Commons Chamber

Monday 15th September 2025

(began 1 day, 23 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:34
None Portrait Q1. What discussions she has had with the Mayor of London on the closure of front counters at police stations. (905643)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Questions Questions to Questions to the Questions to the Secretary Questions to the Secretary of State Home Department.
14:34
14:35
14:36
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
promises and the Met Police should Can I associate myself with the comments the honourable member made at the start of her question? We have been in close contact with the Met Police as she would expect. Our thoughts are with those officers who were injured, some seriously and we will make sure justice is done for them. They run into danger for us every day. I am clear that the Mayor of London is making the right decisions on policing across London.

Honourable members of course will feel their particular police stations are important and visible policing is clear and what our communities say is they want to see police on our street tackling crime and not sat behind desks doing the job unwarranted officers could do. That is why we are putting neighbourhood policing at the heart of our policies and putting 3,000 police back on the streets by April police back on the streets by April A constituent of mine tried to act as a good Samaritan by handing in a handbag found in the town centre but handbag found in the town centre but could not as the Hemel police station front desk closed under the last government and they were told they would have to travel to they would have to travel to Hatfield, half an hour away.

I welcome the Minister to her place but would she agree with me that but would she agree with me that this police station front desk should be reopened so the police can be even more accessible to constituents? I am not sure that is the responsibility of the Minister. situation to make sure the police do all they can in his community to Been not considered a priority under the last government, antisocial behaviour and low level threat, it is important to communities and we need to make sure we tackle it.
14:38
14:39
14:40
None Portrait Q2. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her Department's polices of the approval under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 between April and June 2025 of the use of 1,656,930 animals over the next five years. (905644)
-

closures and we have got a little bit of an advantage and let's try and stick to the questions.
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
None Portrait Q3. What steps she is taking to help prevent migrants from crossing the English Channel illegally. (905645)
-

I have it on good authority that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people smugglers, sorry, number three. You should have let him go, Mr
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
Chris Philp Portrait Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

will carry on as Home Secretary. Let me start by welcoming the Home Secretary to her place. I'm looking forward to the exchanges we will have so long as the Prime Minister Elisa in post. When it Minister Elisa in post. When it comes to human rights, doesn't she accept that tinkering around the edges simply won't work? She said in edges simply won't work? She said in her recent answer that she wants to see the ECHR reform. But her own Attorney-General said just four days Attorney-General said just four days ago, ECHR reform is " A political ago, ECHR reform is " A political trick.

" Perhaps she and the Attorney-General to get themselves Attorney-General to get themselves on the same page? Given the Attorney-General says the reform is not possible, does she not agree not possible, does she not agree that more fundamental changes are needed? This year has been the worst needed? This year has been the worst in history for illegal immigrants crossing the channel, up 38% compared with last year. Only radical change will fix this mess. radical change will fix this mess. Will she back the Conservative plans Will she back the Conservative plans to completely disapply the Human Rights Act and ensure that all illegal immigrants are immediately removed upon arrival?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

removed upon arrival? Can I say, you know the score, you know I have to get through questions, when colleagues don't get in they will blame the shadow home secretary. Try and help others.
15:17
15:18
None Portrait Q12. What recent progress she has made on establishing a national inquiry into grooming gangs. (905654)
-

Question 12.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The process of selecting a respected and independent chair for
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
None Portrait Topical questions: Home Office
-

We come to topicals.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Mr Speaker. I would like to use a statement to address
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:45
Dan Jarvis Portrait Ministerial statement: Official Secrets Act Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Mr Speaker, this morning the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to proceed with the prosecution of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry who had been charged with espionage for China under the Official Secrets Act of 1911. I know members across this House will be aware the charges related to allegations of Chinese espionage within Parliament and they will want reassurance as will you. Many Be extremely disappointed, as I am, that they will now not be a trial. The decision not to proceed with the prosecution is an independent one for the CPS to make in its role as the country's independent prosecuting authority.

However, I want to be clear the government remains gravely concerned about the threat of Chinese espionage. Parliament and our democracy are sacrosanct. Any attempt by any foreign power to infiltrate or interfere with parliamentary proceedings is completely I therefore want to set up the measures the government is taking to tackle any residual risks arising from this case, and to outline the wider approach government is taking to protecting our democracy and countering state threats during those from China.

The decision by the CPS related to charges under the Official Secrets Act of 1911, which was the relevant legislation in force at the time. It is well known that state threats legislation had not kept pace with the changing threats that we face. The Official Secrets Act was passed to counter the threat from German spies before the First World War. It referred to espionage as obtaining any sketch, plan, model, article, or notes, or other document or information which might be useful to an enemy.

Clearly that language, drafted well over 100 years ago, does not now reflect the types of espionage or state threats that we face in the modern day. Nor the breadth of states who engage directly in this activity. This is why the UK has, with cross-party support, past and now commenced the National Security Act. This legislation replaced the Official Secrets Act in 1911. It brings new criminal offences and powers to bear against the full range of modern day state threats.

Moreover, the National Security Act estate agnostic, removing the unhelpful enemy language from the Official Secrets Act. In focusing on the malign activity we are all concerned with. The National Security Act also introduced the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme which the government brought into force on 1 July. It encourages transparency, strengthening the resilience of our democratic institutions against covert influence. It gives our intelligence agencies and law enforcement additional tools to detect, deter, and disrupt and prosecute state threats actors.

It requires that any foreign influence in our democracy, including from China must be declared. We can now be confident that should cases of espionage or state threats were covered in the future, we will be in a much better place to prosecute them under the new National Security Act. I know that this case sits at the very heart of our democracy. So let me be clear, the government will not tolerate any state threats to the UK and its democratic institutions. We will robustly challenge China when necessary, as we would challenge any country for unacceptable behaviour on our soil.

I can confirm that the Foreign Office has dealt with the affairs of the Chinese embassy to make clear we will not tolerate with any activity that interrupts our democracy was MI5 considering the provision of additional advice to those most at risk of being targeted by state led espionage. The government is taking robust action to counter state threats and continues to build up the U.K.'s resilience. In April, we established a new cross government state threats unit, to better coordinate our response to state threats.

As I set out following the recently completed review of transnational repression, new training modules on identifying and countering state threats are being offered to all 45 territorial policing is the College of Policing and are mandatory for terrorism and counter-terrorism police officers. We have committed to legislate as soon as possible and she time allows, to take forward the recommendations of Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism and state threats legislation. This includes creating a new proscription style tool for state threats.

As the former Foreign Secretary set out in his statement to the House following the conclusion of the China audit, we are investing £600 million in our intelligence services to support them in detecting and disrupting state threats to the UK. In September, National Cyber Security Centre co-sealed the U.S.-led technical advisory calling out Chinese state-sponsored's cyber- threat actors targeting global networks including in the UK. I know there will be calls to go further. I want to reassure the House and the country that we will keep all tools under review and act as necessary.

Mr Speaker, as you are aware, the safety and security of our Parliament is of the utmost importance. That is why the National Protective Security Authority will issue new protective security guidance to parliamentarians and political staff on the protection against foreign interference and espionage. This guidance outlines the potential risk we all may face on a day-to-day work, and how we can all better protect ourselves. I urge colleagues to read and follow the advice. I also urge members to take up the National Cyber Security Centre is important opt in service for members of both houses.

This allows the NCSC to alert individuals if they identify evidence of malicious activity on their personal devices or accounts. And to swiftly advise them on steps to take to protect their information. The Strategic Defence Review was clear that China presents a sophisticated and persistent challenge. And, as the National Security Strategy reinforced, instances of China's espionage, interference in our democracy, and undermining the economic security has increased in recent years. As I have set out, we are addressing those threats.

But there are also opportunities that we need to grasp as we navigate our complex relationship with China. Last government did not describe China as an enemy, and this government does not think that our relationship can be simplified down to a single word. Instead, we are taking a consistent long-term approach to China. Firmly rooted in the U.K.'s global interests. I would like to finish by paying tribute to our law enforcement security and intelligence agencies who do so much to keep us all safe.

They operate often in secret of course, often in the shadows, often at great personal danger, but they have our enduring gratitude. While we are extremely disappointed with the outcome in this case, legislation it relied on has already been changed. Should we need to go further, we will not hesitate to do what is necessary to keep our country safe. I commend this statement to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shadow Home Secretary.
15:54
Chris Philp Portrait Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shadow Home Secretary. Thank you Mr Speaker. Let me start by thanking the Security Minister for the briefing and information he provided head of his information he provided head of his statement. Let me also join Security Minister in paying tribute to the officers both in our police force and in the Security Service. They worked so hard and take personal risks to keep us safe. Let's start with Parliament intelligence and security the assessment into China published a year or two back ago.

They found that China had penetrated " Every sector of our economy. " When the Security Minister a moment ago said that China merely posed a challenge, he was wrong I think to use that word. China poses a threat. They pose a threat because they participate and organise systemic espionage into our public institutions including Parliament. They purloin intellectual policy from universities and companies including in the technology sectors. And they routinely spy on the UK as a state. They also engage in transnational repression of Chinese citizens here including running secret undeclared police stations.

And putting bounties on the heads of individuals. The word "Challenge" is not strong enough. State of China poses a threat. The Security Minister said that the government would robustly challenge China. I would gently point out some of the decisions the government has taken in practice. We saw a signal at the G7 last year the Prime Minister was I'm afraid to say obsequious in dealing with President G. Appearing to prioritise economic links over security considerations. Also not seen any consideration to place China the enhanced tier of the scheme even though the regime has now been in place for several months.

And the government appears to be viewing with favour the application for a new super embassy in London which our allies including America are urging us not to consent, and which many of our intelligence services say will be used as a base for espionage activities. The government's record on China causes deep concern. But of equal concern is this particular case. And you set out why that was a particular concern to Parliament given the alleged espionage activities touch directly on Parliament and the way that MPs do their duty.

I have in front of me a briefing provided to the press by the CPS dated April 26, 2024. This is when the charges were first laid. The CPS briefing says that the subjects, one of the subjects, was commissioned over a period exceeding a year between December 2021 over a period exceeding a year between December 2020 1 February 2023 by Chinese intelligence asset. 34 reports on what this note described as very specific topics. Some of which relate directly and personally to members of Parliament.

One of the Deputy National Security Advisor's told the CPS that he assessed this information to be " Directly or indirectly useful to the Chinese state. " He said the information was " Prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. " Given the gravity of that assessment, it is astonishing the charges have now been withdrawn. The Crown Prosecution Service clearly assessed these allegations and the evidence against the law, against the 1911 act in 2024.

They found the test to have been met. So why is it today, over a year later, suddenly we are told that the test is no longer met? My question to the Security Minister is a simple one, given the gravity of the charges I just read out, what has changed between last year and this year? Why is the case which met the threshold and met the test in April 2024 all of a sudden determined not to? Can I ask specifically, did anyone in government put any pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to this case? Did the government fully cooperate with the police and the security services and the CPS in providing the information required, including in relation to the definition of an enemy? Can the Security Minister give the House this express assurances because I certainly share the speaker's concerns and I'm sure the concerns of many others that what appears to be extremely serious espionage, assessed as such in that written disclosure that I read out, assessed by the Deputy National Security Advisor, has been prejudicial to our national interest, has suddenly and with no explanation been dropped, even though previously, just a year and a bit ago, it was assessed this case did meet the threshold.

This House and the country needs to know House and the country needs to know what exactly has changed.
15:59
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Let me seek to address the points Shadow Home Secretary has made. Firstly he raised the point about whether it constitutes a threat or not. I was clear in the language I have used. As he will know, and as the government set out in the Strategic Defence Review, China presents a sophisticated and persistent challenge. But the reality is that in government, of course there is an absolute requirement to cooperate with nations around the world. Where there are areas that we need to challenge China, course we will do so.

Whether areas we need to cooperate, I'm sure that he and members on that side will understand that there are areas in terms of economic cooperation we need to work closely with China. And of course we will do so because it is absolutely in our national interest. I reference the comments of the previous Foreign Secretary. He might want to look back at the record in terms of what was said following from the China audit. The previous Foreign Secretary was crystal clear, we will take the long-term strategic approach to China which is rooted in the U.K.'s national interest.

I understand why the shadow Home Secretary will want to boil down such a complex bilateral relationship into a single word but the reality is that is neither helpful or sensible to do so. You won't be surprised that I don't agree with his characterisations of what he described as the signals this government has sent to China. In truth, I won't be taking any lessons from him on that. And I said this previously, it is not ever so long ago that the Conservative Prime Minister took China to the pulp.

So he does not speak with authority. He knows the government's position on FURS is that no decision has been taken with regard to China and any decision will be announced in the normal way. It is a crucial tool, and I'm proud that this government has got on and implemented it as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He raised the issue of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He raised the issue of the embassy in London. The application to build the embassy in London is going through an independent going through an independent planning process. The final decision on planning permission will be made in due course by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. What I can be Local Government. What I can be absolutely clear about, in terms of the specific point about the nature of the threat, about the embassy, is of the threat, about the embassy, is of the threat, about the embassy, is national security has been and will continue to be a core priority for this government throughout the process.

He asked me about the CPS process. He asked me about the CPS decision. I know that he does understand that he is asking me understand that he is asking me about decisions made by the CPS that are entirely independent of government. This was an independent decision, made by the CPS. It is not for any government minister to for any government minister to speculate on the reasons behind the decision. As I have said and as I decision. As I have said and as I have been crystal clear, ministers and the government are extremely and the government are extremely disappointed with the outcome in this case and we remain extremely concerned about the espionage threat posed to the United Kingdom.
16:03
16:04
16:04
Lisa Smart Portrait Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
As always I am grateful to the Minister for advanced site of his statement. For years the Chinese Communist Party has worked to undermine the democratic institutions and values that underpin our society. This House is aware of the warnings not least from the Intelligence and Security Committee report on China. That report made clear the previous government lacked a coherent strategy for dealing with the threat posed by the Chinese state and insufficient resources were committed to meet the challenge. We expect to see better from this government.

We are faced with a case where two men, one Parliamentary research with close links to senior MPs, were accused of serious offences under the official secrets act only for the CPS to drop those charges due to insufficient evidence. In this context the decision is worrying. It raises serious questions about the UK in its capacity to detect and prosecute espionage linked to hostile states, espionage linked to hostile states, particularly China. What specific issues with the evidence led the CPS to conclude the threshold for prosecution was no longer met? More broadly, what does the outcome say about our readiness to respond to threats from foreign intelligence services operating on our soil, even within the corridors of this Parliament? The government must make protecting democracy a national security priority and that means implementing the recommendations of the China report in full, ensuring we are not left exposed to foreign interference simply because our interference simply because our system is not equipped to respond.

Finally, the Minister again today commit to introduce legislation for a prescription mechanism for state and state linked bodies as soon as parliamentary time allows. Could we have an update on the timeline to bring this forward and what the scope would be?
16:06
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:10
16:11
16:11
16:13
Alicia Kearns Portrait Alicia Kearns MP (Rutland and Stamford, Conservative)
-
-
I will be responding in a personal capacity but can I start by thanking capacity but can I start by thanking you for the support you have given us over the last two years in place on record my gratitude to the counterterrorism police were exceptional. From a security perspective, these events today are disastrous. They will embolden enemies and look like we are unwilling to defend our nation even when attacked in this place. I hope we will make it easier in future to prosecute foreign spies but can I urge the Minister to reform the treason act so perpetrators face justice and we support private prosecution.

It remains a mystery to prosecution. It remains a mystery to me why these men cannot be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. There is a clear line Secrets Act. There is a clear line between these two, the United work department at the politburo, the top of the Chinese Communist Party. This was information shared prejudicial was information shared prejudicial to the safety and interests of the UK and I believe members were put at personal risk. The honourable member for Tonbridge was told by agency heads evidence was overwhelming and the case beyond doubt and counterterrorism police agreed and counterterrorism police agreed and said the same to me that the standard had been met at the time of charging.

My question is simple. If officials, the security services and officials, the security services and police agree the case was slamdunk, why has the CPS not got it over the line? If CPS was not confident, why given the evidence did they not put it to a jury and test it? So whoever was responsible for the decision, they have weakened the defences of the country today and I am the country today and I am desperately sorry to see it.
16:14
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Mr Speaker, I am grateful to her for her remarks today and completely understand why she has raised them in the way she has done. Let me also join with her in terms of thanking Mr Speaker for the work you have done to keep parliamentarians say. I think the next few days, weeks, months and years it is vital we work together and I look forward to meeting you later today to discuss how we can make sure we work together to safeguard all of our Parliamentary colleagues.

