on our business-driven economy.
We need to ensure that the Government’s policies do not burden our businesses, stifle innovation or lead to long-term economic harm. This Bill is not just poorly thought-out, but a direct threat to the very fabric of our economy, and we must challenge it before it causes irreparable damage and crushes our already crippled economy.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I declare that I am a proud member of Unison, and I refer the House to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I rise to speak in support of this groundbreaking Employment Rights Bill, which will deliver pro-business and pro-worker reforms. It will establish day one rights, such as rights to parental and bereavement leave for millions of workers, and, crucially, will put more money into people’s pockets—people who have had to endure low pay, job insecurity and a cost of living crisis created by 14 years of Tory rule. By strengthening protections for the lowest-paid workers and preventing exploitative employment practices, the Bill will give our working people the solid foundations on which to build a better quality of life.
I will very briefly comment on a couple of topics debated yesterday, which are of personal relevance and relevant to my constituency. [Interruption.] No? I will skip it; I did not think I would get away with that. This Bill will give a voice to working people by tackling the exclusion of independent unions from workplaces. If anyone has experienced a management of change process—I once did, almost three weeks into joining a new job, which was not fun—or workplace bullying, they will know the value of having a union backing them. Unions are fab. I personally thank Unison, including the incredible Trudie, for supporting me in my workplace.
I have seen the impact on those who have experienced issues such as workplace bullying when they have not had the backing of a union, or a union in their workplace, and the stress and pressures on them were immense. Indeed, they ended up with the choice of either putting up with it, leaving—we then have worker turnover—or going off sick. I have known people to go off sick for quite a period of time, which is of course comes at great cost to the company.
When a person joins a union, I have seen the difference that backing and advocacy makes to them, and the voice it gives them. I have experienced that as a normal person who once had a proper job, who was not a union activist but felt the value of unions—I make that comment as an observer. The work that unions do with management for the workers, to provide a workplace that is productive and secure, benefits companies as well. It is not in the interests of unions for businesses to fail; everyone wants a productive working environment.
It would be remiss of me, however, to not acknowledge the concerns that many small business owners have raised with me in recent months. They have been worried about this Bill, and I am grateful to many businesses that have reached out, including 1882 and Crossroads Care. I also want to thank Rachel Laver of the Chamber of Commerce for her excellent engagement, and for giving a voice to local businesses—I have engaged with them regularly. Their concerns are noted, but I also note comments like that from Claire Costello, chief people and inclusion officer at the Co-op:
“It’s our belief that treating employees well—a key objective of this Bill—will promote productivity and generate the economic growth this country needs.”
That comment has been echoed to me by local businesses.
My businesses in Stoke-on-Trent South have my word that I will support them and their workers, and so will this Labour Government, by delivering improved productivity and growth. I am sad that the Conservative party, which has tabled blocking amendments, does not want to support the working people of this country. This Bill’s comprehensive set of impact assessments show that the Bill will have a positive impact on growth, with vital measures such as those on sick pay boosting productivity and growth. Protecting the super-rich and relying on the myth of trickle-down economics have failed. It is time for trickle-up economics, and empowering the working people of this country.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
As has been said many times yesterday and today, this Bill is deeply flawed. The Government have ignored the serious concerns raised by business leaders and independent economists. The Federation of Small Businesses has warned that these rushed changes will lead to job losses and deter employers from hiring. The Institute of Directors found that 57% of business leaders will be less likely to hire because of the additional red tape imposed by the Bill, and incredibly, the Government’s own impact assessments fail to account for the Bill’s real economic consequences, simply dismissing them as too hard to calculate. Our new clause 90 would ensure that any regulations made under part 4 of the Bill must consider economic growth and international competitiveness, yet Labour has refused to accept even that common-sense measure, proving that its approach is anti-growth at its core.
Prioritising the interests of trade unions over economic stability makes it harder for businesses to hire, grow and compete. It is no surprise that trade unions have declared victory, as the Government have effectively handed them a blank cheque at the expense of businesses and workers alike. Our amendments seek to restore fairness and balance. Amendment 292 would require trade unions to notify their members annually of their right to opt out of political fund contributions, ensuring basic transparency and fairness. Labour has hypocritically opposed this measure, despite previously supporting similar provisions—during the passage of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, it called automatic renewals a “subscription trap”. It seems that Labour only cares about consumer choice when it does not impact on its own funding.
The Government claim that removing this requirement is about cutting red tape for unions, while adding lots of other red tape. In reality, the change strips away individual choice and accountability. As several of my hon. Friends have said, trade unions donated over £31 million to the Labour party between 2019 and 2024. Workers should have the right to make an informed choice each year about whether they want to contribute to political causes, rather than being automatically signed up without clear consent. Labour Members’ refusal to support the amendment reveals their true priority: protecting their own financial interests, rather than standing up for transparency and workers’ rights.
Graham Stuart
The impact assessment states that these measures could have a £5 billion impact, in addition to the £25 billion impact of the national insurance contribution changes. Does my hon. Friend agree that what the impact assessment is missing is how much union funding the measures will drive directly to the Labour party as a result? We ought to know how many hundreds of thousands or millions extra will come to the Labour party and to Labour Members to make them support this growth-killing set of measures.
Alison Griffiths
It is a fascinating question, and we wait to hear the answers from Government Members.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak on this vital Bill as it passes its remaining stages. I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud member of the GMB and Community trade unions. I am particularly pleased to speak in today’s debate, because at one of my regular coffee mornings on Saturday, a constituent of mine, Phil, told me that I needed to be doing more to promote the benefits of this legislation. I am not sure that making a speech in the House of Commons meets Phil’s expectation of promotion, but that conversation showed me how important this legislation will be for working people in the Livingston constituency.
The Government have rightly tabled amendments to the Bill to ensure that we deliver reforms that are both pro-business and pro-worker. Although Conservative Members have tried to make much of the number of Government amendments, we remember that they are still the party of “Eff business”. With their opposition to the Bill, they show that they are “Eff workers”, too.
What the amendments in fact demonstrate is the commitment of the Minister and the Government to listening and consulting with a huge range of stakeholders on these issues, delivering the largest upgrade in workers’ rights in many decades, but in a way that does right by businesses and good employers, ensuring that they have the conditions and environment they need to encourage investment and create jobs.
This Bill will support the Government’s critical mission for growth by increasing productivity and putting money back in people’s pockets. It will deliver real-life improvements.
Sir Gavin Williamson
Can the hon. Gentleman set out five ways that the Bill will improve productivity for businesses?
Gregor Poynton
I will certainly come on to that, but one way is that the Bill will improve employment relations in workforces. In the past 14 years, we have seen strike after strike because of the Conservatives’ approach to industrial relations. This change will improve productivity.
The Bill will deliver real-life improvements that will be felt across Britain. Key amendments that strengthen protections for the lowest-paid workers will ensure that all workers are treated with the decency they deserve. I welcome the vital steps that the Bill takes to extend protection, from exploitative zero-hours contracts, to protecting the voice of working people and strengthening statutory sick pay.
As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I have been able to scrutinise large businesses that choose to have zero-hours contracts in place. In one evidence session, I heard from a company representative who revealed that employees can have their shift changed at 24 hours’ notice, but not receive a single penny in compensation. The Bill is vital in addressing the challenges of financial planning faced by families who are dependent on zero-hours contracts. More than 1 million people on such contracts will benefit from the guaranteed hours policy. Crucially, the Bill will ensure that Governments work with businesses, and will support employers who endeavour to comply with the law. With the Government amendments, it will also expand and strengthen the powers of the fair work agency to bring civil proceedings against non-compliant employers at employment tribunals and to issue civil penalties, such as fines, to employers who breach pay-related rights and underpay their staff.
Graham Stuart
Given that the measures we are debating will give so much more power to the trade unions, why has the hon. Gentleman not felt it incumbent on him to declare the thousands of pounds that he has received from trade unions in the last year?
Gregor Poynton
I thank the right hon. Member for highlighting that, because I am proud of the money that I receive from unions. I am also proud of the fact that entrepreneurs and business people donate to my campaign as well. The right hon. Member neglected to mention that when he brought the subject up. Because I am both pro-business and pro-worker, I want to see growth in the economy. I am proud to receive donations from employers and people who have created wealth in this country, and I am also proud to receive donations from trade union members in my constituency.
Daisy Cooper
Is the hon. Member surprised, as I am, that there is so much support on these Benches for caps on political donations and greater transparency about them?
Gregor Poynton
We have mentioned that, of course, and it is certainly the case. I would love to see more transparency from the Conservative party.
It is right and proper that we reward the good businesses that contribute to good employment and sustainable growth, and it is right and proper that we take action against rogue employers that do not. With this Bill, the Government are also calling it quits on the Tories’ scorched-earth approach to industrial relations, which led to the worst strikes chaos in decades. A new partnership of co-operation between trade unions, employers and Government will ensure that we benefit from more co-operation and less disruption.
North of the border, the Bill signals the largest upgrade of workers’ rights in Scotland for a decade. It marks an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts and fire and rehire practices. It will establish day one rights to paternity, parental and bereavement leave for millions of workers. However, it will also be beneficial for employers in Scotland, helping to keep people in work and reduce recruitment costs by increasing staff retention and levelling the playing field on enforcement. It is both pro-worker and pro-business.
Members of the Scottish National party—including the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law) today —have been calling for the devolution of employment law for many years, but at no point have they explained how, beyond the banning of zero-hours contracts, those powers would be used to improve workers’ terms and conditions, to increase productivity and to accelerate economic growth. Moreover, it might be nice if the SNP practised what it preached. During the Rutherglen by-election in 2023, it chose to use zero-hours contracts to employ people to deliver leaflets. In government, the same party has chosen to include zero-hour contracts in their definition of positive destinations for school leavers. Financial insecurity, anxiety and stress do not sound like my idea of a positive destination.
The SNP says that it wants to transform Scotland’s economy for the better—to boost wages and productivity and grow key sectors—but the fact is that Scotland has a higher rate of zero-hour contracts among people in employment than any other UK nation. How are people supposed to plan financially and improve their quality of life when they wake up on a Monday morning to find out via text message whether this week they will have eight shifts, two shifts, or no shifts at all?