Turning to the substance of the remarks made by the honourable lady, I agree with her characterisation of the National Security Act. I will look carefully at the point she made specifically regarding treason. In terms of her assessment of the decision which has been made, I completely understand why she has arrived at that conclusion as well members across the house. In my opening remarks, I expressed my extreme disappointment at the decision which has been made. These remarks and the judgements people are forming in the House this afternoon will be heard by the CPS.

I know she will take every opportunity as will her honourable friend who she referenced in her introduction to seek a meeting with them at the earliest opportunity, to better understand the decision- making process they have been through. I am not able to speculate on the reason why they have taken this decision. I am disappointed they have done. But I will do all I can to make sure government is organised so we can make sure we have the resources in the right place to stand against threats we
16:15
16:16
16:17
Iain Duncan Smith Portrait Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr Speaker, following comments as someone who has been sanctioned and hounded by the Chinese government hounded by the Chinese government all the way through over the past few years, I was briefed by the security services at the beginning that this was a slamdunk prosecution. They were clear they had met every single requirement within the Official Secrets Act. If you look at what my right honourable friend said earlier, if you look at the Deputy National Security Advisor who communicated by these two characters.

He is very clear that at least 10 of these 34 charges that were laid were absolutely about passing secure information to the Chinese intelligence agency and would be directly or indirectly useful to the Chinese state. That is very clear. It is not about the lack of evidence that this cannot be dropped by the CPS. The key here was the whole idea of the Official Secrets Act defining that work as against an enemy. That is the key. So why in heavens name to the government not, when the opportunity arose, now take the opportunity to raise them up into the upper tier with Russia, North Korea, and Iran? The Minister speaks of threats, threats.

He does not say that China is a threat. He says they are a challenge. It is a ludicrous position. I honestly feel today that this government has now let down the Speaker of this Parliament who has bravely stood for people like me to protect us against the overtures of the Chinese. He has let down Parliament. Nobody knows now whether they are safe and furthermore, it is absolutely key that until we define China as what it is, a threats, a persistent threat that targets individuals like me and others, and states, then this will be a shame

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and a block on a reputation as a strong state against terrorism. I recognise that the right
16:19
16:20
16:21
16:21
16:21
16:22
16:23
16:24
16:24
16:25
16:27
16:27
16:28
16:28
16:29
16:29
16:29
16:30
16:30
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:32
16:32
16:33
16:33
16:34
16:35
None Portrait Points of Order
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

this go. I am one of the MPs who is currently sanctioned by China and I
16:35
16:35
None Portrait Points of Order
-

upon here. I find it astonishing that this case has been dropped and that we haven't been told why it has that we haven't been told why it has been dropped. The one bright spot in this has been your leadership on this issue and your decision to ban this issue and your decision to ban the Chinese ambassador from this building for as long as members are building for as long as members are sanctioned. I worry that certain people will come to you with honeyed words.

How can I thank you for your words. How can I thank you for your leadership and our hope that we continue to stand strong on behalf of neighbours of this house?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of neighbours of this house? You have certainly put it on the record. What I would say as I take seriously the sanctions that have been led. My worry is we are foreign been led. My worry is we are foreign state actors who do not believe in democracy. We must defend our democracy. We must defend members of, and I will say a big thank you to our head of security who has worked very hard on this, and I'm worked very hard on this, and I'm sure that we are all disappointed The terms of standing orders number 24.

The honourable member has three minutes in which to make his application. So David Davis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I take leave to propose a house debate requiring urgent consideration, namely the consideration, namely the appointment process and circumstances leading for the dismissal of the former ambassador
16:36
Neil O'Brien Portrait Points of Order Neil O'Brien MP (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, Conservative)
-
-
dismissal of the former ambassador of the UK to the United States, Lord Mandelson. This is a matter of utmost concern across the house and across party lines. Our ambassador in Washington stands at the centre of Britain's most vital bilateral relationship. It is a role of exceptional sensitivity with more classified intelligence crashing the ambassador's death then reaches most cabinet ministers. The post carries immense responsibility. The ambassador represents interest, and in so doing, shapes our reputation abroad.

His conduct, both prior to appointment and during, must reflect the highest standards of professional Britain, discretion and integrity. Nothing less will do. Lord Mandelson failed that test long before last week's revelations. Long before the understandable public outrage at the disgraceful behaviour with the paedophile Epstein and long before the families of his victims quite rightly criticised the appointment. What was public about Mandelson's past is more than enough to disqualify him from consideration as ambassador. From his resignation from government not once but twice, first in 98 for not telling the truth about an interest free loan and in 2001 for helping a wealthy businessman get a passport.

To his links to a Russian oligarch, a gangsta capitalist who benefited to the tune of many millions of pounds from policies promoted and signed off by Lord Mandelson when he was a UK minister, and relevant today, his commercial links defending China. All of this was in the public domain before the Prime Minister appointed Lord Mandelson as our ambassador. Why was it ever thought acceptable Why was it ever thought acceptable to appoint a man with such a chequered and murky background to such a vitally important position? The house needs to know what vetting The house needs to know what vetting was done and when? What was the was done and when? What was the opinion of the foreign office? The Foreign Secretary, The Cabinet Office, and the security services, and when was the prime minister and when was the prime minister told? We need to know who knew what and when.

The government must take and when. The government must take the house with it on these appointments at their behaviour to appointments at their behaviour to date on this issue has been marked by obfuscation and delay, by recrimination and cover-up. And it recrimination and cover-up. And it is not just a question of the Prime Minister's political judgement, as Minister's political judgement, as important as that is. It is a question of ethics. It is a question of what is deemed acceptable behaviour when in positions of power, and the house must have the opportunity to debate this matter before the recess.
16:39
None Portrait Mr Speaker
-

The honourable member has leaved postdebate on the specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the appointment process, the circumstances leading to dismissal of the former United Kingdom ambassador to the United States, Lord Mandelson. I have listened carefully to the application from the honourable member. I am satisfied that the matter raised by the honourable member is proper to be discussed understanding order number 24. As the honourable member, the leave of the house.

The honourable member shall tend leave the house. The debate will be held tomorrow, Tuesday, 16 September, as the first item of Public business. The debate will last for up to 3 hours and will arise on the motion that the house is considered the specified matter set out in the honourable member's application. Thank you. Change over the May May I May I seek May I seek your May I seek your guidance? May I seek your guidance? I May I seek your guidance? I led May I seek your guidance? I led an adjournment debates last Wednesday, and during the course of that, during an intervention, the amendment for Uxbridge and self rise slip spoke about the missed equipment of things that have been set.

The quota referred to in the debate with the words of the honourable member for Uxbridge & South Ruislip which I sourced from my London use who reported that the honourable member told the local democracy deporting service that the healing to conservatives were guilty of faux outrage on this matter which was both laughable and offensive. If the honourable member has been notified to raise this point of order disputes the words reported in the local service, and sure he can say so. But how can I place on the record the words that I ascribed to him, faux outrage, were a direct

**** Possible New Speaker ****

quote for the honourable member. I assume that the member has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I assume that the member has given notice to the member that he is raising in this matter. Thank you. I thank him for the point of
16:43
16:44
16:44
Peter Kyle Portrait Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP, Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Hove and Portslade, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to make my first appearance at the despatch boxes the secretary of state for business and trade to deliver the biggest improvements in workers rights for a generation as part of this Labour government's employment rights Bill. The piece of legislation which formed a key plank of my parties manifesto commitments. I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to my friend for his work on this bill, and in widely supporting our country to get to growth.

I pay tribute to my friend the member for Ashton-under-Lyne for her tireless fight for the rights of workers, working people, and without whom this bill will simply not exist. Also, to my honourable friend who worked so hard to get the legislation to this point. Also, to my dear friend the Baroness Jones whose indefatigable work on the other place has ensured that this bill was steered through the legislative process with a very steady hand. To many of these people who have worked on this bill, it has been a life's work and the culmination of an enormous amount of effort on their part for which I am effort on their part for which I am This is a landmark bill, it is pro- worker and pro-business, which supports the government's objectives to boost growth and living standards, across the country.

It is so early on I will happily give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He may pre-empt this question, it has been asked several times before but we never had an answer. Could you point a small medium sized

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you point a small medium sized business that would actually support this bill coming forward? Of course I can. Many businesses

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course I can. Many businesses have now come out to support. A small business or a large business, let me give in one of each. I talked let me give in one of each. I talked to the SMEs, if you'd like to get some support from that, the R and W Scott Ltd, a leading UK manufacturer, based in South Lancashire, specialising in high Lancashire, specialising in high quality ingredients, for jams. Came out in a steadfast support. If you want a large businesses who bank, want a large businesses who bank, you got the Co-op, Centrica and you got the Co-op, Centrica and richer sounds.

All businesses which he will note will be serving his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he will note will be serving his community, his constituents and he should get behind those businesses, in their support of this bill. Of course I give way. I thank the Secretary of State

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Secretary of State and I welcome him to his new role. You will be aware, one business in my constituency welcomed this legislation and the party opposite heckled and said they are Swedish, heckled and said they are Swedish, is IKEA. Would you recognise the huge amount of employment IKEA provides for this country welcome the foreign investment and welcome the fact IKEA work with this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation because they realise it is supporting their staff, leading to productivity or loyalty. I congratulate him for being a champion for investment into our country, unlike the party opposite, who did down the country in government and they do it down in government and they do it down in opposition to. The task this government has set itself is formidable, to update employment formidable, to update employment law, to make it fit for the age, in which we live. To reward good employers and ensure that the employment protection given by the employment protection given by the best are extended to millions of more workers.

It would be a pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to give way. I have a letter from the Hampshire Chamber of Commerce, which Hampshire Chamber of Commerce, which says, he needs to hear this, "Businesses are not opposed to all "Businesses are not opposed to all the changes that will be made to the changes that will be made to employment legislation. " But they do focus on several areas of concern, such as involvement of a tribunal in deciding whether an employee has been legitimately employee has been legitimately dismissed during their probation period and moving statutory sick pay period and moving statutory sick pay waiting days and changes to trade union wreck addition and industrial union wreck addition and industrial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary of State. I'm grateful he is a thoughtful contribution reflecting the voice of chambers who did an incredible job, right around our country and around right around our country and around the world. I say to the chambers and the world. I say to the chambers and I say to him that this bill reflects the best standards that are already in use, right around the country, by the very best employers and indeed the very best employers and indeed most employers. Those employers have nothing to fear but a lot to gain nothing to fear but a lot to gain from this legislation.

In terms of consultation, this is a government who listens constantly. We will who listens constantly. We will continue to listen going forward and of course for those measures for which the implementation phase is really important, there are usually four consultations for which four consultations for which businesses can engage. This is a listening government, it is an acting government and it is one that will deliver on our manifesto will deliver on our manifesto commitments. Of course, the right honourable member.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are many things within the legislation tonight that we welcome, but can I come on behalf of small businesses make this question. It businesses make this question. It cost them 3.5 thousand a year, some 5 million across the UK and Northern 5 million across the UK and Northern Ireland. They are worried that the legislation could raise their fees legislation could raise their fees for next year. How will this bill give support to small businesses if they cannot afford to pay sick pay, as well as the cost...

It is a constructive question, small

**** Possible New Speaker ****

businesses need the answer. In all of the jobs I've had on the Frontbench I've enjoyed our exchanges. Voice constructive and exchanges. Voice constructive and always well-intentioned. I do not always well-intentioned. I do not expect it to be so swiftly into my new position that we would be enjoying the relationship, in a enjoying the relationship, in a renewed wave. All I say to the honourable gentleman and also to the incredible businesses he has in his community, which I have had the community, which I have had the pleasure of visiting in the past, that a healthy workforce is a productive workforce.

We intend to productive workforce. We intend to ensure that the health and the well-being and also support for well-being and also support for employees, in the workplace, is that then it is structured in a way they can get the very best out of them. That is a benefit to employees and That is a benefit to employees and it is certainly a benefit to employers as well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

employers as well. I'm very grateful that honourable friend are giving way. He will no doubt remember those dark days of doubt remember those dark days of Covid, when people found themselves Covid, when people found themselves having to turn up in the workplace, despite the fact that they were sick and poorly. And that contributed to and poorly. And that contributed to the spread of the pandemic. Doesn't that illustrate the need to make sure that where people are ill, that sure that where people are ill, that they are able to rely upon the sickness absence framework that supports them and allows them to return to work when they have recovered.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend makes an incredibly important point. Whether incredibly important point. Whether it is in times of crisis like Covid, all times of good, there are the all times of good, there are the good and there are those employers who seek to sometimes fall beneath the standards. Covid did shine a light on the exact challenges that light on the exact challenges that can be faced, in the workforce and specifically in those times we needed to see the best of everyone.

needed to see the best of everyone. The majority of workers, businesses in that period supported their employees, through that time of challenge. We ought to make sure challenge. We ought to make sure that the floor, the floor is high enough, so that the hundred of every workforce represents the standards workforce represents the standards set by the best, not those who fell set by the best, not those who fell short of what we expect of Britain short of what we expect of Britain short of what we expect of Britain I'm going to make a bit more progress, having taken three or four interventions and then I'll happily give way.

Today asking the House to renew its commitment to this renew its commitment to this legislation, asking all members to endorse the government's amendments which seek to clarify, strength and a number of measures and to reject amendments put forward by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrat peers who have joined peers forces There are those exemptions, exceptions to that we have worked sincerely with the aim of scrutinising working another place, that is sure that this bill was steered through the legislative process, with a steady hand.

I will give way on that point, yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In opposition, the now government, probably rightly criticised this aside for Henry VIII criticised this aside for Henry VIII powers. And yet, the unemployment bill is absolutely riddled with the same Henry VIII powers. Does he same Henry VIII powers. Does he agree with the Attorney-General that Henry VIII powers a strike at the very heart of the rule of law?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very heart of the rule of law? I agree that such powers need to be used wisely and in this case you'll notice that the implementation phase of many of these clauses are accompanied by these clauses are accompanied by guidance, in primary legislation and four consultations with the businesses that will be affected by businesses that will be affected by it. Members will have their voice in the businesses that are affected by this bill and also workers affected by this bill will have their voice going forward.

In both houses, through the passage of this bill, through the passage of this bill, there have been improvements to the legislation and I am grateful to legislation and I am grateful to members of both houses for their tireless work. I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tireless work. I give way. Very much the vast majority of this Employment Rights Bill is this Employment Rights Bill is entirely to be welcomed. There is amendment 61 which relates to heritage railways and heritage tramways and allow people under the age of 16 to volunteer on those heritage railway lines. It has been so narrowly worded as to be specifically for those sectors and it will give young people fantastic opportunities to learn about technology and to work across generations and contribute to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

communities, could the government please consider this. I'm grateful for her intervention. I know this is something that affects the community she represents here and is a tireless champion here by the APPG. tireless champion here by the APPG. tireless champion here by the APPG. I'm going to come to that in specific terms. I think Elizabeth Taylor the answer to that point and Taylor the answer to that point and if she was to come back in army and hand having heard the explanation as to why we're not supporting the amendment, I will happily take another intervention.

I will start by speaking to the amendments about the government have made in the the government have made in the other place. The majority of these reinforce and strengthen the existing measures in the bill, by existing measures in the bill, by making technical adjustments. They close loopholes to safeguard policy functionality and resolve uncertainty, as to ensure that uncertainty, as to ensure that measures are comprehensive and will be and effectively deliver the policy intended to set out by the policy intended to set out by the plan, to make work pay.

Some of the substantial amendments follow from excellent campaigning done by members of this House and in the other place and demonstrate the government is listening and taking action, where it is appropriate. The action, where it is appropriate. The Government's amendments on zero hour contracts strengthen and clarify the provisions already in the bill, when it left this place. Our commitment Our commitment to planning exploitative zero hour contracts, in the culmination of years of campaigning, by Labour MPs, trade unions and the wider Labour movement, for too long, these contracts have been used to replace full-time jobs to stop the government's amendments tabled in the other place reflect our commitment to getting the details right, informed by extensive engagement, with a wide range of businesses, trade unions and other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

expert stakeholders. My husband suffered a catastrophic brain haemorrhage which catastrophic brain haemorrhage which meant that he could not return to his work. After he began to recover, his work. After he began to recover, he started to work again in another job and helped, by a zero hours job and helped, by a zero hours contract. This meant that if he wasn't well enough he could agree with his employer that his hours could be adjusted to suit. The practical and fair solution is to practical and fair solution is to give Steph a right to request a zero hours contract, rather than hours contract, rather than replacing a requirement for businesses to offer a zero hours contract.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

contract. I'm extremely grateful and please, I hope that she will note, from the House, the sympathy and from the House, the sympathy and encouragement for her husband. I am sure she will pass it on from me and others for the tenacity and resilience he has shown. I'm going resilience he has shown. I'm going to come also to this point, in the bill, shortly. In summary, we feel that for putting the onus on employees to request, rather than employees to request, rather than the employers to deliver would Several categories of workers, in the workplace, particularly those of younger age and vulnerabilities.

We'll come to that in a minute. If she would like to intervene again, of course it would be a delight to take any further intervention she might have. Technical changes include clarifications as to how zero hour contracts provisions apply zero hour contracts provisions apply to agency workers. Reinforcements, reinforcement of the guaranteed hours provisions in relation to workers with annualised contracts and interaction with unfair dismissal. Refinement of the rights to payment for short notice provisions, in relation to when payment is due and notices, exemptions and expansions of provisions to staff employed by both houses.

Together, these amendments strengthen the legislation by ensuring it is fair, it is proportionate and it is clear. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just with reference to 0 hour contracts and short notice periods. There was an opportunity in the There was an opportunity in the House of Lords to support the Lib Dem amendment which was to give it 48 hours notice. What happened was Labour voted against that and have not come forward with the alternative suggesting it would take alternative suggesting it would take to 2027 before it will consider what those are. Can the Minister explain those are. Can the Minister explain while having to wait nearly 3 years before we get a response like?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The powers that he refers to are strike powers. We've committed to consult on those powers and then to consult on those powers and then to walk back, based on the outcomes of the consultation was that that is the consultation was that that is something I think is a firm commitment from this government and shows that we are listening, we will learn from the consultation and if learn from the consultation and if necessary we will act. Of course I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. I thank the Minister. When he's looking at that Willie also take in looking at that Willie also take in the agricultural sector are one of the big concerns with seasonal work you're not going to necessarily have time when the weather changes to time when the weather changes to give the notice period. On behalf of all our farmers please can he consider this going forward. Speak grateful for her intervention and being a member of Parliament with being a member of Parliament with the beautiful county of Sussex, I'm very aware of the need to seasonal workers and of course in the agricultural sector.

It is our belief that the bill does allow the flexibility for that sector. If she would want to write to me with any further updates, of course I always willing to listen. Now go to make a little bit of prose Gres I'm sure he'll understand and then I will come back. Now we move on to bereavement leave. Which will ensure that every employee has an immediate right to bereavement leave from the first day of employment. As both houses have agreed or easement is not an illness.

Or a holiday and it needs its own special category. The government amendments and another place expand bereavement leave entitlement to include pregnancy loss, occurring before 24 weeks. I want to pay tribute to all of those who have campaigned on this change. The Women and Equalities Committee and specifically my friend, the Member for Luton North and other countless women who have told their own very personal and painful stories of loss, as part of the campaign for this important change.

I've been very open about my own experiences with grief and loss. I feel very strongly that people needed time away from work to grief. No one who is going through the heartache of pregnancy loss should be worrying about work. They must be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I give way to the honourable gentleman. I am taking him back to a zero

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am taking him back to a zero hours contract. The seasonality of hours contract. The seasonality of the hospitality industry and boatbuilding down in my constituency where large numbers of students are where large numbers of students are taken on, scheduling for guaranteeing hours is very, very difficult, particularly when they students themselves benefit from the provision because they want to partake in races and other seasonable activities of leisure nature. nature.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nature. And grateful to his concerns for his constituency which has a vibrant economy, and to universities. These are issues for which I have pay particularly close attention. I can particularly close attention. I can reassure him that the bill refers to exploitative zero hours contracts. exploitative zero hours contracts. It is clear that people will want employment on different terms, and we do have flexibility in their for we do have flexibility in their for those circumstances. But where there is exploitation which we all agree is exploitation which we all agree surely exists within the economy at the present time, or the potential for it, these are the sorts of things that we should act against.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the positive spirit with which he speaks, the reference period for sectors which have serious seasonality, boatbuilding, tourism, seasonality, boatbuilding, tourism, farming, the reference period will not be a ridiculously short period not be a ridiculously short period for those sectors such as 12 weeks which will be long enough to reflect the seasonal nature of that type of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

work. Again, I am grateful for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Again, I am grateful for the passion with which he speaks, and it is an important point which is why we are consulting on that threshold. we are consulting on that threshold. We want to get it right, and as my We want to get it right, and as my predecessors have said, this is a bill that is good for workers and bill that is good for workers and good for business too, and that is the spirit with which we will continue. Moving onto the fire and rehire which members will know has rehire which members will know has been a long-running campaign led by trade unions.

The provisions in this bill will encourage employers and bill will encourage employers and ensure that employers will no longer be able to lose fire and hire practices, and no longer will we be practices, and no longer will we be able to fire employees to fire them able to fire employees to fire them again on low pay. The clause also ensures protection for employees replaced by non-employee workers, such as agency staff to do the same role. These reforms are, as we said in our manifesto, a pro-business, pro-worker set of measures.

They strike a balance, curbing misuse while allowing fair businesses time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for adaptation. I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for giving way. This bill is going to make work for thousands in my make work for thousands in my constituency. I constituents are worried, however, that the benches worried, however, that the benches opposite are seeking to water down this legislation. Can the Secretary of State confirmed that the of State confirmed that the government will resist these attempts and his committee to introducing the bill in full?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

introducing the bill in full? I am very grateful for her intervention and I understand that there will be workers around the country who will be worried about the watering down of such legislation, and I can reassure her that as long as they work labour, that as long as they work labour, that will never be happening. In the other place, the government made amendments to strengthen protections amendments to strengthen protections for social care workers and small support staff, ensuring that workers whose employees go above and beyond the minimum standard set out by the the minimum standard set out by the negotiating bodies will have those better terms protected.

How could I resist?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resist? I thank my right honourable friend for giving way. As a former schoolteacher and leader, I know the value of support staff and how critical that they are. But as my right honourable friend agree with me that the Lords Amendments 121 is unnecessary? The bill already ensures that no negotiating body can prevent employers from licking at higher terms and conditions where they wish to do so. The school support staff body regrettably abolished in 2010, but this government will reinstate it.

This amendment would add needless bureaucracy and risk blocking flexibility that schools and staff rightly expect.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She has demonstrated many things in that intervention, including what a great teacher she was. I can a great teacher she was. I can assure her, as a former chair of governors and a governor on a couple of schools, that I can also share value of teaching assistants and all of those who support the education of those who support the education of young people, and of course, I agree, the Bill as it stands get the balance right, and that is why we are proceeding as we are.

Turning to the amendments on the international the amendments on the international maritime provisions, the government amendment to the provisions to clarify the regulation to implement clarify the regulation to implement future agreements may not be brought into force before the agreement is into force before the agreement is ratified, but by implication, such regulations may be made before it is regulations may be made before it is ratified. This will allow the UK to ratified. This will allow the UK to meet its international obligation by ensuring such regulations can be made ahead of the deadline for made ahead of the deadline for bringing them into force.

Moving now to fair work agency provisions which to fair work agency provisions which will establish a single body to enforce a wide-ranging of employment enforce a wide-ranging of employment rights. The government amendments are technical refinement and coordination. They clarify definitions of worker and employer. Enable summary sheriffs in Scotland to act on underpayment notices and refine provisions on datasharing between enforcement bodies. These amendments ensure fair work agency can operate smoothly and effectively. In another place, government also made an amendment to change the time limit in the occupational and personal pension schemes regulation 2006 from 3 to 6 months, ensuring consistency with wide employment tribunal time limits reforms.

Moving to amendments made in the other place to the trade union provisions, the government has refined the provisions of the trade union recognition by adding sanctions for non-compliance, requiring timely sharing of worker data and tightening timelines to protect bargaining units. Together, these amendments enhance fairness, transparency, and enforceability in trade union recognition. I now come to nondisclosure agreements. This government is committed to ending the misuse of NDA's which silence victims of disco nation and victims of disco nation and bullying.

I want to thank members here and in the other place for their work on this issue, and I want to thank Zelda Perkins, founder of can't buy my silence for her tireless campaigning. In my right honourable friend, the member for Sheffield champions this because for many years and it must be a good day for her to see another step forward

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in delivering the rights. And very grateful to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And very grateful to the secretary of state for giving way and I'm sure the house would like to know that Zelda Perkins join us in know that Zelda Perkins join us in the gallery today to thank her for her tireless work on this issue. The roadmap for implementation of this legislation was published before the government's, so I wonder if the Secretary of State could confirm Secretary of State could confirm when he will commence consultation and when the government is aiming for commencement of this primary for commencement of this primary legislation so the ban on NDA's can come into force?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

come into force? I'm grateful and it is great to know that Zelda is here today, and also, that she is here to give voice to so many of the campaigners. The Prime Minister has confirmed that Prime Minister has confirmed that the roadmaps stand as is. We brought forward to amendments to strengthen forward to amendments to strengthen provisions to the bill to provide victims, while preserving NDA's, to protect legitimate business protect legitimate business interests. The new clause will allow interests.

The new clause will allow workers to speak freely about their experiences and allow those who have witnessed misconduct or have witnessed misconduct or have knowledge of it to call it out by avoiding NDA's which have been used to try and silence victims. The government will consult on related secondary legislation before commencing this measure. The government proposes to new amendments, the first will extend amendments, the first will extend the scope of the clause to include staff of both houses. We are proposing that this change following discussions with Parliamentary authorities.

The second is designed to give disabled workers more protection. It will extend the scope of relevant discrimination to include a failure to include reasonable adjustments for disabled persons in section 21 of the Equality Act 2010. This will ensure that all forms of harassment and discrimination in the Equality Act are covered. I will now set out the government's position on the 28 non-government amendments made to the bill in the other place which cover 12 policy areas.

Amendment one addresses provisions on zero hour contracts and seeks to change the onus from the employer to the employee. It shifts the current provision from the right to guaranteed hours from a duty on employers to offer work to qualifying workers on a model where employees must actively request them. I will give way in a moment when I have finished my discussion. The government believes the duty to offer guaranteed hours should lie with the employer. The right to request model could create undesirable barriers making it especially difficult for vulnerable workers on exploitative zero hours contracts.

To access their right to guaranteed hours, especially as some workers are younger and may be in their first job. As of June 2025, approximately 480,000 people in employment are on zero hours contracts. Out of a total of one point are on zero hours contracts. Out of a total of 1.18 million workers on zero hour contracts overall. Our position strikes a balance between protection and choice, and for that reason, the government does not support the proposed amendment, and I give way if she would like to get to her feet.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that it is different in the way of looking at this primarily. It is not a watering down of the bill. It is adding in more flexibility so that people get the opportunity to see the kind of employment that works for them, and employment that works for them, and that is particularly important in an environment where we are trying to get people off disability benefits

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and into work. And very grateful for her thoughtful intervention. I still believe that in order to exercise believe that in order to exercise rights, you have to know they exist, and young people in particular in such numbers through zero hour contracts, then the majority of them simply wouldn't know that those simply wouldn't know that those rights exist for them. By changing the onus on to employers, it clarifies the rights they have and ensures that every workplace must offer an equal access to employment offer an equal access to employment hours, and yet this bill does hours, and yet this bill does include flexibilities and I think those flexibilities will encompass the situations to which she has the situations to which she has legitimate concern.

A short notice cancellation payment is only due where the shift is cancelled less than 48 hours before. Short our regulation will follow a consultation. Of course I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know that 48-hour is seems like a long time to some government ministers, but would he agree with me that having a shift cancelled at short notice would be bad news to many workers across the country, and this bill should be amended to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

specify unacceptable notice period? I think the bill actually gets

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the bill actually gets the balance right. 48-hour is a long time for most people in most time for most people in most workplaces, although I have witnessed some speeches which have been a lot shorter than that seem to be a lot longer. Perhaps the one that is currently unfolding is an example. The consultation will determine a fair short notice period which works for businesses and which works for businesses and workers. It is getting the implementation detail in regulations which will retain the Flex ability which will retain the Flex ability to respond to changing circumstances.

The government has circumstances. The government has already set the face of the bill that short notice will not be more than seven days and we are committed than seven days and we are committed to continuing to work closely with businesses and trade unions in careful consideration with the right careful consideration with the right Amendment 21 would give employees who are special constables the right to reasonable time off to carry out their police duties. This government recognises the value and of the role that special constables play in keeping our community safe.

A role that has been highlighted by the campaign led by the Association of special Constabulary officers and the amendment originally tabled in the Commons by the Member for Bridgwater. We acknowledge the strength of feeling behind this proposal and recognise the importance of ensuring that the list of public duties reflects the needs of a modern society. However, before any changes are made, we believe a wider review of duties that employees may take time off work to undertake is required.

Today, we are proposing an amendment in lieu, to make a statutory commitment, to undertake a full review of the list of duties captured under section 50 of the employment rights act 1996. And to publish a summary of the findings of the review, within 12 months. With specific reference to special constables. To review, the review is already underway, reflecting our commitment to act swiftly and transparently on the important issue, following the strong case made in both houses and the cross-party engagement, for this issue, for which we are grateful to have received.

The review will assess whether the current list of public duties qualifying for time off remains fit for purpose and in consider the inclusion for additional roles, including special constables. The approach ensures that any changes are informed by robust evidence and stakeholder input. Moving onto laws amendments 23, 106 106.2 and 120 which seek to reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal, from two years to 6 months while preserving existing exemptions. The government does not support these amendments. We are elected on a manifesto to provide, to provide unfair dismissal protections from day one of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

employment. Am grateful to the Secretary of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, he has been very generous. Can you explain why before he came into this, the responsibility for the spill, the assessment was done on the hiring practices under the care that unfair dismissal. Was reduced from two dismissal. Was reduced from two years. Why is there no modelling of back? It is in the manifesto, where back? It is in the manifesto, where is the evidence of what it would do to jobs and the economy.

That's what my constituents are concerned about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my constituents are concerned about. Many will be concerned about the protections that they have been workforces and for those set up and running and managing businesses, they want to get the balance right they want to get the balance right too. We have many years experience that have informed the decisions that we take in and of course the engagement with trade unions and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

engagement with trade unions and other bodies have made sure that we have got this balance right. The Secretary of State as mentioned trade unions. It allows me mentioned trade unions. It allows me to get back to a point he made about banning fire and rehire. The general secretary of the Unite union said in secretary of the Unite union said in July that what Birmingham was providing was fire and rehire. If providing was fire and rehire. If this Labour government does not like the idea fire and rehire, when will it tell its colleagues in Birmingham

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think is making an argument for the bill. We will make sure that every employer, throughout the whole every employer, throughout the whole country, actually has the same legislative framework to operate in. I give way to him and then I will I give way to him and then I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I give way to him and then I will let all members know I want to make trying times and send their speeches as well, I'll be rattling through from now on. What can be said to the boat

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What can be said to the boat holding industry, that they'd representation to me, protection from day one, when when you take on from day one, when when you take on a craftsman it can actually take quite a long time before you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

quite a long time before you establish whether he is any good, up to the job at all. The reassurance that I make is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The reassurance that I make is that the reassurance we have to implement this policy, having listened to employers and making listened to employers and making sure that the rights and the rights that we have committed to an manifesto are fully upheld. I just say that what employers want is to say that what employers want is to have workers who are fully committed to their life in the workplace. And for those who feel they are operating with the sort of Damocles over the head, in an unreasonable way, will not be getting the best productivity out of those workers.

It is in progress now. We have said explicitly that our intention is to provide for a less onerous approach to businesses to follow, to dismiss someone. Join the statutory oration., For reasons to do with their performance and suitability for the role. The Government is committed to undertaking a public consultation, to get the details of the statutory period it right and keep it light touch and the standards right. Most employers, who use contractual probation periods operate them for six months, or less.

The government for preference is for a statutory probation period to be a nine months long. This enables an employer to operate a basic six month probation period, with an option to extend, extension where employees wish, where employees wish to give their employees further time to improve their performance. We will consult on the duration.. This is why the Government will not agree to this amendment. We now move into laws amendments of 48. Which seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard for, requirements for seasonal workers were making regulations.

The Government does not believe this amendment is necessary. The bill already reflects the realities of a seasonal work, for example allowing guaranteed hours offers, for limited term contracts, where appropriate, such as for task -based, all-time bound roles. This government does not believe this amendment is necessary, as the approach taken in the bill already protects seasonal jobs, while ensuring that fair rights for workers, which is why the Government will be declining this amendment. I now move to laws amendments 49 which seeks to require consultation on the effects of provisions in part one.