The reality is that the Scottish Government already have the powers to introduce changes to many workers’ terms and conditions through public procurement, but they choose not to do so. They would always rather blame someone else, and further constitutional grievance, than use the extensive powers that they have to improve the lives of ordinary Scots. That is why the Bill is of such paramount importance. Across the UK, acute benefits will be delivered to the people who need them the most, and in Scotland the Bill will right the wrongs of the SNP’s laissez-faire approach to regulating zero-hour contracts.
The tenure of this Labour Government is still measured in months and not years, but this Bill is yet another example of their delivering the new direction that the workers, businesses and people of Scotland and the wider United Kingdom deserve.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
As any sensible people would know, changes to business regulations need to strike a careful balance to not deter both business investment and job creation, but I am afraid that this Bill gets the balance wrong. Labour’s weakening of a variety of trade union laws, particularly on the threshold for industrial action, is a recipe for disaster for both the public and businesses, particularly SMEs.
As a London MP, I have heard this fairytale from those on the Labour Benches before, because London has too often been paralysed by strikes under Mayor Sadiq Khan. Infamously, the London Mayor promised our city “zero days of strikes” in 2016, but he has comprehensively broken that promise. In Sadiq Khan’s first two terms, there were more than 135 strikes, which is almost four times more than the number of strikes under his predecessor —a record that Mayor Khan labelled a “disgrace”. If 35 strikes are a disgrace, the 135 under Mayor Khan represent a catastrophic failure. My fear is that this Bill and the Labour Government’s amendments will make strikes even more common in London.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Member recall how many strikes there were under the last Conservative Government?
Mr French
As we have seen already—this is what I was talking about—the fairytale says that if we improve industrial relations and give trade unions all the money they want, suddenly there will not be any strikes. But what has happened in practice since the Labour Government came in? Trade unions have been given all the money, and they are still threatening to go on strike.
This Bill really does read like a militant trade union wish list. Strike mandates have doubled from six to 12 months, allowing trade unions to impose rolling strikes for a whole year without balloting their members. Turnout requirements have been abolished so that a minority can call strikes, and the Government have removed the requirement for 50% of members to vote and 40% to support industrial action. The Bill reduces the notice for strikes by four days and gives employers less information, making strikes even more damaging to businesses and disruptive to people’s lives. It also allows unreasonable paid facility time for trade unions, making the taxpayer and companies pay out even more for trade union representatives at the same time that the Labour Government are raising everyone’s taxes and cutting public services.
Gareth Snell
I guess that the hon. Gentleman has never been a member of a trade union or participated in an industrial ballot. Members choose to go on strike once the ballot has finished; no one forces them to go on strike. When members give up a day’s pay to go on strike, they do so because they are fighting for improvements to their terms and conditions. He is making out as though they are somehow compelled to strike. When members turn out for a strike, they do so because of their strength of feeling about the conditions they face—nothing more.
Mr French
I would have some sympathy for that argument if the threshold for the percentage of workers voting for a strike was being maintained, but we are now clearly leaving the door open for a minority of militant trade union members to go on strike and cause mass disruption. I will be honest and say that I have never been a member of a trade union, but my experience of trade union bosses is that they live a life that I could never dream of as a working-class man, to be quite frank. As a working-class person from a working-class background, I learnt at a very young age that trade unions and the Labour party stopped representing working-class people many years ago, and this Government are proving it yet again.
Becky Gittins
Given the hon. Gentleman’s comments about a small number of militant trade unionists taking industrial action if this Bill becomes law, it is worth noting that over the last 10 years, a small and militant group of Conservative party members have managed to choose successive Prime Ministers with fewer requirements than those applied to members of trade unions when they vote to take industrial action in their workplaces. Does he think that is fair?
Mr French
I thank the hon. Lady for her rather odd intervention. It has nothing to do with this Bill, but if more people had a chance to vote on issues such as who should be the Prime Minister today, I suspect that they would come to a completely different answer from the one they came to last July, because this Labour Government have broken every single promise that they made at the election. I cannot wait for the public to have the opportunity to vote out this shocking Labour Government, so I am all for people having more chance to do so.
As I and other Conservative Members have said already, this Bill was written by the trade unions and for the trade unions. Why are the Government granting this wish list to the trade unions? The simple answer is that the Labour party will benefit from these proposals. As I was taught as a young man, “Follow the money.” [Interruption.] Yes, I did not follow it by coming into this place. Over the past five years, the Labour party has received more than £31 million in political donations from the unions. This Bill will remove the requirement for trade union members to opt in to those contributions; instead, they will have to opt out, which means more will unknowingly contribute to political causes that they do not support. The Government’s amendment will mean that trade unions no longer need to renew their political resolutions every 10 years, and ultimately this will make it even easier for trade unions to divert cash to political causes, including the Labour party.
In short, this Bill means more strikes more often and more money for the Labour party, and strikes will be grinding business to a halt, shutting down public services and closing public transport systems again.
Daisy Cooper
As I noted in my speech, there are problems with the Bill. The hon. Member has mentioned the problems on public transport. Does he recall that in 2022 the train unions and the train operating companies actually resolved their dispute, and does he regret that the Transport Minister at the time intervened to block that agreement to resolve the strikes?
Mr French
My experience as an MP is great frustration, particularly in outer London, about train companies constantly going on strike, with a very small minority of train drivers going on strike. What we saw from this Government was a load of money going straight to those same unions, without the productivity changes that we would like to see, and no adaptation in the system. My personal opinion on some of these proposals is that it is increasingly likely that automation and a loss of jobs will be direct consequences of the rigid trade union laws being forced on to more businesses. I suspect that the only thing that will rise in this Parliament is unemployment.
These strikes are costly, disruptive and damaging to Britain. They ought to be a last resort, but this Government’s proposals will take us back to the 1970s—before I was born—when strikes were a political tool for division, damage and disruption. This is yet more evidence that Labour is not on the side of working people or of serious economic growth, as its own impact assessment—even partial—tells us. Londoners will not thank this Government if this results in yet more disruptive and longer rolling strikes that grind our city down even further than Mayor Khan has. Working people will not thank this Government for empowering their trade unions to bring our country to a standstill, especially as we pick up the Bill as they fill their pockets.
Mr Frith
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—
Mr Frith
If the right hon. Member listens, he will hear.
From my entry, Members will see that I am a proud member of the GMB and that my donations include those from entrepreneurs and businesspeople alike who are collectively sick of the 14 years of the Conservative Government. I will take no lessons from that party, given its record over those 14 years, and none of the speeches by Conservative Members have defended any achievements that were made in 14 years relating to this Bill or anything to do with our economy. That is the party of “Eff business”, of a striking NHS, of 60% furlough settlements for Manchester workers, of cash for covid contracts, of inflation highs, of Liz Truss, of the mini-Budget disaster, of zero growth, of the collapse of infrastructure, of public spending power disappearing, and of the state of our roads and of our prospects. It is for this reason that my entry includes a combination of GMB membership, given the members and the workers that we represent, and of the entrepreneurs who wanted rid of that lot over there.
Mr Frith
I will make some progress. The right hon. Gentleman has said plenty already, and he came in only halfway through the debate.
I am proud to stand on the Labour side of the House as someone who has founded a business, run businesses for others and run my own business. Fifteen years ago, I made a commitment to be the voice of experience for good small businesses in the proud Labour movement that we now have in government, not least to challenge the claim of the Conservatives that they alone represent business interests. I am proudly pro-business and pro-worker, just as this Government are. Fixing the foundations of our economy means fixing the foundations of our employment. Just as the Government are strengthening our economic base, they are now laying down stronger employment foundations.
Running a business is hard work. It requires an initial leap of faith, the courage to embrace risk, the ability to adjust, the resilience to overcome failure and the perseverance to celebrate success. The role of government is to improve life and living for everyone in this country. The role of good employment is exactly the same. Small businesses are at the heart of this effort. That is why the Government are right to focus on skills, value for money with public spending, opening up public sector commissioning to SMEs and challenger companies, and, crucially, the Bill making employment a more positive, rewarding experience. Insecure work leads to insecure living, and neither will improve life in Britain. We should highlight and support those employers who are already leading the way. Much of this legislation simply catches up to their high standards.
The weight of responsibility that comes with creating somebody else’s payslip cannot be overstated. It is humbling, sometimes worrying and never easy. It requires teamwork and the skills of others, but also leadership—sometimes lonely leadership. It means shouldering risk and sharing rewards. That is why the Government’s ambition for growth is the right one. The focus must be on net growth, locking in certainty for those in work by upholding rights for the many, while fostering new opportunities to expand our economy.
I want to salute those businesses and entrepreneurs for whom much of this legislation emphasises the good practices they already uphold. In Bury, businesses such as the Lamppost Café, where—a declaration of interest, Madam Deputy Speaker—my daughter works part time, Life Store in Ramsbottom, Wax and Beans record and coffee shop in Bury, Bloom, Avoira, MSL Solution Providers, Ernill’s Bakery, Wallwork Aerospace Heat Treatment, and Hargreaves. These businesses, often family run, are the backbone of Bury, and so they build the backbone of Britain; rooted in their communities; providing stability, pride and good honest work for an honest day’s pay. Many stand ready to do more to grow, invest and create more opportunities.
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Could he tell us which of that fine list of businesses have said that they support the Bill?
Mr Frith
I have had conversations with the vast majority of them. They support the general emphasis—[Interruption.] Actually, if the right hon. Gentleman has been listening, he will know that the argument I am making is that on much of the proposed legislation—giving rights on day one, being fair minded, making work pay—they are already doing that. The point I am making—[Interruption.] I have just named several. The most recent conversation I had was with MSL Solution Providers. Its challenges and arguments are around R&D tax credits, an argument I will make in due course. But the Conservatives’ claim of being the voice of small business and entrepreneurship is misguided, misrepresented and, frankly, out of date.
Once we have laid the new employment foundations, we must support them in building their businesses further. In particular, for some that means ensuring that AI enhances and expands prospects and prosperity in the employment market and the wider economy.
Lastly, I am proud to highlight my support for extending bereavement leave to those who experience a miscarriage—a compassionate and essential measure that I proudly support alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen).
The Bill is not just about a legislative process; it is about our values. It is about recognising that a thriving economy and a fair society must go hand in hand with tackling our inequalities. It is about ensuring that whether employer or employee, the foundation on which our employment is built ensures strength for all.