Ensuring that at least 500 SMEs are included in the consultation. SMEs are the backbone of British economy. And their insights are vital to shaping policy works in practice. That is why our approach to the implementation includes 13 targeted consultations running through to 2026. We think it is a more 2026. We think it is a more effective and proportionate for us to come for us to extensively engage with SMEs, as planned through the consultation, we have described in our roadmap and ensure SMEs views help shape the implementation.

Given the comprehensive process, the Government considers that the amendment must be rejected. Moving onto laws and 46, this would have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations within six months, to extend the circumstances in which employer, in which an employee is considered automatically unfairly dismissed.. It requires certain employers to take responsible steps, to investigate whistleblowing claims. The Government does not support this amendment. We recognise that the whistleblowing framework and the employment rights act 1996 might not be operating as effectively as it should be.

However, we believe any new reform should be considered as part of a broader assessment of that framework. This is why the government considers that the amendment must be rejected. Turning to the next amendment, amendment 47, which inserts a new clause in the bill, workplace representation. The amendment would allow workers and employees to be accompanied by certified professional companion to grievance hearings. The law already guarantees workers the right to be accompanied any disciplinary or grievance hearing, by a fellow worker, a trade union representative, or an official employee by trade union.

Employees may allow other companions to attend four meetings on a discretionary four meetings on a discretionary basis. The current law has served workers and employees for well over two decades. It strikes the right balance between fairness, flexibility and practicality and we believe it should remain this way. Moving on to amendment 60 which seeks to remove the restrictions against young people aged 14 to 16, working on a heritage railway or a heritage tramway, only. From the meaning of employment, in an industrial setting.

The Government doesn't believe this amendment is necessary. The benefits of youth volunteering in heritage railways cannot be underestimated and through proper health and safety management, this already works well. The 1920 act doesn't ban youth volunteering inappropriate roles in heritage railways. Well run schemes, like in Swanage show young people can still take part, safely and legally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will politely remind the Minister that he is therefore advising heritage railways to effectively break the law. Because that is how the law stands and the that is how the law stands and the parents or a local authority were to parents or a local authority were to bring an action against the heritage railway they would find themselves in that position. I would really urge him, if he cannot change in this legislation, then we can discuss how it might be brought forward in another way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Growth of intervention this has been a lot of consolation and examination in my department. I can assure you that we have looked very closely at it and believe that the existing law is fit for purpose in this case. We will proceed on the terms here. Of course as she's found throughout both of our time in this throughout both of our time in this place we are happy to sit down with the specific case of being so far into the job.

We will proceed because the advice is so clear on because the advice is so clear on this matter. The laws amendment 61 and 72 seats removed clause 59 related to trade union political funds from the bill. Clause 59 reverses the changes introduced by the Trade Union Act in 2016. Reinstating arrangements whereby the union, union members are automatically opted in to contribute automatically opted in to contribute to political funds, unless they choose to opt out. This is a key step in lifting the burden of the 2016 act and returning to a long- standing precedent, that worked for 70 years.

Moving clause 59 would break a clear government commitment. This is why the government considers that the amendments are to be rejected. Turning to laws amendment 62, which seeks to remove clause 65, from the bill. The effect of which would be to retain 50% turnout threshold requirement for industrial action balance. The Government does not support this amendment. The bill brings union democracy into line with other democratic mandates. Including votes, in this Parliament. And elections for each and everyone of us.

Clause 65 is a step towards fairness and consistency, and how we respect collective voices. That is why this government considers that the amendment must be rejected. Amendment 121 is another duplicate amendment. We agree that the SSSNB should not block employers who wish to go further than the minimum terms and conditions, which is already stipulated in the bill. The amendment duplicate the effect of section 140 8M, six, section B. This is why the government will be rejecting this amendment.

I urge members to support the government amendment, before the House today, including amendments in loo, in relation to the extension of rights to time off for special constables. We have listened throughout the bill's passage and we have made meaningful changes, when needed, including leaf and nondisclosure arrangements. We will continue to listen in relation to further work to be undertaken when implementing the bill. The employment rights bill is a major step forward. Modernising protections and delivering on our commitment to Make Work Pay.

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker I am, very grateful for the opportunity to speak and present the bill and I now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to others to speak. Amendment A proposed to laws amendment 22, is on the notice paper. The question is that the amendment made? Shadow Secretary of
17:29
Andrew Griffith Portrait Andrew Griffith MP (Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

State Andrew Griffith. May I welcome the new Secretary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place and Grech laid him on his appointment as well as the members of the Halifax and the members of the Halifax and Rhondda. It is a vitally important role in government and it will surely be a delight and a privilege to him to champion our hard-working, innovative businesses, in cabinet and on the world stage as President of the world of trade. I welcome his comments that the government's priority must be to double down on growth and position itself as an active partner, that delivers success, supports business and backs wealth creation.

When he does that, he can be assured of our support. But Madam Deputy Speaker, if that is really his view, then we should not be debating this bill today and the Government should never have brought it forward. I can in fact well understand why Ministers may well be concerned about job security and last-minute shift cancellations. After all, their predecessors, the Member for Ellesmere Port and the Member for Harrow West had their own front bench ships today cancelled by the Prime Minister, with barely a week's notice.

Apparently that Bath didn't even have the decency to fire them in person. At least they can take comfort in knowing that the current rate of departures from number 10. There won't soon be anyone left to do the sacking. This is the wrong bill,... It is the wrong bill, at the wrong moment. Rather than proceed with the bill, which on the government's own assessment will reduce employment and growth, now is that the time to The Secretary of State can't do what he himself believes because they are too weak.

They have a Prime Minister who is incapable of providing the leadership that we need this time. In time, they will come to realise that this is a moment that we walk the plank with an anchor tied around his feet. The business world is watching today in disbelief. Only last week, hiring demand has fallen to a new low with the UK recording one of the sharpest lowdown is in the world. The Institute of directors, business confidence has fallen to its lowest point in two years.

The Chancellor has declined to repeat her clear assurance given previously to the CBI that the government wouldn't come forward with more borrowing or taxes, and there is a backlog at the claimant tribunal which are Secretary of State did not mention once which was 491,000 at the last count. The five largest business organisations almost without precedent have written jointly on this bill that it will have deeply damaging implications for the growth mission and we have just heard the Minister reject even the amendments which might mitigate.

These are not unreasonable amendments. They are not partisan amendments. Almost all have cross-party support including from their own party in the other place. They are the result of consultation with business, careful consideration, and weeks of debate in the other place, and it will be a bad day for democracy if honourable and right honourable members vote against them today. And before they have to account to their constituents, I strongly urge them to study exactly what it is that they will be voting against.

Amendment 23 to amendments 120 have a core purpose of stopping this company slipping into the rates of youth unemployment seen in other European countries. We are getting a first chance that feels more like a lottery and a smooth passage into the workforce. Those opposite often like to cast themselves as the party of social mobility, but the reality is, if you remove employment, you will key social mobility. The debates in the other place highlighted the impact of not having a qualified period, not just on businesses but for the police and GPs to.

And no proposal has been accepted that reconciles the promise to recognise a day one right to unfair dismissal with a commitment to a light touch process for probation. At this stage, the only way to avoid undermining the government's target is to accept the amendment added in the House of Lords that reduces that period.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the Minister understand fair

**** Possible New Speaker ****

dismissal and unfair dismissal? The shadow minister absolutely understands that and does so and understands that and does so and understands the indication of this clause from having spoken to make UK, CBI, the Institute of directors, the British Chamber of Commerce, and the British Chamber of Commerce, and the Federation of Small Businesses, all of whom urge the government to rethink on this particular clause. Business don't recognise the idea that a process that ends in a full legal tribunal flanked by lawyers legal tribunal flanked by lawyers after typically a two-year wait and loss management time is light touch loss management time is light touch as the bill describes.

Legal fees as the bill describes. Legal fees alone for unfair dismissal case

**** Possible New Speaker ****

range from 15,000 to 20,000. On that point, does the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that point, does the honourable gentleman not recognise the very few cases in themselves the very few cases in themselves that end up a tribunal at a point where all due processes of actually where all due processes of actually making sure that there is a process that happens, not all dismissals are unfair.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course not all dismissals are unfair, but if it wasn't a process unfair, but if it wasn't a process that ended up in the court in the tribunal's, we wouldn't be facing a tribunal's, we wouldn't be facing a 491,000 on the government's own figures, the number of individuals with current open cases, and it with current open cases, and it wouldn't be the case that business organisations are citing legal fees

**** Possible New Speaker ****

organisations are citing legal fees in that order of magnitude. One reason why there are so many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One reason why there are so many cases that don't end up in a tribunal is because businesses cognizant of the loss of management time and £15-£20,000 worth of fees

**** Possible New Speaker ****

simply pay up rather than contest. My honourable friend with his experiences exactly right, and just experiences exactly right, and just think about the impact on a small think about the impact on a small business of a fee at that level of magnitude, the length of time that it takes to get justice. And what will happen? This is an important point and the benches opposite will be living this reality over the remainder of their term and they remainder of their term and they will have to account for this.

What is going to happen is that businesses will be discouraged from hiring anybody without a perfect CV, anyone without a proven track record of work. Who will be talking about? We are talking about young people, about people with conditions like dyslexia and related, and we are talking about those who have a period of inactivity in their CVs. People such as former prisoners seeking a second chance to go straight. Those will be the victims of that particular amendment. Labour ministers should realise that they will be the first victims of overturning amendment 62.

The long- standing principle here is a simple one. We shouldn't be allowing strikes to be called when not even a majority have voted, let alone dated in favour of a strike which could proceed with over 1/4 of those eligible. An opposing this amendment will guarantee that unions are held hostage by a militant minority who forced strikes even when their own members don't support that. We can ill afford more strikes that crush growth, prevent workers from getting to work and endanger lives, and the public will not forget the change that this government seeks to make.

Amendment 61 is across amendment which seeks to maintain a consensus arrived at between the trade union pedicle funds and the political party funding committee. It will ensure that only those who actively choose to contribute to a political fund opt in to do so. This is a basic principle which the government has applied to services as broad as beauty boxes, gyms, meditation apps to Netflix and newspaper subscriptions. Everywhere else in the economy, why should Britain's workers not enjoy the same right and the only conceivable reason and it brings shame on anyone who votes for this is to swell the coffers of one political party opposite.

Amendment 47 on the right to be a company tries to finally level the playing field for the 80% of workers who are not in a union but should have the same rights as trade union members to be supported in a disciplinary or grievance hearing. By voting against this modest but important reform, Labour are preserving what is essentially a closed shop that unions used to push people who don't want to join in doing so. We want to join in doing so. We scrapped the close shop decades ago and nobody should be bringing it back as a means of pressurising vulnerable workers into paying into union coffers.

I will give way if you talk about the other organisations that will do a brilliant job of representing employers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That wouldn't be the Tory party when it comes to representing workers. What he doesn't seem to workers. What he doesn't seem to understand is that you cannot turn understand is that you cannot turn up to a trade union and say I've got a problem, can adjoining it representation? Every union requires a qualifying period to get the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a qualifying period to get the representation he talks about so the idea this is a close shop is just nonsense. I think the member is probably

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the member is probably wilfully misinterpreted what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the right of individuals to be right of individuals to be represented, yes, by a member of a trade union, but also perhaps by a qualified professional from another qualified professional from another domain, a qualified lawyer. Of domain, a qualified lawyer. Of course I will give way to the honourable gentleman. We are missing him already.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm glad to be back. The shadow Secretary of State talked about the expense that we will have in terms expense that we will have in terms of legal fees and defending tribunal cases. If you expand to lawyers, isn't it the response that we better isn't it the response that we better get a lawyer to and it will put the cost up?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cost up? With respect, the member has done a great deal of work on this bill. It is a great shame that he was cut forward in this prime. With respect, the point is about the choice for the individual, and in many cases, that long-standing right will be represented by a trade union could be a mediator, a qualified professional in any other domains, and the point here is to not extinguish that choice which is absolutely what the amendment does.

It is literally creating a two tier system for workers rights from a government that into many domains is very tolerant of a two tier system. Amendment one is a typical example of where the government just don't understand or have failed to listen to businesses and hospitality and seasonal businesses in particular. What starts as an attempt to ban zero hour contracts has morphed into an absolute change around the next oath employers and workers. The government will no doubt cry about consequences when the time comes, but I will tell them now that the consequences will be clear and a cacophony of business groups like UK hospitality, British Retail Consortium have explained precisely this to them.

I would just gently say that if the government feels so strongly about zero hour contracts, the best way of putting their own house in order would be to start with tackling precisely that which operates in the Armed Forces reserves. Amendment 48 seeks to protect the countless businesses across the country that rely directly on seasonal work. From the coast of Devon and Cornwall to Great Yarmouth from the Secretary of State in my own county of Sussex to Ayrshire, there are millions of workers employed on seasonal industries.

That often takes place in communities that themselves are heavily reliant on tourism both foreign and domestic, and are competing in a very competitive international market. The government is already taking an axe to the hospitality and retail industries with the removals of relief, and this amendment would be a very good way of going some direction to support them. In opposing a moment 49, the government is showing their commitment to ignore small businesses above all others. The Secretary of State says that he wants to listen to businesses.

I take him at his word that he wishes to do so, but why oppose this amendment which seeks to codify precisely that. Countless small businesses who have a real challenge with dealing with what is now 330 pages of red tape in this bill. Why on earth would the government put its members through the lobbies to oppose listening, consulting with small businesses. Finally, we support amendment 60 which has cross-party support has to millions of those who enjoy heritage railway attractions.

If we haven't made it to the Amberley Museum, he knows that he is very welcome to come and listen to precisely how this will affect the volunteers who are gaining valuable experience, and I'm just perplexed as to why the government would be so opposed to amendment 96 on the proposal of whistleblowers. I'm genuinely confused as to why they would do that. Time and time again, ministers on both sides of this House of Commons the despatch boxes about government scandals.

We have seen brave people in those organisations trying to speak up, trying to raise their concerns only to have them dismissed. They claim this is about workers rights yet seem to have zero interest in protecting workers who try to reveal serious problems in the private sector, and I would urge all colleagues to read this for themselves and to make up their own mind where they think the right place to be is, and good luck explaining to their constituents why they have voted against that entirely reasonable amendment to protect people who are trying to do the right thing.

The Conservatives remain opposed to the damaging proposals of the spell. We fought this at every reading and we will reverse its most destructive measures because we believe that we want to get more young people into work and that this bill will do work and that this bill will do work and that this bill will do I hope the earth members are right opposite, they will be properly declaring their interest. Workers have nothing to gain, nothing to gain by more strikes Madam Deputy Speaker, by more disruption, lasting longer and with shorter notice periods.

They will not be improved by policing banter in pubs, are having their wages defaulted into political funds, the far left causes. Above all, more rights on paper help no one if you have not got a job. We understand that a fine fundamental truth and it is the private sector that creates growth, it is businesses that create jobs and it is socialism we see on the other side that kills them. These are reasonable amendments. The Spillers had a great deal of scrutiny in the other house, I believe the Secretary of State is sincere in his role in wanting growth, in our economy.

To show business that he does understand them, but rather than reading a script that officials have written for him. He ought to be standing up today and talking about the amendments that he will be amendments that he will be supporting. We will always act in the national interest and that is why the opposition will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supporting the amendments today. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I draw attention to my financial interest, to my membership of interest, to my membership of unions. I welcome the Employment unions. I welcome the Employment Rights Bill to consider the amendments made in the other place. I also want to welcome the new I also want to welcome the new Secretary of State to his place and thank him for his kind words that he made in his introduction. I also made in his introduction.

I also want to welcome the Minister into her position, undoubtedly the best
17:47
Justin Madders Portrait Justin Madders MP (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)
-
-
her position, undoubtedly the best job in government and I wish her every success in that role. I know she will be a champion and committed to introducing it in full as we promised in our manifesto. I am speaking a few rows back from where I expected to be today and the Secretary of State mentioned getting a short notice cancellation payment. That hasn't made its way to me yet. I'm delighted to speak today, in any capacity, because this is really what a Labour government should be delivering on.

Alongside the right honourable friend a policy program carefully developed in opposition and turning it into legislation laid before the House in 100 days of taking office, as we promised we would. Whilst I started my ministerial role as I ended it, fired with enthusiasm. My hopes for meaningful change, this bill can That we are here today entering the bill's final stages is testament to the hard work and dedication of those who developed the policy program both in opposition and in government. I want to place on record my thanks to those with the Department of business and trade have help shape those manifesto commitments into this bill.

I also want to pay tribute to Baroness Jones who did a sterling job in the other place of guiding this legislation through amidst intense scrutiny in opposition. Of which of course we are going to be talking about today. I'm not going to go through every single amendment from the Lords, just pick out a few of the ones I consider to be most damaging and undermine the intentions that we set out on our manifesto about how we are going to rebalance the workplace to make it work for ordinary people.

So turning first Amendment one, that completely undermines the principle set out in our manifesto and on exploitative zero hour contracts. The amendment waters down the commitment we gave to provide workers with a guarantee of hours contract into a right to request a guaranteed hours. I think there has been a long misunderstanding, perhaps a wilful misunderstanding about how this policy operates. It does not prevent those who want to remain on a zero hours contract from continuing to do so. Neither does it prevent employers hiring seasonal workers.

It simply provides the opportunity for those who want to have certainty about the hours they work week to week and month per month, to have guaranteed hours. We understand that not everyone will take advantage of that. It might just be a lifeline to those who struggle to balance fixed costs, such as bills, housing, childcare, actually taking out the variations and stress of potential variations, that we've seen so often in a zero hour contracts at the moment, it's a very good thing for us to be doing, as a government.

One of the key principles in this bill is about restoring security and equity at work. This is damaged by the amendments. I understand that the noble Lords argue that the wording of this amendment would prevent employers from actually rejecting guaranteed our requests and was presented as a reasonable compromised, that achieves the same outcome. Maintaining workers rights are guaranteed hours while removing the employers requirement to make offers. I have to say I disagree with that analysis. It shifts the right from one that is passively applied to one that has to be actively invoked by workers.

This means that an individual has to to know their rights and have the confidence to approach their employer in order to benefit from them. As the Secretary of State said in his comments, those working on zero hour contracts are some of the least empowered workers in this country. Their contracts are inherently precarious and those working on them are more likely to be younger, working part-time and in low-paid set is. There are plenty of examples out there of how the allocation of hours has been used, by management, as a tool of control and in some cases a tool of abuse.

This bill already has a number of measures set out, because we know that massive power imbalance has to be addressed. This amendment would fatally undermine all of that good work. So I have similar concerns about amendments six and seven which seek to impose 48 hours as a reasonable notice period. It passes amendments would remove any chance of the workers are employed to make representations, in the consultation processes coming up and instead force an arbitrary cut-off of 48 hours. Throughout my time as a Minister we were committed to consulting widely on changes incorporated feedback into our approach.

I remember those on the benches opposite complaining during the original passage of the bill that we were not consulting enough. Yet now they land their support to amendments that would chop that consultation off entirely. That said, I must welcome the opposition frontbencher's comments, in the other place, with the actually indicated that he supported the principle of having compensation for cancelled or curtailed shifts and I note that it was said in particular we are fully in agreement that workers deserve notice of shifts. There is a fair and modern expectation.

Quite how that fits with the Tory pledge to scrap the entire bill I do not know. Of course, I would expect to object to the measures that improve the lives of working people. It does mean they're going to be scrapping things that I thought even they supported. Ending nondisclosure agreements for the victims of sexual harassment. I knew right for bereavement leave who have for those who have suffered glitzy loss. Finally an enter fire and rehire which they did so much to condemn was in government but did not do anything of substance about.

That is the conservative position on this. I think the British people will wholeheartedly reject. Turning now to a amendment 23 which reflects the unfair dismissal. Something I know quite a lot about. It seems to propose a six-month qualifying period to unfair dismissal rights, rather than day one writes, which everyone on these benches campaigned for. This is another brazen attempt to remove a clear manifesto commitment, by the other place. I and members on the side of the House were elected on a mandate to were elected on a mandate to introduce basic rights, like unfair dismissal, from day one.

How can we allow a situation where people who have essentially got a job for life, to try and stop millions of people in this country from getting some basic employment protections on day one. It is fundamentally wrong that workers can currently be treated so displays a bleed. That they can be dismissed arbitrarily with no legal recourse for two years. This is about fairness. No matter how long they work for an employer they deserve to be treated with dignity I I thank I thank him I thank him and I thank him and commend I thank him and commend him I thank him and commend him for I thank him and commend him for the work is done and the Department continues to do.

One of the interesting things about this particular provision was that the opposition in 2013 actually changed it from 12 months to 24 months. They increase the amount of time that people had an insecure position in the workplace. This is actually

**** Possible New Speaker ****

essential that we support working It certainly is. My conversation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It certainly is. My conversation with employers did not come across any who were prepared to defend the status quo of a two-year, because status quo of a two-year, because they recognise actually that that is an awful long time to have, in an awful long time to have, in employment without any protection, at all. The government is sensitive to concerns about hiring and to concerns about hiring and including provisions in the bill to establish a statutory period, during establish a statutory period, during which employees performers and suitability can be established.

I would like to touch a dismissal would like to touch a dismissal procedure, during that time. To procedure, during that time. To quote a phrase often point, if a new high isn't working out than an high isn't working out than an employee is able to follow a lighter touch procedure to dismiss them fairly. Crucially, they will still fairly. Crucially, they will still have to be in a process. It cannot be an arbitrary dismissal without explanation, which happens far too often now.

We know that recruiting someone is an expensive expensive someone is an expensive expensive business, if it is done to a business. Why would we expect the same Karen tension in the business same Karen tension in the business at all. This country, to our shame has one of the least regulated approaches to dismissal protection, in the OECD. Leaving an estimated 9 million workers are vulnerable to dismissals, without protections. How can you plan your life, make financial commitments and so forth if he can be sacked at the top of a hat.

We believe this must change, that people deserve greater security and dignity of work. To be treated fairly, not just as disposable commodities. This bill strikes the right balance and much of the detail to be determined by consultation and regulation. I will come back to that later. It sends an important message that we won't accept the bottom anymore, dignity and security work starts from day one. That is the way it should be. I am delighted that this bill is contracted to become law in a matter of weeks.

It is a landmark piece of legislation, that will provide the Minister and workers rights in a generation. We have long been clear on this side that it will benefit everyone across the country. It will be good for workers and it will be good for businesses. Passing this bill is not of course at the end of the matter. There is so much more that needs to be done outside of this bill, particularly in terms of finally ending the industrial scale exploitation that is a bogus self- employment.

We cannot have a bill that massively increases protect tunes from people at work then fails to address the growing scandal of a deliberate manipulation of the law to deny people the same basic protections. And of course of the coming years there will be a range of secondary legislation, codes of practice, guidance issued to implement the bill's provisions. I wish the Minister every success in wish the Minister every success in navigating the eight or so statutory instruments that we need to be passed to make sure that this bill is implemented in full.

And that we stick to the roadmap that was published early in the summer and I welcome the Secretary of State. That remains in place in full. It goes without saying that given the volume and complexity and the details of consultations, the scope of the regulations, the language of the codes of practice and even in the commencement dates, there are plenty of opportunities for those that want to see workers rights to chip away at a strong baseline that this bill regulate represents. That bill is easy to do that in a stuffy corridor away from the chamber.

I do not think that was the Minister's intention, not everyone shares our enthusiasm for workers rights. We will all be looking very close and I encourage the Minister to keep to our manifesto promises. We all believe so strongly in. On that point I know how enthusiastic those who actually sit on these benches are about this bill. I know just how enthusiastic many of the people we represent are for this bill. Let's see that enthusiasm replicated across the whole. What better way to demonstrate we are still a part of working people.

What better way to show that democratic politics can still make a difference than by championing the many ways that this bill will improve people's lives. From the shop work on a zero hours worker and the right to guaranteed hours of the social care assistant whose voice will finally be heard for national negotiating body at a warehouse operative who will be able to have a trade union collectively bargaining on their behalf. This bill can be the antidote to politics of despair. Let's not be timid in our backing for improving employment rights.

Let us not apologise for at last restoring balance to the workplace. Let us be confident and committed to all the good things this bill can achieve an let's shout them from the rooftops. This bill is labour at its best. It shows us what can be done in the broadest experience and voices of people who are hardest to get there, deliver change. I'm proud I play my part in that and will do all I can to ensure we deliver on the promises we made to the British people about making to the British people about making

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to follow the member for Elsmere, particularly to member for Elsmere, particularly to hear his passion for this bill and I hear his passion for this bill and I wish him every success, and also, to welcome to his place the new Secretary of State for business and,
18:01
Sarah Olney Portrait Sarah Olney MP (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
and I look forward to opposing him. The Liberal Democrats, we support many of the aims of this bill. We call for rights, strengthening support for whistleblowers, and increasing support for carers. There is a lot in this bill which we support in principle and we think moves in the right direction. However, we remain concerned about the way these measures are implemented. We must ensure that this legislation strikes the right balance with employees and business. Summarise from the extent to which a crucial detail will be subject.

This does not facilitate uncertainty for businesses or workers and it precludes long-term planning which will impact small businesses, start-up businesses and those that are looking to grow and that asks why we are supportive amendments that do things like set the qualifying period for dismissal and create certainty for business. Any new measures to support workers must go hand-in-hand with reforms to support our businesses which provide that employment, such as reform of the broken business rate system, bringing down trade barriers and performing the levy so I wish to speak in amendment that would change ours to write to request.

We want security for working patterns, and we are concerned that zero hour workers struggle with job and securities and difficulties in planning for the future. We also recognise that many value the flexibility that such arrangements provide. Many young people and those balancing responsibilities alongside work often value adaptability in their shift patterns. It is important to strike a balance that ensures that workers can have security and flexibility.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was talking to hospital workers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was talking to hospital workers in my constituency who works 12 hours a week but works 36 hours a hours a week but works 36 hours a week into she took annual leave when she was down for 12 hours a week. I am just wondering whether the am just wondering whether the am just wondering whether the honourable lady deserves the respect to be paid for the hours she works and to have the contracts that she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

works. I would say that if she supports

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would say that if she supports this amendment, she will find and have the right to request the have the right to request the certainty that she requires. She certainty that she requires. She protects that right when she doesn't protects that right when she doesn't often see them together. There is no requirement on the employer to requirement on the employer to maintain the records to have the burden of the administration of being forced to offer the hours in being forced to offer the hours in the event of those workers who don't the event of those workers who don't require such flexibility, so that's why we think this amendment strikes the right balance, so we strongly support the principle of enabling workers to obtain contracts that we have concerns about the implementation method proposed in this bill, specifically, small businesses have highlighted that offering rolling basis contracts could bring burdens.

Many small employers like human resources and this could add significant cost to limited resources compounding other challenges such as the recent increase in employers National Insurance contributions and the fallout from the previous governments damaging Brexit deal. Very often in the retail and hospitality, part-time and entry level roles are taken up by young people looking for flexible hours, people with caring responsibilities and others who may not want to make long-term work commitment. My colleague offered a very compelling example of somebody for him a zero hours contract actually supports what they require from work and for all of these groups, Flex ability is key.

This amendment is in line with this manifesto commitment to 0 hours and agency workers to be given the right to request fixed our contracts which employers would not be able to refuse unreasonably. We believe that this measure would maintain the flexible eating that benefits both parties when the obligation to offer hours has a significant burden which doesn't benefit either party. As with all employment rights, we are clear that employers should be looking without any fear of consequences in the workplace, and we are pleased that the government is taking steps to setup a unified agency and we hope the government will look into other proposals that we brought forward.

Example, a 20 % wage compensating them for the uncertainty of fluctuating hours. This moment strikes a balance security for workers and flexibility for employers. Much of the contention regarding this bill relates to the lack of detail and clarity around key definitions, making it hard for businesses and employers to plan which is why also wish to speak in favour of amendment eight which would define a short notice cancellation as 48-hour as providing a workable balance to give employees clarity while ensuring workers are compensated when shifts are cancelled late, and in a similar

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regard and in the spirit. I will happily give way. Does she agree that this concept

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does she agree that this concept may be relative depending on the industry we are talking about and what is fair notice in a retail sector which may be completely different for what is fair notice for someone working on an offshore oil rig.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

oil rig. And grateful for the intervention. No, I don't think so. 48-hour is a reasonable amount of notice in any sector. That is the kind of time-limit that enables kind of time-limit that enables people with childcare that they need to rearrange. That is the sort of notice that will enable them to do notice that will enable them to do that or perhaps other mums of the family that might need to rearrange their shifts. 48-hour is under proper definition of what reasonable proper definition of what reasonable notice is an 48 hours is 48-hour is, whether you are working on an oil whether you are working on an oil rig or a shop.

I disagree with the honourable member that it is context

**** Possible New Speaker ****

dependent. This is something I'm really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is something I'm really passionate about, ensuring that single parents are able to enter the workforce, and a big barrier there workforce, and a big barrier there is childcare. When thinking about which amendment she will support, has the honourable member discussed this with any organisations presenting single parents which doesn't seem like a lot of time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And grateful for his intervention. As someone with a long history of arranged childcare at history of arranged childcare at short notice, I am very well aware of the limitations represented by needing to arrange childcare that needing to arrange childcare that presented for working women and those in a relationship. And I would those in a relationship. And I would say that 48-hour is is not ideal, but 48-hour is a reasonable but 48-hour is a reasonable compromise and it is absently vital that employers have a kind of clarity of what reasonable notice looks like in the circumstance.

Those in the hospitality to rely on seasonal workers and optically vulnerable to changes of regulation and its knock-on impact of cost and availability of labour. The availability of labour. The sustainability of businesses rely on getting the right people into the right place at the right time, and right place at the right time, and obstacles to action in this can lead to a big impact on the ability to generate this for sale and the generate this for sale and the sustainability of the business.

If we allow a different set of regulations, a clear definition of seasonal work must be created to seasonal work must be created to protect employers from avoiding the legitimate responsibilities claiming seasonal work in inappropriate circumstances. We do not believe this legislation should create contrasting laws for businesses, we continue to defend the principle that those businesses are properly considered when secondary legislation is admitted, and I urge them to support this moment. Amendment 26 to introduce protections for whistleblowers. This follows her long-standing campaign for support of whistleblowers and I wish to pay tribute to her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

commitment to this cause. I think my honourable friend for giving way. With no standard giving way. With no standard requirement for most companies to have a whistleblowing policy, the she agree with me that this bill she agree with me that this bill would be a good opportunity to put in place real protections for in place real protections for whistleblowers who try to highlight crime, danger and malpractice in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

workplace? I think my honourable friend for that and he is right that the that and he is right that the current framework for whistleblowing only applies if somebody has lost their job and it doesn't address their job and it doesn't address when whistleblowers, the duties on businesses to follow-up when whistleblowers are raising serious whistleblowers are raising serious concerns about crimes and that is a concerns about crimes and that is a lap that urgently needs to be addressed. Too many whistleblowers who raise serious concerns ranging who raise serious concerns ranging from fraud to patient safety are ignored by their employers or our resident to speak out due to unfair resident to speak out due to unfair repercussions, so this has numerous civil society organisations which civil society organisations which would have a long overdue update and would have a long overdue update and I urge colleagues across the house to support this change.

I also wish to speak in favour of amendment 47 which would expand the right to be accompanied by employment hearings to improve certified companions. Currently employees may only be a comely by certified trade union representatives leading many workers to navigate proceedings alone while trade unions provide valuable support to members. Currently 22% of workers are in a trade union and only 12% of private sector workers with recent figures at a record low of this provision made more sensitive time when trade union membership was higher nationally but has since become largely outdated as trade union has fallen and the labour market has modernised.

Without this amendment, we can sign many employees who are potentially facing unfair dismissal to being forced to navigate the requirements of disciplinary hearings on their own without any kind of professional or educated support.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The best protection is trade union membership.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

union membership. No, I don't agree. I think you should have the freedom not to join should have the freedom not to join trade unions if that is what they trade unions if that is what they wish to reduce, not least because if the trade union contributions are supporting a party that they themselves do not vote for, then themselves do not vote for, then they may well decide they want to manage that but not least because in many professions, particularly professions, there are not trade professions, there are not trade unions that represent a whole range unions that represent a whole range of different categories of employment you are better represented by the professional represented by the professional body.