John Cooper
I rise as a former member of a trade union, and the harsh lessons I learned then are what concern me about this Bill. As a low-paid journalist on a local paper, I had hoped that the union would go in to bat for me. Instead, it was more interested in Cuban socialism and collective bargaining, more concerned about traducing Mrs Thatcher’s legacy than the tribulations of a junior reporter, more interested in funding the Labour party than supporting me and my newsroom colleagues. That is why I am backing amendments such as amendment 292, which seeks to defuse what has been called a subscription trap, where inertia is used to allow political donations taken from members to tick up year in, year out. Is this the clean money of which the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) spoke?
In the Business and Trade Committee we have heard that good relations are possible between employers and trade unions. Of course they are—not all union reps are agitators, any more than all bosses are grasping exploiters of the workers. But stripping out existing protections, as this Bill does, risks tilting the law too far in favour of the unions, making strikes more frequent and more damaging thanks to, for example, lower notice periods.
We know that the unions are already restive; just ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, unable to attend an event with, ironically, the Scottish Confederation of British Industry in his own office because he would not cross a picket line, and he has had to cancel at least one other event as the pickets strike on. If a Cabinet Minister is already at the unions’ mercy, what chance do the general public have?
We have heard about positive trade union benefits, but it is not all sunlit uplands. One rail union refuses to let bosses use email for rotas, insisting on fax machines— I imagine I am one of the few Members who remembers those. Another left passengers inconvenienced when it ordered members not to use a footbridge as it had a skim of snow on it no thicker than the icing on a cake. They must be licking their lips at clauses that remove previous thresholds for strike action such as the 50% turnout requirement and the 40% support requirement. I think the public will support amendments that would keep existing benchmarks as modest guardrails, not to crack down on unions but to limit the damage that hotheads might inflict.
This skimpy Bill, cobbled together with indecent haste to meet Labour’s “first 100 days” deadline, bears all the hallmarks of a thank you note from Labour to its union backers. If it passes, the unions are going to party like it’s 1979. However, Labour Members pocketing supposedly pristine union donations should have a care, because that 1979 winter of discontent saw the public lose patience with a Labour Prime Minister captured by the unions. History does not repeat precisely, but this does look awfully familiar.
Mrs Russell
This afternoon I want to talk about a point that I think many of us across the House would agree on: employment rights are quite useless without any sort of enforcement mechanism. I should first mention that I am a member of the Community union and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and I refer everyone to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
On enforcement, I am very pleased with clause 122 increasing the time for bringing employment tribunal claims from three to six months. It is a result of extensive campaigning by Pregnant Then Screwed and other organisations including the National AIDS Trust. They were very aware on behalf of their members of something I used to see regularly as a solicitor: a lot of people who have been very badly treated in their employment are so traumatised that they cannot come forward and make their claims within the three-month time limit. In addition, that reduces the potential time available for negotiation between former employees and their former employers, which is not in the best interests of either employees or employers. It is therefore really good news for both parties that we will have this increase in the amount of time available to bring those claims.
The other measure that I am particularly delighted about in the Bill is the creation of the Fair Work Agency. We absolutely need there to be accountability for employers that are not paying the national minimum wage. They are few and far between, and those that are not doing paying it need to be properly monitored and subject to enforcement, in order to create a fair playing field for all companies. I am sure that Opposition Members would completely agree that the national minimum wage is a fundamental part of our society and that everyone should be paying it.
The other matter I want to draw attention to is the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body. In my constituency, significant numbers of people need adult social care, and having a stable workforce is important in delivering that.
Alison Griffiths
I think the hon. Lady possibly misrepresents the intent of Opposition Members. We are not anti-trade union; we are anti the drafting of this Bill. I think it is important to make a clear distinction between the two.
Mrs Russell
I thank the hon. Lady for her point, but I think it is a very difficult distinction to make: that they are pro-trade union but anti things that make it easier for trade unions to effectively represent workers.
To return to my point, access to trade unions means access to good-quality advice, quicker resolution of disputes and a reduction in unrepresented litigants in person, which, in my experience, can make life genuinely difficult for well-meaning employers. Every single thing in this Bill will be good for workers, but it will also be good for employers, and I will be very pleased to vote for it later today.
Jayne Kirkham
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare my Unison membership, although I am also an ex-solicitor. I am going to address the Government amendments relating to enforcement, rather than trade union rights.
We have a large demand for social care in Cornwall, as is the case in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell). Our population tends to an older demographic and, with many people leaving friends and family to retire to Cornwall, the availability of care is very important. Our social care system is close to breaking point due to the combination of years of underfunding and a fragmented privatised system. Skilled care workers are chronically underpaid for what they do, often at minimum wage, and we struggle to get and retain care workers.
The Bill contains many provisions that will help: strengthened sick pay; parental leave; protection from unfair dismissal from day one; improved family-friendly rights and flexible working; measures to tackle zero-hours contracts, including for agency workers and workers at umbrella companies, as well as for direct employees; and strengthened redundancy rights. The Bill also specifically gives social care workers respect and recognition through a fair pay agreement, and reinstates the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. It will be a game changer for those low-paid workers—mostly women—who work in care and schools.
Daisy Cooper
The hon. Lady will be aware that there is a debate on the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill next week, where we will debate whether health and social care providers should be excluded from national insurance contributions. Would she care to comment on whether Labour Members will support that amendment made in the House of Lords?
Jayne Kirkham
Local government funding will, of course, be increasing to take that into account, and funding for adult social care is rising and will rise further in the next three-year settlement under this Government.
To return to my speech, in Cornwall we have seen the rise of care workers coming from other countries to work on sponsorship visa schemes. These workers are often in a financially precarious situation, which increases their dependency. Some have been charged by their employers for induction, travel or training; in some cases, workers receive a salary below the minimum wage to make up the cost of their flights to the UK.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I refer colleagues to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about the situation in her county. Does she agree that this is a national problem that affects all our constituencies? It is certainly the case in Berkshire, and in Reading in particular, that we need better pay for care workers and more understanding about the pressures they face in their very valuable work.
Jayne Kirkham
I agree with my hon. Friend. This matter affects the entire country. Unison, for example, has a campaign about migrant care workers, so, yes, this is a national issue.
In Cornwall, those care workers are often given the early morning and late evening shifts with no flexibility. Some sit on benches, stranded in Cornish villages that buses do not pass through, waiting from their morning shift to their first evening shift.
Many health and social care workers on sponsorship visas are afraid to raise concerns about their employment and living conditions for fear of losing their employer’s sponsorship. Employers in turn can be aware of that, and some even use it as an explicit threat. That brings me to the enforcement provisions in the Bill. Enforcement of statutory pay and employment rights is poor in the social care sector. Pay enforcement relies on individual workers reporting breaches. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs investigates fewer than 1% of care providers each year. International workers and those from minority ethnic backgrounds are particularly vulnerable. For individual rights to become a reality, a collective voice in the workplace and effective enforcement are key.
The Law Society reports that the backlog in employment tribunal cases stands at 44,000, which is 18% higher than it was in 2023. This backlog needs clearing and investment needs to be made in employment tribunals.
The new Fair Work Agency will have a crucial role to play in reducing the burden on the employment tribunal system by providing a focal point for advice on enforcement under Government amendment 208, in enabling the disclosure of information under Government amendment 212 and in taking on some of those enforcement powers under Government new clauses 57 and 58 on behalf of those workers. Those powers could really help low-paid or migrant workers who do not have access to funds or to union representation to enforce their rights, or who fear dismissal if they take steps in that direction.
Government amendment 249 will allow the Fair Work Agency to investigate and combat fraud and exploitative employers, thereby tackling the kind of modern slavery of international workers in the care industry that we have seen recently.
Government new clause 60 will also give the Fair Work Agency the power to recover the cost of enforcement, which would help with the funding of the system. However, real investment will need to be made into enforcement for the new powers to have teeth, with a timeline, resourcing and fast-track procedure for the new Fair Work Agency. I welcome confirmation of the Government’s commitment in this area.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
May I give Members a brief reminder that we are today talking to the new clauses and amendments on trade unions, industrial action, enforcement of labour market legislation, and miscellaneous and general provisions?
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I wish to deal with new clauses 8 and 9, which relate to recognition of the POA’s right to strike. I therefore also declare that I am an honorary life member of the POA. The word “honorary” means that there is no financial relationship, and I am assured that I would not even get a south-facing cell or an extra pillow.
New clauses 8 and 9 try to restore the fundamental right of prison officers to take industrial action in its various forms. The union has existed for 90 years and, although organised as a trade union, it has never taken any form of industrial action that has endangered the prisoners the officers care for, other staff or the wider community. Through all of its long history, there was an industrial relations climate in which negotiations took place and disputes were resolved.
Then in 1994, the Conservative Government, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, made it a crime to induce any prison officer to take strike action, or even to work to rule. The trade union was told very clearly that that would be a criminal act and any trade union officer organising action, even a work to rule, could be prosecuted. What the Government then did—this was why people became extremely cynical at the time—was to plan increases in the pension age, make extensive salary cuts and cut staff numbers. There was no way the union could fight back in any form to protect its members.
Some hon. Members who were about at the time may recall that, in 2019, the POA faced high six-figure fines in the High Court. When it took action on health and safety grounds by convening meetings of members, it was threatened with legal action and the union leaders were threatened with imprisonment. Ironically, it would have been interesting to ask who would lock them up—but that is another question altogether.
When the police had their right to strike taken away, it was almost like a covenant and they were given very specific commitments around how they would be protected on pay, pensions and conditions of work. That was never offered to the POA and there was never any negotiation like that, where it would at least be given some security in return for the loss of that right. That was never given.
The POA took the Government to the European Court of Human Rights in 2024 and the case was accepted. The Court urged the Government to engage with the union in good faith over what remedies would be available. The then Government refused to engage and the current Government are still not engaging, so one of the reasons for tabling the new clauses is to urge the Government to start engaging with the union around that particular issue.
All the union is asking for is that its members be treated like any other workers and for the Government to engage. The right to strike in Scotland was restored 10 years ago and there has been no strike action since. That has created an industrial relations climate that is conducive to working together—not to entering into conflict but to negotiating problems out. I think that that is a result of both sides knowing that there is the alternative, if necessary, of taking part in industrial action.