I will speak to myself as an body. I will speak to myself as an accountant. I was a member of chartered accountants, and had I been facing a disciplinary in been facing a disciplinary in relation to my professional duties, I would have been much better represented by a fellow member of that body than by a trade union.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that body than by a trade union. I thank the honourable member for taking the intervention and I'm taking the intervention and I'm speaking as a member of the professional body for development. Recognition where you have got the professional body there to set the standards of the profession, and I'm wondering if the honourable lady recognises the conflict-of-interest that could arise from this by giving a route to represent a disciplinary when they have to uphold the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

standards of the profession. I understand the point she is making but a fellow qualified accountant would have a better accountant would have a better understanding of facing a understanding of facing a disciplinary trading from someone who doesn't necessarily understand the points at dispute.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the points at dispute. I think the honourable lady for giving way as she is making a good speech in some parts. The point of a trade union representative that goes within individuals career is not to advise on the skill set of the worker but to make sure that the worker but to make sure that the processes and their rights are protected. I understand what she is saying about accountancy, but we have an organisation that would give us employment rights because when you go to disciplinary's, it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you go to disciplinary's, it is about your skill set that you have the industry. I thank the member for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the member for his intervention. As both himself and the honourable lady have said, this hasn't previously been a requirement hasn't previously been a requirement of oppression body. But if we can create this right or suitably qualified professionals to accompany, I fully expect that that is a capability that they would then go on to develop and I still maintain additionally up to the individual employee to decide if they want to be accompanied by a fellow professional or by a trade union official to protect and defend their interest and it is surely right that they should have the opportunity to make that choice for themselves.

Liberal Democrats also supporting the amendment which would retain the opt in system for political funds for trade unions which currently exist on these benches, we believe in maximising choice and transparency for those in relation to the funds they are contributing to and we oppose contributing to and we oppose The government's proposals in the bill would remove this threshold entirely meaning a trade union could vote on strike action without a majority of eligible voters. We know that strikes in the NHS had a significant impact on waiting lists and backlogs, that's why we believe there needs to be at least a 50 percent threshold.

In order to ensure there is majority support for the workforce themselves for that level of disruption.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I refer to my declaration of interests in support of trade unions. With regard to the unions. With regard to the thresholds, does my honourable friend agree that those who choose friend agree that those who choose to abstain should be counted as a no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vote. I'm slightly opposed to referring

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm slightly opposed to referring to him as honourable friend, not least because I think I am probably least because I think I am probably going to disagree with you. I think to undertake such a massive step, to undertake such a massive step, particularly as we've seen in the NHS and the tubes last week, the level of destruction -- disruption level of destruction -- disruption that has caused the public, I think there needs to be a positive vote in there needs to be a positive vote in favour of strike action.

That is why favour of strike action. That is why I am backing this amendment. I'm happy to take another intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happy to take another intervention. I simply mean, if there is a threshold of 50 percent and that threshold of 50 percent and that threshold is not met, those who didn't participate in the ballot are then classed as no votes, is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

correct? It's pretty simple. I thank the honourable gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention. I think the for his intervention. I think the point he's making, if people didn't express a view either way should be counted as voting against. What I'm counted as voting against. What I'm saying is, in order to justify the levels of disruption we've seen recently from strike action I think recently from strike action I think it is really important that a trade union can demonstrate they have majority support from their workforce, and that therefore I support this amendment.

Believe the support this amendment. Believe the current threshold for being a able to undertake strike action is to undertake strike action is suitable, and believe making it easier to strike risks putting further pressure on public services. And indeed damages the economy, as And indeed damages the economy, as we've seen in the last week with the disruption across the capital with disruption across the capital with the tube strikes. Most employers are responsible businesses that want to do the right thing by their staff, many of whom are supportive of the many of whom are supportive of the aims of the bill.

However they have significant concerns about the lack of clarity and proposed implement determination process. So much for determination process. So much for the deed -- of the detail of this is undecided and will compound undecided and will compound challenges. From the government changes to National Insurance, the reduction in business rates relief, and the we must find a way to support and provide clarity for businesses moving ahead. Liberal Democrats support many aims of this bill, however we will be supporting these amendments today which will help ensure this legislation strikes the right balance for both workers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and business. Thank you. Can I welcome the amendments from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I welcome the amendments from the government today, and also those that have steered the legislation, that have steered the legislation, both formally and currently, through today. This is a generational upgrade in employment rights. I am proud as a Labour MP to support it.
18:19
Tristan Osborne Portrait Tristan Osborne MP (Chatham and Aylesford, Labour)
-
-
proud as a Labour MP to support it. It is a landmark shift in some ways, and a declaration of modern Britain where hard work should be rewarded and people deserve the decency of stable work in security, dignity and fairness. I say this as somebody who has worked in the private sector and the public sector, in different parts of my life. I believe this bill does give a balance between rights of the individual in the workplace and the rights of the employer.

Which is the reason I welcome the consultation this government has undertaken, extensive though it is, with both private sector and other organisations including trade unions. I myself am a member of a union, and the National education union, and have been proudly representing and speaking for them in my career to date. I wish to speak on a number of the opposition amendments, and my concerns with those in short order. I have concern about Amendment one from the opposition. We know that zero-hour contracts have allowed people to be trapped by insecure work, low pay and one-sided flexibility.

I know from speaking to shopworkers in my constituency that they have not been able to plan ahead for their finances because of the unscrupulous nature of some working relationships with employers. And it has left families unable to plan their weekly shopping and childcare. As well as their futures, especially in regards to securing loans and other financial settlements. It has become a way of employers managing down by allowing too many people to take very short hours, then not allowing them to gain other forms of employment.

I believe the government's measures to ensure zero-hour contracts are controlled, where the individual can request zero-hour contracts but where the employer is on the onus to support guaranteed hours, is the correct balance in this case. I therefore reject amendment one. I believe the government's measures to give a balance between the employee requesting and the employer giving. I believe also that the unfair dismissal amendments, 23 106 and 120, do reflect some sensible changes. As mentioned previously, under the last government the unfair dismissal was regarded at 12 months.

And that was extended to two years under the current government. This doesn't take into account the fact that many people who are subject to unfair dismissal might have been working for the employer for a significant period of time. And also subject to paternity leave, parental leave and other types of support. And I believe we should be supporting people around secure provision in work, therefore I do think six months is a period by which most employers will be able to grade that assessment.

I don't accept amendment 48 on seasonal work. I believe with we passed that amendment today it would add a loophole by which other employers can exploit workers. I accept the bill takes due regard to the realities of seasonal work, both at Christmas and other types of practices like farming, I continue to consult on such provision. With regards to political funds, I urge colleagues to reject 61 and 72, I do believe it is critical that we should return to a model that has worked for over 70 years where people choose to opt out of political funds.

Because securing employment rights is one of the endeavours of a trade union. The trade union was set up to secure rights for employees, I believe part of that is in its political endeavour to do that. I have concerns also about amendment 62, when the Conservatives complained about the 50 percent threshold of course we don't take that into account in their former leadership election. Or maybe their current leadership election in the next six months perhaps, if we took their threshold for members we would not see a replacement of sorts.

If they can't use it for their own internal processes, it does raise questions about why others should be made to do so. I can also request or encourage government to consider online balloting as a next necessary step. We do online balloting for many of our leadership processes, I believe online balloting is a sensible way forward as well as other forms of engagement by post. As a former teacher myself, I don't support amendment 121. I believe that negotiations should be that negotiations should be conducted in a way, -- a fair way.

And a one-sided correspondence between teachers and their professional body. As a former special constable, whilst I accept 21 in principle in terms of supporting our special constables on the ground, I don't think it should be just for a single group of people. I do think it should be considered for other perhaps carers or support workers, so I welcome the government review of employees to take time off. I believe that is the most sensible approach. In balance I am not surprised that the Conservatives and others are not supporting this, I believe that we should be supporting both a balanced approach with employees and employers.

I welcome the work the government has done and also former Ministers to this end. I believe that this bill does give a fair balance between those who work in the private sector and public sector, and the obligations that employers offer. Which is the reason

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tonight. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to specific opportunity to speak to specific Lords Amendments proposed in turn by Lords Amendments proposed in turn by Lord Burns and Lord Sharpe in the other place. Whilst addressing other place. Whilst addressing different clauses of the bill, both these amendments essentially come down to the sending principle. -- down to the sending principle. -- Same principle. Defending legitimacy against narrow sectional interests. against narrow sectional interests. If I may start by addressing amendment 61 first.

In 2016, after a long fought debate, Parliament reached a carefully constructed settlement on the question of trade union political funds. That
18:26
Neil Shastri-Hurst Portrait Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst MP (Solihull West and Shirley, Conservative)
-
-
union political funds. That settlement was not only fair and balanced, but crucially it was broadly accepted by all sides. The compromise was a simple one. It resulted in new members contributing to the union's political fund only if that member gave their active informed consent. In contrast, existing members were left untouched and importantly unions were required to provide all members annually of their right to change their decision. This is both a fair and balanced settlement. It's not a carve up, it's a genuine compromise.

It respected both the collective strength of unions and personal liberty of individuals. Yet what do we see now? We see a government seeking to dismantle that settlement. And the result, a return to an era when consent was assumed, when individuals found themselves supporting causes they did not share simply because the rules said otherwise. That is not a positive thing. It's regression. In every walk of life, whether it be a subscription service, insurance policy or a mobile phone contract, the public quite properly expect clarity in respect of the terms they are committed to.

Why should those standards of fairness be cast aside when it comes to political funds for unions who are closely bound to the government? Turning to amendment 62, this deals with the issue of the threshold for industrial action. Strikes have consequences. We have seen that only in the last week, with transport links across London brought to a standstill, commutes drastically prolonged, and the consequential significant disruption to people's day-to-day lives. As a former Dr who didn't go on strike in years gone by, I've seen firsthand the consequences of when industrial action is taken.

Outpatient potion -- outpatient appointments are cancelled and treatments are delayed. When people are so significantly impacted it is neither unreasonable nor undesirable that such action rests on a clear majority. The 50 percent threshold is precisely that safeguard. It serves as a clear assurance that industrial action has brought legitimacy and not just the preserve of a militant minority. Yet this government seeks to sweep away that protection by voting down this very sensible and considered amendment to this piece of legislation.

Both these amendments, but democracy depends on transparency and legitimacy. That has been the bedrock of Britain for generations. It would be a poor bargain indeed if they were set aside in order to placate the financial and political interests of a narrow view.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to new clause 22, which would ban the use of
18:30
Louise Haigh Portrait Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)
-
-
which would ban the use of nondisclosure agreements in cases of harassment and discrimination. I want to thank my right honourable friend the member for Ashton-under- Lyne and my honourable friend the member for Ellesmere Port who did remarkable work in pushing this legislation through in a relatively short space of time in the context of this huge employment rights Bill. I'm incredibly grateful for their support and hard work. I also want to place on record my thanks to the honourable member for Oxford West and Abingdon, who has worked on this issue many years.

And the countless other campaigners in both houses who have not stopped until this have not stopped until this But today's victory undoubtedly belongs to the brave victims and survivors who have repeatedly spoken out, risked legal sanction and financial ruin, by speaking out and challenging wrongdoing where they have seen it in their workplace. First and foremost of these is elder Perkins who is with us today on the floor of the House. You set in train the Me Too Movement by bravely breaking her NTA with Harvey Weinstein.

Her tireless campaigning has changed the law in the US, Canada, in New Zealand, in Ireland, and today, when we vote on this legislation, the UK will begin to have the most comprehensive law on NDAs anywhere in the world. I know the whole House will stand with her to thank for our campaigning. And the countless people who have had their lives ruined by the misuse of NDAs. This law will have a direct impact on millions of lives. Victims will no longer be silenced, their abuse ignored, or perpetrators protected.

The last time we debated the issue in this House, we spoke about the trade unions, the charities, media organisations, who routinely misuse NDAs to cover up wrongdoing. There is simply no part of our economy or workforce that is immune from this practice. And it does ruin lives. From the victim of rape who spoke to me, who was banned from speaking about her experience to medical professionals. To the disabled journalist, bullied out of his organisation, now unable to tell prospective employers about his experience, he is now unemployed and experience, he is now unemployed and homeless.

But as enormous as this new protection is to individuals who have been protected and individuals who could be affected in the future, the Fargo bigger prize on offer for the legislation today is the wholesale culture change will bring about. The widespread misuse of NDAs has sustained environments where abuse and discrimination have been covered up. Where silence could be bought, and where perpetrators were protected whilst victims were pushed aside. It has perpetuated and protected toxic workplace cultures, and has allowed systemic situational abuse to be ignored.

Where harassment and discovered a takes place in the future, employers will have to address it head-on. Abuses will have to face up to the wrongdoing, and victims will not be the ones forced out of their jobs. Today's legislation could not be more important so I want to thank the ministerial team for their continued commitment and for agreeing for it to remain in the bill. As so much of this bill in front of us today, implementation is as important as the primary legislation of the statute books.

So I would be grateful to the Secretary of State when he winds up if you could confirm when the government will launch the consultation in relation to the secondary legislation attached to this clause. Exactly what the government will be consulting on, and the exact date for commencement of this important provision. I want to finish by drawing the attention of the House to a case that starkly proves the need for this legislation. And which has not been public since March of this year.

Members and those watching the proceedings may have read the book " Careless People ", a shocking expose of the workplace culture at Matter. It's practices in Myanmar and China and how it is targeted teenagers in emotional distress to push consumer products on them in their darkest hours. Despite previous public statements that Meta no longer uses NDAs, she's been pushed to financial ruin in the UK as the company seeks to punish her for speaking out.

Meta Have served a gagging order on Sarah and is attempting to find her £50,000 for every breach of the order. She is on the brink of bankruptcy. I'm sure the whole House and the government will stand with Sarah as we pass this legislation to ensure whistleblowers and everyone with the moral courage to speak out are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

always protected. I call John Cooper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call John Cooper. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are not here to read litigate this entire here to read litigate this entire bill, so wide in scope and impact yet so skimpy in detail having been
18:35
John Cooper Portrait John Cooper MP (Dumfries and Galloway, Conservative)
-
-
yet so skimpy in detail having been cobbled together a headline under Labour's first 100 days banner. I refer the House to amendment 61 which will undoubtedly be dashed aside as Labour seeks to salvage something, anything, as legacy for their proposed red Queen, the former debt Prime Minister, whose bill this remains. The bill reinstates a requirement for trade union members to opt in to the political fund. Incredibly members opposite who bristle at the commercial subscriptions which rely on consumer inertia likely vote down the sensible and proportionate to change.

The reasons why demonstrate the wider issue with this bill. The left high-minded aside, letter is a love letter to the unions, thank you for their support. Labour have been bought with union goals, with donations totalling almost £40 million since the right honourable member for Holborn and St Pancras took the leadership of his party. It means this bill is payback for the unions, masquerading as a Philip for the working class. We know how important that working class concert is for the Labour Party as we watch the candidates for the vacant beauty leadership engaged in a prolier van now contest.

In reality, the bill has little to do the actual working class people. The Labour Party has no monopoly on them and their rights. Instead it does rather more what is sometimes called the boutique left, the trade union apparatchiks. This bill only makes sense if you see it through the skewed prism of every employer being a baron and every union organiser a. It does nothing for all those who will struggle to find a job in the first place, as its granting of day one right will mean that companies facing big bills already thanks to the NI rises, and it will give them pause for thought.

Amendment to fight a rearguard action, with a sensible six month qualification. This bill means unions will party like it's 1979. But they should have a care. In 1979, unions triggered strike after strike sounding the deathknell for the own unfettered power and for the Labour government. Amendment 62 addresses the threshold for strike action, any 50% of eligible members would have to vote for action. At the unions themselves better be sure of the complete backing of their members before going on strike? Unions should learn the lessons of the past.

Nexium marks a century since the general strike. Often taught in reverential terms by the left, it left the proud red banners in the dirt and the miners it was meant to support were back in the underground galleries under worse conditions. Why? Because the strike alienating the public. Last week the chat from the man forced onto the Clapham omnibus as Labour was crippled by transport strikes was less up the workers then write up the workers with £65,000 basic salary and demands for shorter working week.

Business cannot afford this. The bill takes an estimated £5 billion out at the time of belt tightening. The public cannot afford this bill and amended as it will facilitate more frequent and more damaging strikes, and make jobs harder to come by. And Labour themselves cannot afford this bill and amended. They may think scandal and crisis are all around and they cannot sink any lower in the popularity stakes. But they can. And this bill is the ticking timebomb that may take them to the nadir faster than they imagine.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I refer the House to my entry in the register of interests my membership register of interests my membership of the GMB. Our membership. I would like to pay tribute to my honourable like to pay tribute to my honourable friend who I believe has popped out for 70, the Member for Ellesmere
18:40
Michael Wheeler Portrait Michael Wheeler MP (Worsley and Eccles, Labour)
-
-
for 70, the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough. That tea is well earned after his hard work steering the bill through this place. And I welcome my equally honourable friend the Member for Halifax to this place, we know she has big shoes to fill. Today we finally arrive at the concluding stages of this historic bills journey through Parliament. It is a moment that has been many years in the making. For well over a decade, working people have been calling for the protections this landmark piece of legislation will introduce.