As most people know, industrial action in public services is often not a strike; it is usually a work to rule to start off negotiations. I have been a member of a trade union for 50 years; I have been a trade union officer, a lay official and so on. Every union that I have known, where there is any form of industrial action that in any way involves a public service, always puts in place negotiated arrangements to protect the people that they are serving—that is not just life and limb protection, but often ensures a standard of service that is still acceptable to people. I therefore urge the Minister to get back round the table with the POA.
There was a debate in Committee on this matter, which angered people and angered me. I have gone over the debate. It showed a shameful disrespect for prison officers and an ignorance of the role that they play and the working environment that they work in. There are references to screws and guards and things like that, and about how, somehow, if the right were restored, the union would allow prisoners to run amok and put the whole community at risk. That is never the case—it never has been and never would be. There is a lack of understanding about what those workers put up with. As many hon. Members know, there is overcrowding. Prison officers deal with prisoners with huge mental health issues, drug problems and health problems overall. There are record levels of violence in prisons and prison officers are injured almost daily as a result of assaults.
I have to say that the disrespect demonstrated in the Committee was part and parcel of the demoralisation of even more of our workers in those key roles. I therefore ask the Minister to re-engage, to get back round the negotiating table and to recognise that the issue will not go away. These members want their basic trade union rights back and, if necessary, they will go back before the European Court. I believe they will win and that we will, unnecessarily, go through another period in which the demoralisation of workers continues because of people’s lack of respect for their basic trade union rights. We are suffering real problems in recruitment and retention, so I urge the Government just to take that one step back to the negotiating table with the POA.
Becky Gittins
I rise in support of Government new clauses 57 and 58. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my proud trade union membership.
I ask the Opposition to consider their comments today in what has proved to be a very ideologically driven debate on their part. I feel somewhat as if I have been transported back in time to a previous reforming Labour Government’s last upgrade to employment rights—the minimum wage debate. This afternoon’s fearmongering about productivity, growth and unemployment is reminiscent of it. We also have seen some crossover in the personnel who were part of the Conservative opposition. The then shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), said that the minimum wage would
“negatively affect…not hundreds of thousands but millions of people.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2017; Vol. 297, c. 526.]
Laurence Turner
My hon. Friend will remember that in 2017, when the Conservatives announced the employment Bill that was never produced, they said that it would represent the biggest upgrade of workers’ rights by any Conservative Government ever. Would she care to speculate on why they set their ambitions so low?
Becky Gittins
Some comments from Opposition Members today have made it very clear to the public what the Opposition think about people’s rights at work.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The hon. Member is making a passionate and inspiring speech about the national minimum wage. Is she aware that just last year, the leader of the Scottish Labour party admitted that his family business was not paying members of staff the living wage? Does she think that is rank hypocrisy?
Becky Gittins
I think that everyone should be on board with the national minimum wage and the living wage. I hope that we can encourage all Members of all parties to get on board. I am very pleased to hear that commitment and concern from the Reform party. It is unexpected, but I respect it.
On Second Reading, I welcomed this legislation as a central tenet of this Government’s policy of putting working people at the heart of our economy and making work pay. I am delighted to see the Bill return to the Chamber, and I pay tribute to those who served on the Public Bill Committee. The Bill modernises the UK’s outdated employment laws, bringing in more than 30 much-needed and welcome reforms, including: day one rights of employment, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, abolishing fire and rehire, establishing bereavement leave, increasing protections from sexual harassment, introducing equality menopause action plans, strengthening rights for pregnant workers and establishing the Fair Work Agency.
I am pleased that, during the scrutiny process, the Government have tabled amendments to strengthen protections for low-paid workers, including those relating to statutory sick pay. In real terms, 1 million people on zero-hours contracts will benefit from the guaranteed hours policy. Nine million people who have been with their employer for less than two years will benefit from day-one rights relating to the unfair dismissal policy. Because of the Fair Work Agency, holiday pay rights will be enforced for the very first time.
The measures before us strengthen the Fair Work Agency. New clause 57 will enable it to bring proceedings against a non-compliant employer in an employment tribunal, in place of the worker. New clause 58 enables the provision of legal advice or representation for those who have become a party to civil proceedings related to employment or trade union law.
Although the vast majority of employers across the country, including hundreds in Clwyd East, will certainly obey the law, there are still those that sadly do not. A Citizens Advice report states that higher-paid workers are 50% more likely than lower-paid individuals to bring an employment tribunal claim, despite the fact that lower-paid individuals are more likely to have their rights violated. As Unison points out, leaving the burden of challenging workplace injustice to individual workers seeking redress at tribunal compounds inequalities of power in the UK labour market.
The Low Pay Commission figures highlight key reasons to implement these important measures. We know, for instance, that 20% of workers were paid less than minimum wage in 2023, and that nearly 1 million workers did not get any holiday pay. The agency will bring together existing state enforcement functions, and will be a single place to which workers and employers can turn for help. I am pleased that the agency will aim to resolve issues upstream by supporting employers that want to comply. I understand from evidence gathered by the Bill Committee that there was considerable support for a single enforcement body in place of what is currently quite a fractured system. On accountability, the Bill requires an annual report on the Fair Work Agency’s enforcement actions, and will allow Parliament to monitor progress in protecting workers’ rights.
I am encouraged to hear that, to produce its strategy, the Fair Work Agency will consult an advisory board made up of trade unions, businesses and independent experts. It is vital that we continue our collaborative approach in developing employment legislation and policy that is pro-business, pro-worker and, ultimately, pro-growth. I welcome the new clauses and the Bill as a whole. It is an important part of the Government’s strategy to move our economy forward, improve work security and ensure greater productivity.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
In speaking in support of the Bill, I declare that I am a Unison member.
The Bill and the Government amendments to it will deliver real-life improvements for working people across my constituency and across Scotland. Key amendments will strengthen protections for the lowest-paid workers in my constituency, extend protections from exploitative zero-hours contracts, boost the voice of working people in the workplace, strengthen statutory sick pay to 80% from the first day of sickness, extend sick pay to 1.3 million of the lowest earners across the country, and provide greater protection from unfair dismissal, with 9 million people benefiting from day one protection. That is the real change that we promised to deliver for real people—public service workers in West Dunbartonshire, such as frontline staff in the service industry, essential utilities, social care, transport or health.
The days of exploitation are now over. The Labour party is doing what we do best and will always do: protecting working people, promoting decent pay and work, and delivering meaningful change for so many. We are putting power in the hands of working people. The Government’s commitment to growing the economy will be built on rebalancing rights at work and raising living standards in every part of this country; the two are interwoven. The Government’s amendments will ensure just that by boosting the enforcement of rights and giving the new Fair Work Agency the power to bring civil proceedings against non-compliant employers that seek to underpay staff. In 2023, one in five workers was paid less than the minimum wage. That will stop. Almost 1 million workers in this country did not receive holiday pay in 2023. That will stop.
The amendments will level the playing field. They include measures on digital access to employment agreements, allowing independent unions to apply for recognition and stopping the practice of employer lock-out, a 20-working-day window for employers and unions to negotiate access, and a new right for unions to access the workplace, which could be transformative as it gives workers a fair voice to improve their pay and conditions.
It is time to turn the page on the combative and unproductive approach adopted by the previous Government, and it is time to modernise the industrial relations framework. The Bill and the amendments support a much-needed reset of industrial relations across Great Britain. This Government have a clear mandate to deliver real change that working people in my constituency of West Dunbartonshire can see and feel. That change cannot come soon enough. The Employment Rights Bill is the crucial first step on that path. It is the biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation, and I am proud to vote for it and support it today.
Laurence Turner
I am grateful to be called twice on Report, and as is customary, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of Unite. I am also the chair of the GMB parliamentary group.
I start with comments that I had not planned to make at the beginning of this debate. Much has been heard about registers of interests. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who is in his place, said at the end of the Bill’s Committee, Labour Members have been assiduous in drawing attention to their membership of trade unions and their declarations in registers of interests, but I believe that the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) was the first Conservative Member to draw attention to his own donations without being challenged first. Much of the tone of this debate has focused not on the substance of the Bill, but on ascribed motivations, which I believe has been demeaning to the standards and courtesies expected in this House.
There is much to welcome in the Government amendment. I wish to concentrate my remarks on new clause 40 and new schedule 2. On political fund ballots, the 10-year requirement dates to the Trade Union Act 1984. The requirement does not apply to any political funds that may be maintained by employers’ associations; nor does a successful ballot in any way infringe on a trade union member’s right to withdraw payments from the political fund at any time, so I think we can be confident about that policy’s intention: it was to tie up trade union time and resources, and in that respect it was successful. These ballots are a massive abstraction of resources, which gets in the way of trade unions’ and trade union members’ core business of representing people at work. In 40 years, not one union member has voted to discontinue a political fund.
Trade unions are democratic organisations. If there is discontent in a union over political fund expenditure, any member is entitled to inspect the accounts, and that expenditure can be stopped in whole or in part through existing democratic structures. There is, I think, a contradiction when this House, a representative democratic institution, may seek to instruct other organisations to make decisions by referendum.
To those who have suggested that trade union political expenditure is somehow illegitimate, I would just like to remind Members that trade union political fund expenditure is not synonymous with party political donations. In fact, many important campaigns that have won cross-party support in this place were made possible only because of trade union political fund expenditure. I draw Members’ attention to one such campaign, which I was proud to be associated with. The Protect the Protectors campaign started with the campaigning work of GMB and Unison members in the ambulance service and resulted in the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. If the measures that have been put forward at different stages in this process were successful in restricting that political fund activity, it would be harder to deliver that legislative change in this place on behalf of working people.