It is our duty to deliver them, and deliver them in full. Last year, people voted for change. They are crying out for change, and this bill delivers change. Real meaningful positive change. It is therefore immensely frustrating, though sadly not surprising, to see the old coalition and get back together in the other place. To have one final go at obstructing this bill through changes like Lords Amendment one which I will be focusing my remarks on. One of the defining aims of this bill is to end exploitative zero hours contracts.

The rights to a guaranteed hours contract is at the heart of the New Deal for working people. That is because, as I said at report stage, the rise of one- sided flexibility has been one of the most damaging labour market development of the last 14 years. These contracts leave workers, often the lowest paid, vulnerable to sudden changes in income, with weekly working hours varying unpredictably. It is an unstable precarious life that many are forced into.

And it is long past time that this exploitative practice was brought to an end. Lords Amendment one, a throwback team effort from the Lib Dems and Conservatives, seeks to replace the bills right to guaranteed hours contract with a far weaker right to request. Just five words long, this amendment might see my love. It is anything but. As working people know from bitter experience, the right to request often means no right at all. Unfortunately it is clear from the honourable member for Richmond Park's comments that either the Lib Dems don't understand, or are wilfully misrepresenting this amendment.

Lords Amendment one create a loophole. Enabling unscrupulous employees to use pressure or coercion to deter employers from making requests. Put this crucial protection out of reach of those who simply are not aware of their rights in the first place. Far from delivering on the new rights, it reopens the door for workplace conflict, insecurity, and exploitation. Something I'm sure they would not actually be proud of. It is completely at odds with the spirit and purpose of the provision, and it must be rejected.

We must deliver greater security, stability, and dignity to people in their working lives. The rights to a guaranteed hours contracts, and increased financial security it brings with it is central to achieving that. It will be transformative for living standards, productivity, and the economy. I urge colleagues across the House, do not undermine this essential provision. Reject amendment one. Working people are counting on all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of us here to do the right thing by them. I called the Ashley Fox.
18:44
Ashley Fox Portrait Sir Ashley Fox MP (Bridgwater, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I called the Ashley Fox. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm pleased to speak in favour of the government amendment in lieu of Lords Amendments 21. This commits the government to reviewing whether the government to reviewing whether to add Special Constables to the list of roles which entitled their employee to request unpaid time off work from their employer, under the employment strike sacked 1996. Special Constables are volunteers who give their time freely, at no cost to the taxpayer, to support our police forces and keep our community safe.

They hold the same powers as regular constables. The power to arrest, to search, to detain. They carry the same responsibilities, face the same dangers and accept the same risks. Unlike the regular colleagues, they are paid. These special constabularies, one of the most remarkable institutions of British policing. His history stretches back almost two century. The Special Constables act 1831 allows justices of the peace to conscript volunteers to restore order during the riots and unrest. They were called upon again during the First World War when regular officers were enlisted to fight.

Their success led to the Special Constables act of 1923 which ensure that permanent place in policing. From their inception, Specials were designed to be a national contingency force. Citizens stepping forward in times of crisis to strengthen the police service when needed most. That role is no less relevant today. The government recently published resilience plan, addressing the high level of threat we face from Russia, from global insecurity and from multiple risks In such a context constables are not just a relic of the past, they are vital to our civil defence framework, a reserve force in all but name.

The specials are also the face of community policing. They are visible, they are local, and they are rooted in the communities they serve. They build trust between the police and the public, bringing outside perspectives that keep the police service grounded and accountable. For all these reasons, specials are indispensable to the government's stated ambition of strengthening neighbourhood policing. But the special Constabulary today stands at a crossroads, their numbers are falling at an alarming rate. A decade ago there were around 15,000 special constables across England and Wales.

Last year there were fewer than 5,900. While some specials are transferring to the regular police, this does not explain the drop. Unfortunately the majority are leaving policing altogether. Currently 1/3 depart within their first few years of service. This rate of attrition is clearly both inefficient and unsustainable in the long-term. Too many leave before they have had the chance to contribute meaningfully, that wastes not only their potential but also the time and resources invested in their training. So the challenge before us is clear.

Unless action is taken the special Constabulary risks fading away. This would leave a gaping hole in community policing and in our national resilience. It was in this context I brought forward my original amendment to the employment rights Bill, specifically to extend section 50 of the employment rights act 1996 to special constables. Section 50 already allows those in certain civic roles, such as magistrates, councillors and prison visitors, request unpaid work to carry out their duties. I find it surprising the law allows time off for a meeting about a park bench yet denies the same right to those that patrol our Street to keep us safe.

Of course, some employers do the right thing and our understanding and supportive of the specials they employ. But many are not. Currently it is the employer supported policing scheme that encourages employers to support specials voluntarily, but it is not enough. voluntarily, but it is not enough. It leaves too many without support and does nothing to guarantee parity with other roles already protected under section 50. A survey conducted by the Association of Special Constable Act officers last year showed that over 60 percent of specials received no support from employers.

At The moment they are not required to give time. At a time when the government champions neighbourhood policing increasing the number of specials should be an obvious choice. Passing this measure will not cost the taxpayer any money, and an employer who genuinely cannot spend time to undertake their voluntary duties will still be able to refuse. Increasing the number of specials in this way as secured specials in this way as secured backing of many police and crime commissioners, as well as the national police chief counsels lead for the special Constabulary, assistant police Chief Constable Bill Dutton.

While my original amendment to at add special constables to section 50 didn't pass this house it did pass the House of Lords. I would like to thank Lord Hogan-Howe the principal sponsor in the other House for his support. While I am naturally disappointed the government does not wish to keep our amendment as part of the bill, I do wish to thank relevant Ministers for engaging with Lord Hogan-Howe and me so constructively over the last few weeks. I appreciate the positive overtures the government has made on this issue.

I understand that the review this amendment legislates for as in fact already started. So I hope that when it is concluded we will hear back from the Minister with a positive response. I know that many special constables across the country, including Emma Murphy in my constituency, will be watching and waiting for the results of this review. I trust the Minister recognises this and delivers them the result they deserve when she reports back to this House next

**** Possible New Speaker ****

year. Thank you. I proudly refer the house to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I proudly refer the house to my entry in the register of interests, that relate to support the trade unions. I do welcome the Secretary
18:51
Andy McDonald Portrait Andy McDonald MP (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, Labour)
-
-
unions. I do welcome the Secretary of State to this place, and the new employment rights Minister. I especially pay tribute to the honourable member for Halifax, for her support and hard work in the task force when I was shadow Secretary of State that led to the new deal for working people. We are in good hands as she carries on the excellent work. I also want to pay tribute to my honourable friend from Ellesmere Port for his excellent stewardship in securing the employment rights Bill and taking that far.

I welcome the return of the employment rights Bill today and the opportunity to address the urgent priorities of this country, of the people of this country, which is in improving employment rights for better security at work, and ultimately better pay from work. The cost of living crisis remains a burning issue, and giving people the tools to work, to tackle in work poverty, is crucial. This bill starts the process of delivering the much-needed dignity and security for working people.

And it will not escape colleagues attention that the party that is now reporting to speak for working people is nowhere to be seen in this debate. We know whose side the Reform Party are on, and it's not on the side of working people. Today's amendments demonstrate the problems before us, I urge the House to reject opposition amendments which, if passed, would weaken the rights and protections this bill seeks to deliver. On amendment one, which would water down the right to guaranteed hours, let us be clear.

Moving from a duty on employers to proactively offer secure contracts to a model where workers must request them completely undermines the purpose of the bill. Vulnerable workers, often young people on their very first job, should not be left in a position of having to plead with their employer for basic security. We've heard from United members, easy a pub worker, who felt unable to raise issues for fear her hours would be cut. And Karen, a restaurant worker, who was left with 40 hours one week and barely any the next.

Her mental health paying the price. This House cannot endorse a model that forces workers into the role of Oliver twist, asking "Please sir, can I have some more?" The duty must rest firmly with employers. On amendments seven and eight, which reduce access to short notice cancellation payments, again the effect is to let employers off the hook. A 48-hour limit is wholly inadequate. Imagine a parent told late on a Friday night that their Monday shift has been cancelled, no compensation but still childcare to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pay for. He says a 48-hour time period is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He says a 48-hour time period is unacceptable, yet the bill does not specify what time period would be acceptable. So does the honourable acceptable. So does the honourable gentleman have an idea in mind of what that number is? And how many businesses has he spoken to about that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that? I thank him for the intervention. The amendment speaks to these sorts The amendment speaks to these sorts of figures, I am making the position that doing that sort of notice is that doing that sort of notice is simply not acceptable. People cannot simply not acceptable. People cannot live structured lives and be able to plan for their futures under such a dreadful regime. I reject it dreadful regime. I reject it wholeheartedly. That's not reasonable notice, it is a transfer reasonable notice, it is a transfer of cost and stress onto the worker.

The evidence shows that in many sectors workers already get four sectors workers already get four weeks notice of shifts. The risk here is that by lowering the here is that by lowering the standard we drag conditions down across-the-board. That is why the government has rightly committed to government has rightly committed to setting notice periods through consultation, not through arbitrary amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the challenge is we are waiting years before we have any response to what the numbers might be. Does the honourable member find this reasonable? And in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this reasonable? And in the meantime, we have no protections whatsoever for these people we are trying to protect. I thank him for the intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for the intervention. We want to get through this consultation as quickly as possible consultation as quickly as possible and get this on the statute books so the position is clear. But I take his point, we need to move on these issues as a matter of urgency. He is issues as a matter of urgency. He is right to point that out. On amendments 23, 160, 120, which proposes reducing the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months, we cannot support this halfway measure.

Our manifesto is clear. Labour will deliver day one rights. Accepting these amendments risks and trenching insecurity and delaying meaningful insecurity and delaying meaningful reform. Workers should not have to reform. Workers should not have to serve a probationary period before being protected from arbitrary dismissal. We will fully consult on probationary arrangements to get them right, but we will not compromise on our principal, security, from day one. On amendment 62, which seeks to retain the 50 percent turnout threshold for industrial action ballots, I must again urge rejection.

The threshold was a deliberate barrier imposed by the 2016 trade Union act. No other democratic process in this country faces such a hurdle. Not parliamentary votes, not local elections. This House was elected without such restrictions. Trade unions must not be uniquely singled out, removing the threshold restores fairness, strengthens industrial relations, and honours our commitment to repeal Draconian conservative legislation. Finally, on amendment 121, which would permit academies to deviate from paying conditions agreed through the school staff negotiation board, this risks entrenching inequality.

It could mean teaching assistants in the same trust on widely different terms, creating a postcode lottery in education and exposing staff to equal pay disputes. Instead of undermining sectorial bargaining, we should be expanding it. Ensuring fair, consistent, collectively agreed standards across-the-board. Let's be frank, after years of pay erosion what school staff really need is a pay Restoration deal that values the vital work they do. In every case the amendments before us risk weakening rights, not strengthening them.

Our task is to make work pay, to end one-sided flexibility, and ensure fairness and dignity for every worker. If this legislation doesn't go far enough to meet union demands for sectorial bargaining of single worker status, members of this House will rightly be calling for a second employment Bill this autumn. We cannot have it that we sustain this anathema of fragile, insecure work for so many millions of people in this country. They need that security to plan their futures, they also need to have the protections that those in employment enjoy.

In addition, where they be brought into that architecture the Treasury would benefit to the tune of over £10 billion per annum in addition to the tax contributions. Working people have waited long enough, it is time to deliver the stronger rights and protections they deserve. protections they deserve.
19:00
Damian Hinds Portrait Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP (East Hampshire, Conservative)
-
-
I intend to speak mainly on the provisions on guaranteed housing, the first is to start with a word of thanks to the government. Thank you to them for what they announced on special constables, not quite as good as adopting the amendments itself, but I welcome the review. I thank my honourable friend for the work he has done. Hopefully the review will report quickly, and I hope to see a growth in the number of special constables. Not only in neighbourhood policing as my friend rightly said, but also for people working in the tech sector to be cyber specials.

Particularly to tackle the scourge of cyber and fraud, which of course is the largest single category of crime largest single category of crime Second thing I wanted to mention was to come back to heritage railways which is important in my constituency. We are talking about amending a piece of legislation from 1920 which refers to the employment of women and children in industrial concerns. Clearly it was never intended to cover volunteers working in heritage railways. We have got this situation where people working in that sector obviously believe legislation is going away.

Government says it isn't about noise and looked at it and says it is. It is helpful for the Secretary of State to say today on the Floor of the House what he did. But clearly we will need more guidance in order to get through this impasse. I wonder if you might notice is sent to write to me further with how we might be able to clarify the situation so heritage railways can have the comfort they need to know it is alright to have these young people working in volunteer positions.

I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for suggesting he Secretary of State for suggesting he will try. To come on to the provisions on zero hours contracts, I understand why it is attractive to the government and the Labour Party to seek to restrict the availability of contracts that do not have a guaranteed number of hours. Listening to colleagues on that side of the House, it is a must like there is one word which is exploitative zero hours contracts, but those things must always go together.

We all want to end exploitative things. That is why 2015 we passed legislation to stop employers from imposing exclusivity. So if we are not going to guarantee a minimum number of hours then it is not a right to say you may not also work for someone else. Not all zero hours contracts are necessarily exploitative. One of the biggest users of zero hours contracts in our country is none other than the National Health Service. Through bank staff. I noticed the Liberal Democrats announced a new policy today on requiring extra pay for people in those positions.

I don't know if they have yet costed that. Many of those people working as bank staff in the NHS, then it is not their primary job a secondary job which means hospital setting can respond to spikes in demand. In many other people with a zero hours contracts job, it is a second job, not their primary source of income. It is also important for people coming back into work. The honourable lady spoke powerfully earlier in an intervention on this very point. Many people on zero hours contracts are students.

And in hospitality in particular, there is a pattern of work where you have two places of work that you live, your home and your term time address and you can stay on the books your employer may be a local pub at home even when you go away to study, or vice versa. You can dial up and dial down your hours. For example many students don't want to work a lot of hours or even any hours during exam time.

So yes, contrary to what you might expect contrary to the all one word, exploitative zero hours contracts, some people prefer to have a zero hours contract. And some people don't, the honourable gentleman quite rightly says. And we discovered when I was working at DWP, when this had become a very totemic issue under the leadership of the immediate predecessor of the current leader of the Labour Party. This idea, there had been a huge increase in the number of people in the country on a zero hours contract.

We discovered that the number of people on zero hours contracts as their primary source of income was below 3%. Below 3%. And of those, the average number of hours they worked was not zero or close to zero, it was 25. And even more unexpectedly, when you looked at their job satisfaction, and this was the bit that really got people, the average job satisfaction of people on a zero hours contract was higher than it was in the rest of the workforce.

But now I know, I think we understand why. Why the Labour government wishes to do this. It is something for Labour MPs to bring home, when so much else in the manifesto is falling apart before our eyes. They can say, at least we have killed off this modern scourge, this huge growth there is in zero hours contracts. But as I said, it is not nearly as big as most people think. If you think about it, we have always had zero hours contracts in all sorts of different forms in piecework, in commission only sales, in agency catalogue, in casual labour.

In fact it is possible that today there are fewer people on a zero hours contract than ever before in the history of the labour market. Many colleagues might reflect that my first job was washing dishes in a restaurant. We did not have the phrase then but it certainly would have been a zero hours contract, apart from the fact of course there was not actually a contract at all. If the government wishes to reform this area, as they may, I would stress and ask them to consider, particularly for certain centres, for sectors with great seasonality, including hospitality, tourism, retail.

Please, please look again at this concept of a 12 week reference period. It does not reflect the reality of seasonal work. I know this that will come in regulations are not in the primary legislation. I welcome what the Secretary of State said earlier news indicating that the government was open to looking at a more sensible number. They could also do it differentially by sector. They could have one period for sectors in general but another for sectors and subsections, with strong seasonality.