Much has been said in the debate and I do not wish to duplicate it, but I wish to say a few words about the situation at Amazon in Coventry. Much trade union work in the private sector in recent years has been focused on the warehousing and logistics sector, where a focus of trade union activity has been the increasingly intensive workloads, workers’ employment being terminated on the basis of unclear and unaccountable target setting, and high rates of musculoskeletal injuries, which have contributed to a high rate of people being out of work in the wider economy. When the GMB, in response to approaches from its members, initially contacted Amazon to seek voluntary recognition at that site in December 2022, the company reported that there were 1,400 people working at the site. The company refused to engage meaningfully with the union or attend talks at ACAS to resolve the situation. As has been said, in the space of just a few months, the number of people at the site was increased dramatically by 93%. Some of them were temporary workers transferred from other sites. It has been reported that others were new workers on student visas who were worried about the potential implications for their studying and immigration status if union recognition was voted for. As a consequence of that increase, the union could still meet the 10% membership threshold, but could not meet the requirement of 40% of the bargaining group being likely to support recognition.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I refer Members to my declaration of interests, which clearly states my positive relationship with the trade union movement. I am a member of Community and the GMB, and that is where I want to begin my contribution. My father, a proud USDAW member, recruited me to his union the very first day that I had a proper job, aged 16, drawing a real wage with a pay packet and a pay slip. I had stepped into the grown-up world, and joining a union was part of my graduation.
I was brought up to believe that a union has our backs and can help with issues like unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment and bullying. As an MP, when I am approached by a constituent with a problem at work, my first question is, “Are you a member of a trade union?” In Bassetlaw, good companies and organisations like Cargill, Schutz, Cinch Connectors, Cerealto, Autism East Midlands and Bassetlaw hospital have good partnerships with unions like the GMB, and I welcome that.
As a small business woman, I served for 10 years on the national executive of the long ago merged Manufacturing, Science and Finance union. That is where I reinforced my values and belief that a trade union is a force for good in the workplace, where partnership working with the employer serves to increase productivity, pride and shared understanding. Such partnerships mean that many of the key employment measures in the Employment Rights Bill have already been adopted by many major employers, who regard good employee relations as a key element for their competitive success in the markets in which they operate.
When people go to work but have no certainty about the hours that they will work or what their weekly income will be, it is unfair. When they go to work with the fear that they may be sacked tomorrow for no reason, it is unfair. When they are paid below the minimum wage for a day’s work, it is unfair. And when they are ill and face three days without pay, it is unfair. This Bill is about putting fairness back into work and putting pride into our workplaces. We need to end the zero-hour contracts and the trickery of fire and rehire; deliver day one protections from unfair dismissal; and extend rights to sick pay to 1.3 million people.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I am also a member of a union, the British Medical Association. I have found that union to be useful to me as it has represented me in the past, so I can see the benefit of unions. I am concerned, however, that the measures that the hon. Lady is talking about in relation to day one sick pay, for example, could make it more difficult for those with disabilities to get a job, particularly with the changes to zero-hours contracts as well. I talked to a local businessmen in my constituency about a gentleman he employs who has a disability, who comes and goes because his disability makes it difficult for him to work for long periods of time, but he says that he simply will not be able to continue to employ him once the legislation comes into force.
Jo White
That is what good, strong trade union partnership is about: ensuring that a worker has the interventions that they need in order to be able to work. I will be supporting the benefits Bill that we will be introducing in the future because that will ensure that workplaces are open and accessible to people with disabilities. It is important that people have the right to work and the capacity to work when they need to.
The Bill is backed by my constituents, who want to work hard but also want fairness in the workplace. Tonight, I will be voting for strengthening rights at work for millions of British people. We can all stand up and be counted to support our constituents who deserve fairness and justice at work. To the Reform MPs who are no longer in the Chamber, supporting the status quo is a betrayal for millions of British workers. We all have constituents who need better workplace rights and this is our chance to deliver change.
Andy MacNae
I am a member of Unite the union, but I rise to make my remarks from the perspective of a business owner and employer, in response to comments made by Conservative Members, who have now wandered off, about small and medium-sized businesses. These are personal comments and I will give my personal perspective, but I know many businesses, large and small, that share this point of view.
Before coming to this place, I was running businesses of various shapes and sizes for well over 20 years. I did my MBA at Manchester Business School, I have started and led several businesses, and I have served on the board of many others, so I have been about a bit. Throughout that time, it was always clear in my mind that whatever the business, the critical success factor is always the skills, drive and quality of the people that the business employs or contracts. To succeed, any business must attract the best possible people. That is why I have always felt that the selection and recruitment process was my key role in any organisation that I led. I will always argue that great businesses, by which I mean those with sustained success, will always be good employers.
When I look at the measures in this Bill, all I see are the things that good employers are already doing. We know that support for employees when they have children pays off in the long term. We know that giving employees job security increases their commitment and productivity. We support our people when they are sick, and we know that taking holidays is vital to maintain performance. We do not unfairly dismiss, whether someone has been with us for one day or for many years. We have rigorous recruitment processes, and we make it clear that employees must show they meet requirements for a job during the probationary period. We pay as well as we can, knowing that employees who feel valued will deliver for our businesses.
Up until now, good employers have always felt the risk of being undercut by unscrupulous and short-term disruptors looking to make a quick buck. This is a real and serious issue—I have experienced it in business, and many other business owners have raised it with me. Businesses doing the right thing should not be disadvantaged, yet weak and outdated employment legislation has left them exposed. This Bill levels the playing field. Good employers can keep on doing what they do, knowing that their competitors can no longer undercut them by, for instance, employing a majority of their staff on zero-hours contracts, not giving holiday pay, firing and rehiring or just underpaying.
This Bill is good for good businesses and good for workers. It is good for growth and for society. It will put more money in people’s pockets and deliver real, tangible benefits for working people, and I am very pleased to support it.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which include my membership of GMB, Unison and the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy.
When I spoke on Second Reading, I welcomed the advancements that this Bill would make on statutory sick pay, maternity and paternity pay and protections around pregnancy, as well as its values of fairness. I support new clauses 44, 47 and 48: it is only right that if someone has done a fair day’s work and a business fails to pay them, the Secretary of State should have the authority to give notice of underpayment. No one in Britain should go home from an honest day’s work out of pocket and worried about paying their bills. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s interventions on imposing financial penalties on businesses that make underpayments.
I believe that poor practice in the workplace should be called out and that those responsible should be held accountable. However, we also need an adequately resourced fair work agency, so I support new clause 82, tabled by the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). The agency should be agile enough to tackle issues upstream by supporting businesses that want to comply with the law, as well as having enough resources to tackle meaningfully non-compliant businesses. On the Business and Trade Committee, we heard from several businesses, some of which were great employers and some of which were unable to justify their malpractice, with evidence of modern-day slavery in their supply chains.
We cannot have companies getting away with poor practice where workers cannot use the toilet, are not entitled to their breaks or fail to get their fair pay. Transparency, accountability and enforcement are key, but we must remember that most businesses do their best by their workers, and I have witnessed that. Since Second Reading, I have met with business owners in several sectors, from steelworkers and scaffolders to restaurant owners and retail. During my visits and roundtables in my constituency of Dudley, both workers and employers often tell me that they want the same thing: the stability to grow and a fiscally responsible Government who care about them and their future. Stability is not a zero-sum game. Research shows that when businesses look after their employees, they create a more loyal and productive workforce, which in turn strengthens businesses and helps them to grow the economy. In 2023, digital research by Deloitte found that
“fostering trust, opportunities for growth, and employee well-being are the keys to increased workforce retention and satisfaction”.
To reassure businesses, we know that the implementation of this Bill will be in phases. That approach promises to allow step-by-step upskilling of HR professionals and to update employment practices one step at a time; they will not be expected to be employed until 2026. I therefore ask the Minister to provide a road map outlining details of future consultations, with a two-year timeline to help to guide business owners to provide stability for businesses. A road map would undoubtedly help to ease growing pains, allowing small businesses time to plan the necessary administration, upskilling and ability to resource for the fair work agency. Both workers and businesses in Dudley would benefit greatly from that stability, and I wholeheartedly support this Bill.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I rise to support the Bill, and in particular Government new schedule 2. I must also draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of both the GMB and Unite trade unions. I should also make clear to the House my employment history, both as a chief executive officer and a managing director of companies in the United States, the UK and Israel, and my record as a company founder and employer.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
In 2023, BH Live, a company based in my constituency, was named as not paying 130 workers—130 of the lowest-paid workers in my constituency—the national minimum wage. Ultimately, BH Live did make payments, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong for anybody to be paid less than the national minimum wage, and that through the introduction of the new Fair Work Agency we are going to be able to right wrongs like that?
Steve Yemm
I absolutely agree; my hon. Friend has spelled out why enforcement is so important.
I would happily speak further in support of so many of the amendments that have been tabled, but I am acutely aware that we are at the end of the debate.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is coming to his exciting peroration, so I just wanted to say that he is absolutely right about the feckless behaviour of corporate businesses that disregard the interests of their workers, and I share his view of trade unions. However, does he recognise that there is a world of difference between the burdens we place on those organisations that can happily deal with them and the effects that some parts of the Bill will have—perhaps unintentionally—on very small businesses? I imagine that the businesses he started were such business, at least at the beginning. This Bill has caused fear among small businesses and microbusinesses. There is a real distinction between those heartless corporates and the hard-working SMEs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine, is there not?
Steve Yemm
As a small business founder and someone who has grown a business, I recognise the need for balance. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for raising that point. In my concluding remarks, I put on the record how proud I am of my unions, the GMB and Unite, for the work that they have done with this Government to help deliver this groundbreaking legislation. I will therefore be voting with pride to support the Bill in the Lobby later today.
Justin Madders
We have had another excellent debate. We might have to deal with a few misconceptions, but I am conscious that we need to move on to Third Reading, so I apologise if I do not address every single contribution we have heard today. I will start with the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), and his new clause 82. The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to produce an annual report for employment rights enforcement, as well as an enforcement strategy every three years. Both documents will be laid before Parliament, allowing for parliamentary scrutiny. We are committed to giving the Fair Work Agency the resources it needs to do its job effectively. I agree with him that the number of prosecutions for minimum wage violations has been pitifully small in recent years. We should never tolerate lawbreakers in the business world. We should ensure that responsible and well-performing businesses are never allowed to be undercut by minimum wage violations.
My right hon. Friend’s amendment 282 would include digital means of communication with workers in unions’ rights of access to workplaces. I appreciate the good intentions behind the amendment, but the Government are already committed to modernising working practices and moving away from a reliance on ad hoc access arrangements. We recognise the importance of providing for a digital right of access, in addition to the physical access for which the Bill already provides. That is why we have amended the Bill to expand access rights, allowing for access agreements to include communication with workers other than by means of physical access to a workplace, such as digital means.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) talked about procurement. His new clause would amend the Procurement Act 2023 to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that any contract entered into by either a Government Department, an executive agency of Government, a non-departmental public body or a non-ministerial department must comply with certain requirements relating to the recognition of trade unions. We recognise that the recognition of trade unions for collective bargaining was an important feature of the previous two-tier code on workforce matters. The Bill contains powers to reinstate and strengthen the code by way of regulations and a statutory code, so I assure the House that the Government are committed to strengthening trade union recognition and collective bargaining rights.
New clause 77, in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law), would result in a change to the Scotland Act 1998 by removing employment law from the list of reserved matters, thereby bringing it within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. While his perseverance on this issue is not unnoticed, it would come as no surprise to him, were he here, that the Government have no intention of devolving employment law to the Scottish Parliament. Previous Scotland Acts have already created one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. When there were considerably more SNP Members here during the last Parliament, there was a ten-minute rule Bill on this very subject, and the SNP could not even get a majority of its own Members to support it, so why on Earth would we support such a measure now? I do not know.
I will turn to the amendments from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on prison officers’ right to strike. I thank him for his persistence and his active engagement on behalf of prison officers. As he said, prison officers are prevented from taking industrial action under current legislation. Their pay is governed by the independent Prison Service pay review body process, which acts as a compensatory mechanism for that restriction. There is limited contingency to deal with industrial action, and during such incidents the reliance is on a narrow pool of operational managers with some potential for very limited support from the police and Army in limited circumstances. That creates operational risks and is not sustainable for any period of time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to what he classed as disrespect to prison officers during that debate in Committee. I just put on record that there was certainly no disrespect shown by those on the Government Benches; we value and respect the work that prison officers do. I know that he will continue to pursue this matter, and I suggest that he contacts the Ministry of Justice, which has the remit. I hope it will be able to engage on the matter in future.
Let me now deal with some of the Liberal Democrat new clauses and amendments. The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) spoke about new clause 19, which would give the Secretary of State the power to set out and define in regulations the professional bodies that could represent employees at disciplinary meetings. It is unclear to us where the demand for that would come from, and I would expect it to benefit some businesses that have raised the prospect with successive Governments. What is clear, however, is that expanding the types of organisations that could be involved in representing workers at such meetings could lead to hearings requiring legal representation for both the worker and the employer. That would increase the cost of holding a hearing, would escalate matters, and would potentially decrease the chance of an amicable resolution as both parties became entrenched in dispute. We believe that trade unions are best placed to represent employees in disciplinary and grievance hearings in the workplace, and statutory provisions are already in place to enable them to do that.
The hon. Member for St Albans also tabled new clause 111, which relates to legal aid for employment disputes. I am committed to ensuring that workers are able to enforce their employment rights, and we are working closely with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that happens, looking into what further improvements we can make to the way in which ACAS and employment tribunals operate. A key benefit of moving enforcement to the Fair Work Agency is that it will make it easier and quicker for workers to secure justice, without the need for additional legal representation or legal aid. I hope that gives the hon. Lady some reassurance that we are looking seriously at the issue.
New clause 110, also tabled by the hon. Member for St Albans,
“would require the Secretary of State to publish a review on the impact of Part 4 of the Bill…on SMEs within 3 months of the passage of this Act.”
In the impact assessment, the Government have set out our initial plan for monitoring an evaluation of the impacts of the Bill, as well as some secondary legislation. I say this with the greatest respect to the hon. Lady: she has expressed concern about the burden on business, but if we had accepted all her party’s amendments yesterday, that would have added several billion pounds to the costs of businesses. The Liberal Democrats will have to decide, ideally tonight, whether they are in favour of workers’ rights or not.
Let me now deal with some of the amendments from the official Opposition. Amendment 297 seeks to
“increase, from seven to 14 days, the notice period that trade unions are required to adhere to when notifying employers that they plan to take industrial action.”
Our consultation on the creation of a modern framework for industrial relations sought views on what an appropriate notice period would be, recognising that the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016 would reduce the notice period from 14 to seven days. The Government have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by respondents to the consultation who feared that a seven-day notice period would not provide enough time for unions to prepare for industrial action in some important sectors, such as transport, healthcare and education, with possible knock-on impacts on other services. The Government believe that employers should be given enough time to mitigate the most severe effects of industrial action, and acknowledge responses to the consultation arguing that seven days’ notice was insufficient.
Of course, we did have seven days’ notice between 2010 and 2016 under the Tory Government. The Tories’ lack of understanding of the Bill is clear from the number of times we heard that it would take us back to the 1970s, whereas in fact it will take us back to 2015, when an earlier version of the Bill was introduced. The Government’s view is that 10 days provides the appropriate balance in enabling employers to mitigate the impact of industrial action and reduce disruption and the knock-on impacts of strikes, while also respecting the right to strike.
Amendment 291 seeks to remove clause 52, which deals with political funds and which, I think, prompted the most heated debate. It is notable that when it comes to reducing Tory red tape, it is only trade unions that do not receive the same benefits as everyone else. There has, I think, been a fundamental misunderstanding of what a trade union is. It is a member-based, democratic organisation designed to protect those who are part of it. Comparisons with Netflix subscriptions and insurance contracts are bogus, because they are not the same thing at all. Membership of a trade union and a political fund is not a subscription that people sign up to for a fixed period; it is membership of a democratically organised and independent trade union, which they are free to leave at any time. Members have control of the organisation because it is democratically organised, and they can decide as a union whether to have a political fund at all. People cannot email the chief executive of Netflix and demand that it makes a programme starring their favourite actor, but if people are unhappy with a trade union, they have the opportunity to get involved and change it.
It should be noted that in the 40 years that we have had political fund ballots, no union has disaffiliated from the Labour party. There has been no closure of political funds, so it is very clear that this is simply red tape. Of course, it is not all about funding the Labour party, because nearly half of all unions that have a political fund are not affiliated with the Labour party. If Conservative Members are not satisfied with that, they should read the Bill that is before them, because the clause that they want to remove—clause 52—sets out in subsection (3) how members can opt out of a political fund. It even sets out the ways they can do so: by post, email or electronic means. Some of the patronising comments we have heard about people being trapped into something that they do not wish to be in does not reflect the reality of the situation or the ability of trade union members to make up their own minds and exercise their democratic rights. Had any Conservative Members ever been members of a trade union, they would understand that.
The repeated insinuations from Conservative Members that I or any anyone else on the Labour Benches have brought forward this Bill because we have been paid by the trade unions to do so is offensive and wrong in equal measure. They might think money buys you the chance to write the law, but that says far more about their approach to legislation than it does about ours. On the Labour Benches, we do these things because we believe in them. We believe that everyone deserves fair treatment at work, and this Bill delivers that. It is delivering on our values.
In conclusion, the Bill represents a generational shift in protection, a long-overdue reinforcement of workers’ rights in this country, and tangible proof of how a Labour Government can bring meaningful benefit to people’s lives. For many of us, it is fundamental to why we are in the Labour party, so now is not the time to shy away from our efforts. Now is not the time to talk about what might have been; it is the time to be bold, to be loud and to be proud that this Labour Government are delivering by putting fairness, dignity and security back into the workplace.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I am a lifelong proud trade unionist.
Let me begin by thanking right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for their positive and constructive engagement over recent months. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for his superhuman work in steering this Bill through its Commons stages, and all the members of the Public Bill Committee for their thoughtful scrutiny.
When this Government took office, we promised the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation—nothing less than a new deal for working people. We said we would introduce a Bill to deliver that within 100 days, and we heard from Conservative Members who said we should not; and there were those who said we could not, but we did. Today, this House is taking another giant step towards making work pay. Let us be clear: too many working people have had to wait for too long for change. Over a decade, wages flatlined, in-work poverty grew, and growth was strangled. We inherited a failing economy that served no one, but today a Government of working people for working people are turning the tide.
This landmark Bill—pro-growth, pro-business and pro-worker—will put fairness back into work. Almost 9 million employees will be protected from unfair dismissal, up to 2 million will receive a right to bereavement leave and 1 million workers on zero-hours contracts will get the security they deserve. In three weeks’ time, over 3 million workers will see one of the biggest rises in the minimum wage on record. We said that we would make work pay, and this Government meant it.
Our vision is backed by many of the best businesses such as the 1,200 members of the Good Business Charter, from FTSE 100 companies to small and medium-sized enterprises. They prove that if you treat people well, you get the best out of them. They know that being pro-worker is not a barrier to success, but a launchpad to it. That is why this Bill takes the very best standards from the very best businesses and extends them to millions more workers. It is also why we proudly say that this is a pro-business and pro-worker Bill.
But we know that this will represent change, and I understand that many businesses want to work with the Government to get the details right. Our commitment in the weeks and months ahead to is do just that. My message is clear: this transformative package is a huge opportunity. It is a once-in-a-generation chance to reshape the world of work, to drive a race to the top on standards, to deliver growth and to build an economy that works for everyone.
We know that the Tories, in lockstep with Reform, will fight this every step of the way. Over two decades ago, they did the same with Labour’s minimum wage. They said then that it would destroy 2 million jobs, and now they are queueing up to vote against every single measure in this Bill, but the truth is that they were wrong then and they are wrong now. The only thing they are consistent on is that every time they have had the chance to deliver basic fairness for workers, they have voted against it. We know that they cannot be trusted to stand up for working people, but this Labour Government will.
For too long, people in Britain have been overlooked and undervalued, and our plan changes that: with jobs that are more secure and family-friendly; with women supported in work at every stage of life; with a genuine living wage and sick pay for the lowest earners; with further and faster action to close the gender pay gap; with rights that are enforced; and with trade unions that are strengthened.
In July, after 14 years of failure, the country voted for change. We promised to deliver a new deal, and today this Labour Government deliver on that promise with a once-in-a-generation transformation to build an economy based on fairness, to raise living standards, to drive growth and to deliver a better Britain for working people. I commend this Bill to the House.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Before I summarise the Opposition’s view on the Bill, I pay tribute to those on the Conservative Benches who contributed during its passage. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) has held the Government to account with forensic skill on Report and in Committee. He was joined in the Bill Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), and my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) and for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) performed great service as members of the Select Committee. I also acknowledge the work of officials in the Department and in Parliament. Their job cannot have been easy, given the indecent haste with which the Bill has been produced.
We disagree on much, but it would be churlish of me not to recognise that today represents a personal victory for the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). While the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) lie low, there is no doubt who has been in the driving seat. [Interruption.] Well, he is now. He’s here now. It is very—[Interruption.]
Andrew Griffith
We welcome him to his place.
At least the Deputy Prime Minister is honest in her unwavering support for the trade union agenda. She is proud to walk in the footsteps of Neil Kinnock, Michael Foot and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), a conviction politician in the proper sense of the word, not a politician with convictions like the Labour Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Mike Amesbury). It makes a welcome change—[Interruption.] Well, he’s going. It makes a welcome change from a Prime Minister who pretends the Bill is about growth.
It is not easy for the right hon. Lady. It is always awkward being at odds with your boss: he says grow, you say slow; he wants fewer regulators, you create new ones. We all remember how in 2021 she herself was a victim of fire and rehire by a bad boss. Just wait until he sees the higher unemployment, higher prices and lower growth that the Bill will bring. [Interruption.]
Andrew Griffith
I’ll do that again: higher unemployment, higher prices and lower growth. No wonder the right hon. Lady is in favour of making it harder to be sacked.
This is a sad day for business and a bad day for Parliament. Business will have watched the last two days with dismay—[Interruption.] They will watch this with dismay as well, Madam Deputy Speaker. As they struggle with the Chancellor’s job tax and with the business rates hike about to hit next month, they see hundreds of pages of red tape heading their way. They will have seen the Minister yesterday, asked to name a single small business who supports the Bill, reel off the names of three large ones, two of which turned out not to support it anyway and the third was a quote from the chief inclusion officer at the Co-op. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) put it well yesterday when he said the Government plan to increase the number of small businesses by starting with large ones and making them smaller.
No one who cares about Parliament legislating well can be proud of how we have got here: a rushed Bill which was introduced at half the length to which it has now grown; an impact assessment which the Regulatory Policy Committee described as not fit for purpose; over 260 pages of amendments, few of which were scrutinized in Committee; and speeches in favour that have leaned heavily in support of the trade unions who stand to gain so much financially from the Bill.
But my final word goes to the real—[Interruption.] I can do some more. The final word goes to the real victims—[Interruption.] They do not want to hear it, Madam Deputy Speaker. The final word goes to the real victims of this Bill. Faced with this legislation, employers will take fewer risks on new employees. As a result, this Bill will hit young people disproportionately hard. They do not have the track record to rely on someone giving them the chance, a first step into the world of work.
Unlike so many Labour Members, whose first job was at a comfortable desk in TUC Congress House, my first job was at a supermarket. That company was able to take a risk on a young Andrew Griffith with no career experience; it was able to take that chance because it knew that I could not start work in the morning and then file an employment tribunal claim in the afternoon.
I know that for many Labour Cabinet members career experience on their CV is a sensitive topic, but that does not excuse what is a vindictive attack on the next generation. The truth is that Labour do not understand business. They do not understand what it takes to grow; they never have and they never will. Every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they started, and that is why we cannot support this terrible Bill.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has come to my attention that in a speech that I gave on 28 April 2014, recorded in column 614 of Hansard, on the subject of high-speed rail, I made a reference to my experience of using our local transport system in Greater Manchester when
“I worked as a solicitor in Manchester city centre.”—[Official Report, 28 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 614.]
I should have made it clear that, specifically, that was a reference to being at the time a trainee solicitor. This was an inadvertent error and, although the speech was over a decade ago, as it has been brought to my attention, I would like to formally correct the record, and I seek your advice on doing so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Member for giving advance notice of his point of order and for placing his correction on the record.
Delegated Legislation
Swann Report: 40th Anniversary
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
This month marks the 40th anniversary of the publication of the groundbreaking Swann report “Education for All”. The first of its kind, the report was commissioned to examine disparities in educational attainment and experiences among ethnic minority pupils, and made recommendations to tackle institutional racism in the education system. The inquiry, led by Lord Swann, was launched in response to a number of campaigns against racism in education, in particular the high-profile scandal of educationally subnormal—ESN—schools that disproportionately removed higher numbers of black Caribbean children from mainstream education settings, and wrongly labelled them educationally subnormal.
A mixture of education policy and racist attitudes was responsible for this shocking discrimination. The 1960s was a time of rising immigration, with the post-war British empire’s invitation to the Windrush generation of workers from the Caribbean and its other colonies to rebuild Britain. It was also a time of significant racist backlash, with the overt racism of Enoch Powell and the notions of racial superiority that gained traction in the political mainstream. These ideas worked their way into our national education policy, with the aim of creating and maintaining a two-tier labour force and a deliberately under-educated black population to fill all the menial jobs that white Brits did not want.
This significant miscarriage of justice took place in the 1960s and 1970s, and saw hundreds of black—mostly Caribbean—children wrongly sent to schools that were meant for pupils with severe physical and mental disabilities. These schools had existed since the 1940s, due to the provision, under the Education Act 1944, of appropriate schools for pupils with severe mental or physical disabilities. But by the late 1960s, almost 30% of pupils in ESN schools in London were black immigrant children, compared with 15% in mainstream schools.
It was clear that decisions were being made by teachers, educational psychologists and local education authorities to place these children in ESN schools for reasons other than mental or physical disabilities. Although parents were aware that their children were being forced to struggle against a racist system, most were isolated and not given the information that they needed to make informed decisions about their child’s education. It was not until an Inner London Education Authority report was leaked that the true extent of this shocking discrimination was revealed.
Grenadian educator Bernard Coard took the initiative to write and publish the groundbreaking pamphlet “How the West Indian child is made educationally subnormal in the British school system”, making the leaked ILEA information accessible to parents and communities. Mass community mobilisation as a result of Coard’s pamphlet inspired parents and community organisations to campaign against the now undeniable institutional racism in British schools. That forced the Government to respond, and these schools were eventually shut down in the early 1980s.
Published in March 1985, Swann’s report confirmed Coard’s analysis: the persistence of racist stereotypes, biased IQ tests, a deep misunderstanding of culture and language, and biases in teacher expectations, disciplinary practices and curriculum content were creating significant barriers to education for black children. It challenged the racist myths that black children were less intelligent than their white counterparts, and recognised instead that the structural racism embedded in the British education system was disadvantaging them. Inadequate support for pupils with English as a second language, a lack of diversity in the curriculum, and a significant disconnect between schools and parents from ethnic minority backgrounds were identified as further barriers to black children achieving their full academic potential.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I spoke to her beforehand to ask permission to intervene. I looked at the Swann report, which she has outlined very clearly. Does she agree that although substantial strides have been taken since that eye-opening report, the learning curve for the integration and understanding that we all wish to see must continue, as we strive to ensure that each of us can claim the best of British education, incorporating our own ethnic backgrounds and rich cultural history and heritage? Things are better, but there is still a lot more to do.
Kim Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. However, as I will say later in my speech, I do not think that things have substantially improved, as he suggests, for lots of black children in our education system.
The report produced several key recommendations, including diversifying and decolonising the curriculum, more diversity in teacher recruitment, anti-racism training for teachers, more resources for language support, better data collection and monitoring, and a better approach to working with parents and communities to build trust and encourage active participation in pupils’ education.
Predictably, the Thatcher Government did little to progress those recommendations. However, the following Labour Government took some of the lessons learned as a framework for our Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, particularly the introduction of the duty for public institutions, including schools, to promote racial equality.
However, we know that many racist barriers still exist in education—from disparities in educational attainment to the school-to-prison pipeline, the adultification of black pupils, to the presence of police in schools and the need for a truly anti-racist curriculum. Today’s patterns of racism, segregation and exclusion in education have evolved directly from the policies and attitudes that drove the ESN scandal. The closure of ESN schools in the 1980s led directly to a rapid expansion in the use of school exclusions. We began to see higher numbers incarcerated in prisons, and the expansion of the use of sets and tiering in education, whereby certain groups of children are increasingly denied the opportunity to sit exams at certain levels and then the opportunity to progress in educational settings, including university.
The establishment of pupil referral units is recognised as another method of systematic exclusion from education. We must be clear: the use of PRUs and exclusions are a symptom of failure of the education system. The disruptive behaviour of a child is a cry for help, not a crime. An education system that does not respond with care and support is an education system that is broken. The number of exclusions have soared in recent years, with children as young as five being kicked out of school. Draconian behavioural policies disproportionately impact on poor children, those living in care, and those from black Caribbean, mixed and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller backgrounds.
Swann’s recommendations for an inclusive education system are more important today, and we must take this opportunity to update the lessons learned and apply them to our current system. The societal impact is still as relevant today as it was in the 1960s and 1970s. Lessons must be learnt on the 40th anniversary of the Swann report in order to put an end to this systemic discrimination. Evidence of the scale of the injustice of children being forced needlessly into ESN schools in the 1960s and 1970s is scarce, but we do know about the impact that misclassification as educationally subnormal has had on survivors, some of whom have joined us in the Public Gallery. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for all their work in exposing this scandal and campaigning to raise awareness of the racial injustice that they suffered. Their work has already made a huge difference, and they have my commitment to keep fighting for the justice and dignity that they deserve.
We heard from some of the survivors at the event I held yesterday in Parliament. We heard from Noel Gordon, who told us that he was wrongly misclassified as educationally subnormal after a chain of events starting with him being diagnosed at the age of four with sickle cell. He describes being bullied and abused by teachers, running away from school and his mum fighting tooth and nail to get him out, but to no avail. Through his determination, he has achieved several qualifications including a degree.
We heard from Maisie Barrett, who is a natural creative. She described how she needed support with her academic skills and her stutter, but those resources were and still are systematically denied to black children. She has said that her grandchild is a victim of today’s SEND system, just like she was a victim of ESN. She told us that if she had received a proper education, she might have pursued her dreams and migrated to Jamaica, and fought for recognition for being wrongly classified as educationally subnormal.
We heard from Rene Stephens, who was expelled from his mainstream secondary school after his teacher assaulted him and was sent to an ESN school that neglected his academic development. He left school with no qualifications. Deprived of education and support, he has now spent 18 years in and out of the criminal justice system due to his misclassification. He was forced to abandon his dream of becoming head chef at the Savoy hotel. He says he continues to struggle with societal participation as a direct consequence of being denied a proper secondary education.
We heard from Denise Davidson, who described how, even in her innocence as a young girl, she realised that her school was different to other schools. She remembers challenging her educational psychologist, and described how her experiences now help her as a children’s social worker to support vulnerable children in similar positions.
This is not only an historic injustice; it is a living one for all who went through it. Most left school at 16 or earlier, unable to read, write or count, and were denied the opportunity to thrive and achieve their full potential. The survivors of ESN still have significant problems with self-worth and with accessing meaningful, well-paid work after they were denied an education.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for her excellent speech and for the brilliant event that was organised last night. Does she agree that many brave black parents in the late 1960s, and even earlier than that, recognised the abominable way in which their children were being treated, including people like Bernard Coard who led the campaign against the banding policy in Haringey? At that time, black children were unfairly treated and classified in the way that the hon. Member has described, and we should pay tribute to the brave work of those people and acknowledge the abuse that those families suffered because they stood up for their rights. Her debate today and the meeting she held last night are a testament to the efforts that they put in all those years ago.
Kim Johnson
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and I totally agree with him about the amazing work that Bernard Coard and all those families were involved in as they tried to seek justice and to enable their children to fulfil their potential. That needs to be recognised.
Opportunities to access meaningful, well-paid work were denied to those children, and they continue to face financial hardship because of the barriers to work for those without an education. This has had an impact on their families. A few have succeeded in the face of adversity, gaining qualifications and better jobs. That is a testament to their strength and determination, but they should never have had to struggle in this way.
I would like to take this opportunity to recognise all those whose campaigning helped to get us here today, as well as the incredible campaigners who were misclassified as ESN and who are fighting for justice. My thanks go to Bernard Coard, who pioneered this campaign; to the educator and anti-racist campaigner Gus John for a lifetime of work challenging racism in the British education system; and to all those parents and communities who organised and fought for change so that our children could receive fair and equal treatment and thrive and achieve their full potential. The incredible No More Exclusions group has done invaluable work shining a light on the injustices of the current system of exclusions, and challenging the racist policies and educational segregation that drive the school-to-prison pipeline.
I want to recognise the work of Frances Swaine and Leigh Day solicitors in their pursuit of justice for the survivors, and thank Professor Leslie Thomas KC, Dr Cynthia Pinto and Professor Christine Callender for their pioneering work in this area. I also recognise the incredible work of journalists and producers Lyttanya Shannon and Sir Steve McQueen for exposing this scandal with the BBC documentary, “Subnormal: A British Scandal” and the incredible “Small Axe” series. We have seen with “Mr Bates vs The Post Office” and Jimmy McGovern’s “Common” just how crucial TV and film can be in bringing miscarriages of justice to light, and I hope the same will prove to be true here and that the momentum from this campaign and these dramas will secure justice for those impacted and change a system still producing the same racist outcomes today.
I hope the Minister will join me today in recognising the wrong that was done to the survivors of ESN. A public inquiry into the scandal of ESN schools is necessary, not only to secure justice for the victims of these historical discriminatory policies, but for us to understand how systemic racism and discrimination take form in our current education system and how we can eradicate them. The survivors and campaigners are calling on the Government to give due consideration to a public inquiry, four decades on from the first public inquiry report into racism in education, to learn the lessons of the past and secure justice for all those whose lives were impacted and who continue to suffer.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) on securing this important and, indeed, timely debate on the 40th anniversary of the Swann report. The report is an important and stark reminder of the unacceptable treatment of young people, the majority of whom were from the Caribbean, who were inappropriately placed in so-called educationally subnormal schools during the 1960s and 1970s. My hon. Friend spoke passionately when sharing the experiences of Noel, Maisie, Rene and Denise, ensuring that their voices are heard.
The report serves as a timely reminder to all of us that the mistakes that were made must never be repeated and that we must never be complacent. No children or young people today should suffer from the structural barriers and entrenched racism that held back many in previous generations, and that legacy prevails today. Let it be clear that there is no place for hate or prejudice in our education system, and this Government are determined to root out structural inequality, as well as direct discrimination, to create a genuinely level playing field.
We cannot reflect on the Swann report without acknowledging the history of so-called educationally subnormal schools. We owe it to the campaigners who exposed this and refused to accept that these children were somehow less capable but rather the victims of racism. My hon. Friend mentioned people like Bernard Coard, and more recently the campaign has rightly received renewed attention through the work of the filmmaker Sir Steve McQueen, whose documentary “Subnormal: A British Scandal” shed light on the impact of these policies. It has also sparked important conversations about the ongoing challenges faced by black and ethnic minority students in our education system.
Britain has made strides in tackling overt racial discrimination over the past half century, but despite progress, there is no room for complacency or, indeed, self-congratulation. That is why this Government want to ensure that whoever you are and wherever you come from, Britain will respect your contribution and give you a fair chance to get on in life.
Our opportunity mission will build opportunity for all by setting up every child for the best start in life, helping them to achieve and thrive at school, build skills, and achieve growth and family security. Our work on the opportunity mission will focus cross-Government attention and collaboration on ensuring that every child and young person truly believes that success belongs to them.
We are more committed than ever to tackling the disparities in educational outcomes that persist. The picture of educational achievement across ethnic groups is complex, and different social, economic and cultural factors contribute to that, including parental income, parental career and educational achievement, geography, family structure and attitudes to education in the family and wider community. While overall the outcomes of some ethnic groups now compare positively with national average outcomes, for some groups, outcomes are significantly below average, or worse than for other groups throughout the education system, and that includes black Caribbean children.
One of the most significant factors affecting pupil attainment, which cuts across all ethnicities, is economic disadvantage. International studies show that attainment has broadly improved or remained stable over the last 30 years. However, disadvantaged pupils persistently perform significantly worse on average than their peers at all stages of their education, and there is considerable variation in attainment by region and ethnicity. That is just not acceptable, and it why this Government’s opportunity mission will break down barriers and the unfair link between background and success.
We are determined to help all children achieve and thrive. High and rising standards are at the heart of the mission, and are key to unlocking stronger outcomes. We will deliver those improvements through excellent teaching and leadership; a high-quality curriculum that seeks to deliver a rich, broad, inclusive and innovative education that readies young people for life and work, but that reflects the issues and diversities of our society, ensuring that all children and young people are represented; new regional improvement for standards and excellence—RISE—teams; and a system that removes the barriers to learning that hold far too many children back.
The Department for Education acknowledges that some groups of children have a greater likelihood of exclusion than others. Local context means that there are different patterns across the country, but we are determined to get to grips with the causes of exclusions to ensure that every child, no matter their background, can succeed. We have already committed to providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school. We want earlier intervention in mainstream schools for all pupils, but particularly those at risk of exclusion.
We are absolutely committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, and to strengthening accountability by reforming Ofsted. We will enhance the inspection regime by replacing the single headline grade with a new report card system, telling parents how schools are performing, and introducing a new annual review of safeguarding, attendance and pupil movement, including off-rolling.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
One of the lessons learned through the work that people have done on the ESN scandal is about the role of unconscious bias. We hear from parents, experts, teachers, educational psychologists and others that unconscious bias has the same cause as exclusions. One of the reasons why people are calling for an inquiry is to look at the lessons that can be learned by Ofsted and other agencies about how we support schools and address their practices.
Catherine McKinnell
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We have learned a lot in the past 40 years about unconscious bias and its impact. I will come on to the points he raised about the public inquiry, and the developments over the years—the protections put in place, which we need to work to enforce.
First, I want to touch on the challenges in the special educational needs and disability system today. We have a clear commitment to addressing those challenges. We are prioritising early intervention and inclusive provision in mainstream settings, because we know that early intervention will prevent unmet needs from escalating. It will support all children and young people in achieving their goals, prevent the gap in achievement from growing, and get that support to children at the very earliest stage, so that issues do not escalate.
Underpinning our ambition to create a fairer society is the Equality Act 2010, which enshrines in law that schools must not discriminate, in a number of respects, against a pupil on the grounds of a protected characteristic. Part 6, chapter 1 of the Act ensures fair treatment for all pupils by prohibiting schools from discriminating against, harassing or victimising pupils when it comes to education, access to benefits, facilities and services, exclusion, and other detriments. Additionally, the public sector equality duty requires schools to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations among people of all characteristics. That is what will underpin the improvements that we need to see.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) for securing this debate; she has made important points. The voices of the people affected 40 years ago will never have been heard. Does the Minister agree that poverty and deprivation—she talked about their impact on educational standards—often make it challenging for people to get their voice heard when there are problems? On the Equality Act, does she agree that in making the system fairer, we must ensure that when there are problems, people can speak out and know that they will be heard?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. One of the reasons why we are so focused on early intervention, particularly for children who have experienced a more socioeconomically disadvantaged start to life, is to help children find their voice, so that they can speak up and be a part of the national conversation. That is what we want for every child in our education system.
I am conscious of time, and I want to address the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside raised about the public inquiry. The Government do not currently plan to establish a public inquiry on the policy framework surrounding the placement of children in schools for the so-called educationally subnormal in the 1960s and 1970s.
The 40th anniversary of the Swann report is a timely reminder to reflect on the progress that has been made, but also to ensure that mistakes made at that time are never repeated. It reminds us that there are always ways in which we must go further to ensure that no children or young people today suffer from the structural barriers and entrenched racism that held too many of our young people back in previous generations. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are not complacent; we are committed to delivering a fairer society with better opportunities for all. We firmly believe that every child should know that success belongs to them, which is why we must break down the barriers to opportunity. We are committed to changing the school system so that every child can achieve and thrive.
Kim Johnson
I just wanted to ask my hon. Friend whether she could provide some rationale for why the Government have not decided to go down the route of a public inquiry.
Catherine McKinnell
I think we are out of time, but I am supposed to meet my hon. Friend next week. We can discuss this in more detail then, when we will have more time, but I look forward to continuing to work with her to redress race disparities and work on these issues, which I know she is rightly incredibly passionate about.
Question put and agreed to.