The second is this requirement not just about whether you have to offer guaranteed hours once, it is the point that you keep on doing it. It is an unnecessary piece of bureaucracy to introduce. I would encourage them, if they do want to keep these changes, to say that once you have made an offer once, thereafter, the right can become an opt in rights. The government think this is something for backbench Labour MPs to take home. But I really ask colleagues on that side of the House, is this something you want to take home? Do you want to take home higher unemployment? Do you particularly want to take home higher Youth Unemployment Committee do you want to take home fewer opportunities for people returning to the workplace after many years away? Do you want to take him few opportunities for ex-offenders, those furthest from the labour market? And do you want to take home, because this will come as night follows day, a further trend from permanent employment to fixed term temporary employment? Do you want to take home a shift from wage and salaried work to more self- employment? Is that really what Labour wants to deliver? Took

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I start by saying a massive thank you to the new ministerial thank you to the new ministerial team and a welcome to the new Secretary of State for keeping
19:09
Sarah Owen Portrait Sarah Owen MP (Luton North, Labour)
-
-
Secretary of State for keeping clauses 14 to 18 and their warm words at the Dispatch Box. It is a pleasure to follow the honourable gentleman opposite. But I think we have heard all of those arguments before from Conservative benches, the opposition to the minimum wage, which did none of those things that they warned against. Onto my declaration of interests, it is a shame that the Shadow Minister is not sat in his spot because he asked not sat in his spot because he asked all of us on our benches to declare our trade union affiliations, and I will proudly do so.

They are in my declared register interests. But my interest does not stop there on this bill. I have worked a zero hours contract. I would have benefited from this bill. I have been a care worker who would have benefited from the collective bargaining that is being brought into this bill. And I also would have meant I would have been paid between the jobs that I had to travel to. So when it comes to declaring an interest, I'm quite proud to stand by my declaration of interest.

It is a shame the Shadow Minister did not mention perhaps that he used to work as a non- executive director for Just Eat, a company which is at the scourge of claims against it. To me the Employment Rights Bill is about making sure that all people can work safely with respect and dignity, and have security in their work. Because we have seen for the last 15 years, people at the sharp end of this. We have heard stories of businesses struggling, and of course no one wants to see that.

We have not heard stories of the previous government and the subjection that they had on working people. Calling a living wage that actually was similar minimum wage, ensuring people were stuck on in work poverty. The people we are knowing about, we know women are 34% more likely to be stuck on a zero hours contract than men. If you are talking about black and Asian minority people, that reaches 103%. 49% more likely if you are a disabled worker. This is about protecting all workers not just some.

And when it comes to having the right to sick pay. No one chooses to be sick. There are 1.3 million people without the right to any sick pay whatsoever. This is the difference that this bill will make. This is the difference that a Labour government will make to working people's rights. And, as has been mentioned, the so-called Grifters that sit over there pretending they care about the ordinary working man, not often mentioning women, but where are they? Probably handing out, having their hand out for more of Elon Musk's comments.

I want to talk about specific comments and specific work from Employment Rights Bill that touches on our work at the women and equalities committee. The parental leave will be impacting so many workers, and it is a real pleasure to see that been talked about now under a Labour government. Because we also know that this is a problem for self-employed people. We have heard a lot about the impact of bogus self-employment. We have heard a lot about rogue bosses. But we have not had enough about the protections for self-employed people.

In our committee on parental leave, we heard from self-employed people, 31% of self-employed people never take a single day off after their child is born. It is a shocking statistic. It is damaging for not just our economy but for our individuals and for families as well. And when it comes to this, I thank the Member for Sheffield Heeley for her work in all of the campaigners work on banning NDAs for sexual harassment and bullying. Because we heard loud and clear, many people in the music industry are self-employed many of them have been subjected to NDAs.

And it goes unreported, unknown, and the difference this will make to so many people throughout many different sectors is so important that we get this through. When we talk about bits that we don't like, and bits that the Conservatives and I would say the Lib Dems as well, I ask them to think of the people we are trying to protect here because those are the real impact that we are going to see. And when it comes to clauses 14 to 18, this has a very special place in my heart and I know in many people's hearts in this chamber and outside the chamber.

I am pleased the government accepted in spring the principle of having two weeks of bereavement to parents who lose a pregnancy before 24 weeks. There is no sliding scale on pay and there is no sliding scale on bereavement and loss particularly for those expectant parents. Grieving parents because of this change will no longer need to push through their pain to carry on working. And women who experience baby loss will not need to use sick leave which implies that the body has something wrong with it.

Because arguments against this measure were founded in, well you can always just take sick leave. But actually, for the person who has lost a child, you blame yourself. It is your natural instinct. It is the first reaction you have. Did I do something wrong? Should I done something different? Should I have not gone to an exercise class? You think of all the things that you could have done to prevent that. And to go to your employer and say I need to take sick leave as if there was something wrong with you is fundamentally very different to the way that society sees pregnancy This amendment also includes those who have either yo loss, it really follows the recommendations from the women and equalities inquiry.

This is groundbreaking. The UK will be one of only four other countries in the entire world that recognises miscarriage as the bereavement it is. I congratulate the government for taking this forward. Because it impacts so many people. It impacts the families, that are grieving, and it impacts so many pregnancies. This is part of the pregnancy journey. When I started talking about this first it was quite awkward, not just because of the personal pain and how close this topic is, it was awkward because we didn't talk about miscarriage.

We didn't talk about bereavement or pregnancy loss, it was stigmatised. The amount of women in their 80s, some of them in their 90s, who have said to me "I am so grateful you can talk about this now, because for so long I held it as if it was a shame, a secret". And I said none of my losses, none of my babies who didn't make it, are anything to be ashamed about. And we should be able to give parents the right to grieve that loss, and this groundbreaking bill will do that.

I want to pay tribute to the businesses that already do this, that already offer this. Many small and medium-sized enterprises already offer are even leave, it may be informal for those who miscarry. But the council said they were really supportive of this measure because it actually gives employers a framework for the right thing to do when an employee comes in and says I have lost my pregnancy. And when it comes to other businesses, like Co- op which we had streams of evidence for, it's incredible that there are businesses out there that have led the way where legislation now follows.

And that goes to the largest public sector employer of women, the NHS. Who on two separate committees, when I was in the Public Accounts Committee and now as the chair of the women and equalities committee, when I asked them what is the cost and impact of this, the impact to your staff and budgets. They said it was negligible, because this was the right thing to do but also because staff would have left or taken time off sick anyway. This isn't just the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do for the economy as well.

All of the businesses talk to us about how much they got back from their employers when they came back to work in terms of loyalty and trust, and in terms of retention rates. The expectant fathers are also a huge part of this, I'm so proud we have extended that right to those who grieve as well. And we heard the experiences of men who had lost an expectant child. One man in particular said he had not been able to take his wife to hospital when she miscarried, because work hadn't allowed him to leave.

She nearly bled to death on the way to the hospital. This has horrific impacts on everybody, not just mentally, emotionally, but physically as well. He left that job and found somewhere that does respect him, that does respect his rights and his families pain. I want to say thank you to all the charities that support bereaved parents, including the miscarriage Association of which I am proud to say I have just become an ambassador for, and the amazing work they do. Tommy's and Sands, and individuals I want to thank.

We don't say thank you enough in this place I think, so I'm going to take the opportunity to thank them. Particular thanks to Vicky Robinson of miscarriage Association, and the former employment Minister the member for Ellesmere Port who was here earlier. I have said thank you to him many times but I want to put it on record in this place. The former housing secretary, the team of civil servants in both departments for businesses and trade and the Deputy Prime Minister.

In the other place Lord Brennan for laying our amendment. The clerks of the Whitman and equalities committee. -- Women and equalities. This is not a sole campaign, it has gone through generations. Myelin class MBE, a formidable campaigner. The other Sheffield MP, the fantastic member for Sheffield Hallam, who has fought so hard to ensure that improvements so hard to ensure that improvements are made. I want to thank the new ministerial team for keeping in this amendment. To all my family and friends who were really supportive in this place and outside.

And all those who contributed to the inquiry that has now led to this change, including the women who shared absolutely devastating stories and painful experiences. Because now they concede that change, because now they have a government that recognises and acknowledges the pain and the losses for what they are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bereavement. I would like to thank the member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank the member for Luton North for her brave and personal testimony, and also to personal testimony, and also to share the testimonies of many others on the importance of bereavement on the importance of bereavement leave. I would also like to begin by welcoming the news that the bus manufacturer Alex Dennis will keep manufacturer Alex Dennis will keep sites in Scotland open after a sites in Scotland open after a statement by George Sweeney, I'm sure the whole House will welcome sure the whole House will welcome the action taken by the SNP Scottish government giving domestic
19:21
Chris Law Portrait Chris Law MP (Dundee Central, Scottish National Party)
-
-
manufacturing businesses the opportunity to succeed and protecting skilled manufacturing jobs. From the outset of this bill SNP have been a clear support of legislation that will strengthen the rights of workers, having long campaign for many provisions within the bill. There are progressive attempts to guarantee working hours and protections against unfair dismissals, and it deals with some of the most insulting anti- legislation -- anti trade union legislation from the previous government. But we have called on the government to be bolder and use the opportunity to deliver transformational change for workers.

We propose for and that some -- amendments to be more robust on statutory sick pay and strengthen rights for migrant workers which were all sadly rejected by the government. Disappointingly, none of these issues have returned this House from the House of Lords. Instead we see a series of amendments that seek to weaken the bill and watered down provisions on protections on unfair dismissal, the right to guaranteed hours and the capabilities of trade unions. Let me be crystal-clear, the SNP will not accept proposals that seek to diminish workers rights.

One of the most important elements of this bill is that workers have writes from day one. A significant change from the current. Workers should not have to wait to be protected from unfair dismissal, unfair dismissal is unfair no matter the time limit you put on it. So there should be none. The Lords Amendments would still allow employees to be dismissed, failing to reject this amendment today would fundamentally undermine the principles and objects of this bill. Secondly, provisions within the bill on sexual harassment are also significant.

Particularly those that void agreements venting workers from making allegations of harassment or discrimination, and avoid provisions preventing employees speaking out about relevant harassment or discrimination. We had some eloquent speeches today on why this continues. Astonishingly the Lords are attempting to exempt parliamentary staff from the protection from nondisclosure agreements. I didn't hear this mentioned today so I will repeat it. The Lords are attempting to exempt parliamentary staff from the protection of nondisclosure agreements. This is a disgusting attempt from the House of Lords to protect themselves from allegations of sexual harassment and attempt to silence those that are victims of sexual harassment in Parliament.

What does this say about this unelected chamber that they brazenly seek to use their power to protect and entrench their own privileges time and time again? Just another ludicrous example for why the House of Lords needs to be abolished, it's shameless. It's long been recognised that insecure work is one of the biggest problems facing society, if we listen carefully to the issues around zero hour contracts I want to put a few facts down. Contrary to what was said earlier, in the last decade there has been an increase in serial contract workers.

Mag zero- hour contract. A 65 percent increase. More than a million workers are on a zero hour contracts, including 100,000 in Scotland. Many more on short hour contracts. Rather than providing flexibility zero hour contracts offer little flexibility. Then a given example, a recent report by the work foundation noted that when Wetherspoon's introduced an option for guaranteed hours, 99 percent of its workers opted for guaranteed hours. one percent wanted the contracts. The Lords of attempted to weaken this by taking the onus array from employers -- away from employers.

As well as a rejecting this amendment it's also important to government provides clarity on the duration of the reference period. Similarly Lords Amendments eight wished to find short notice for cancelling a shift at 48 hours. The government seeks to reject this, it will be defined as a time period greater than 48 hours. That is fine, but I've raised it a number of times today that this is cold comfort for those currently on zero-hour contracts, they will have to wait until 2027 at the earliest to find out what comes back from the government's consultation.

One of the biggest issues with this bill is that so much will not be clarified until further down the line, to secondary legislation and regulations. It means that much of this bill is still uncertain, much will avoid scrutiny, and much will be easy to reverse by future governments. Indeed the opposition are on record saying just that last point today. Of course, voters in Scotland know the devolution of employment law is a far better way to protect employment rights in Scotland from a future UK government that might remove those protections.

Fair work practices have already been delivered by the SNP government, such as supporting collective bargaining, achieving real living wage employment status, closing the gender pay gap faster than anywhere else in the rest of the UK. Finally, workers in Scotland should never again have to see employment rights eroded by any Tory led government. The SNP will continue to campaign to ensure employment law is devolved to Scotland, or better still with Scotland's independence from Westminster governance who seek to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

erode Scottish worker rights. Can I refer the house to my register of interests, my proud register of interests, my proud member of the GBE union and community union. In Bassetlaw, where community union. In Bassetlaw, where the average hourly rate for women is £14.16 per hour, £14.69 for men. Over five pounds per hour less than
19:28
Jo White Portrait Jo White MP (Bassetlaw, Labour)
-
-
the national average, and not much higher than the national living wage. Levels of pay and working conditions are issues that really matter to my constituents. My constituents are not afraid of hard work, they want to go out each day with the knowledge they have rights and a law that will protect them from unfair dismissal, and a guarantee they can bring home a good wage and put a meal on the table. This Employment Rights Bill is now ping-pong its way back to this place, and my constituents can't wait for the fairness and rights this bill will bring.

This is their chance to level the playing field. It isn't a handout, it's a foundation for fair treatment at work. It ensures that when you go to work you are treated with dignity and respect, strengthening rights, no more higher and re-fire, no more exploitative zero hour contracts, and job security from day one. This bill gives workers the power to have guaranteed hours at work and receive compensation for cancelled shifts. It gives them the power to demand safe workplaces where no one has to choose between their paycheck and their health.

It gives them the power to stand up against unfair firing and discrimination. It isn't just about the law, it's about restoring a sense of justice in the workplace. The other House has attempted to water these rates down. Reform have opposed this bill all the way through Parliament. And whilst the member for Clacton keeps telling us he doesn't know, when he's pushed on difficult questions, I have no doubt that he and his colleagues will be making their way through the vote against workers rights lobby is later this evening.

Reform have aligned themselves to the powerful interests, the corporate lobbyists and the CEOs who are fighting this bill. Telling us it's bad for business, that it will help hurt our economy. They are no friend of working people. As local people often tell me, good business is based on strong partnership, where employers and the workforce strive to meet the daily challenges in the workplace and the ups and downs of the economy. This legislation will work to strengthen those alliances. The Employment Rights Bill is aligned to this government's ambitious industrial strategy, and commitment to rebuild our economy.

I am focused on getting the new jobs and skills training
19:32
Laurence Turner Portrait Laurence Turner MP (Birmingham Northfield, Labour)
-
-
the new jobs and skills training Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm grateful to contribute to this debate. It is a privilege to follow so many powerful speeches. I'd like to mention a particular speech delivered by the Member for Luton delivered by the Member for Luton North. It was I think the most powerful speech I have heard in this powerful speech I have heard in this place. Her words rose to the moment, mine are inadequate by comparison I mine are inadequate by comparison I can only thank for speaking so powerfully about an issue that affects so many of us.

I would also affects so many of us. I would also like to welcome the Secretary of like to welcome the Secretary of State to his new place, and to thank him for the way in which he opened this debate. At the outset I would this debate. At the outset I would like to draw the attention of the House to my background as an officer of the GMB union, and my role as the of the GMB union, and my role as the chair of the GMB Parliamentary group.

I would like to thank the group. I would like to thank the honourable member for Dundee Central, as he leaves the chamber, Central, as he leaves the chamber, for what he said about members and staff in this place. GMB is a union that represents the majority of that represents the majority of people who work in support of us it people who work in support of us it is members of this House. They are perhaps uniquely vulnerable to some of the abuse are practices that have shamed our democracy for too long.

I am at a loss to understand how these amendments were ever brought forward from the other place. I wish to speak specifically against amendments 121, 11, and Amendment one, and in support of government amendments that seek to strike them out. Before doing so, I'd like to say a few words about the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough who Ellesmere Port and Bromborough who is not in his place at this moment. As a Shadow Minister and latterly as a sponsoring Minister for this bill, the unfailing and characteristically brought graft, industry, and good humour to the brief.

This will be a weaker and less built without him and those of us who support the bill in its principles owe him a debt of thanks. I am glad that the Member for Halifax, who brings a real depth of knowledge and understanding to the role, is now guarding the bill's passage to Royal assent. I know she will be both pro-worker and pro- business in her approach. Turning to the amendments, Lords Amendment 121 I believe contains significant drafting weaknesses.

And, if continued, it would fundamentally alter the nature of the proposed negotiating body. First the amendment states that employers may introduce new terms and conditions of employment that " Meet or exceed any minimum standards set by the SSSNB. " But this is a statutory forum for negotiation. Natural conditions of employment will be set through regulations drafted by the Secretary of State, and approved by Parliament. The second, the actual parameters of future pay and grading structure will be negotiated by the representatives of employers, and representatives of employees.

That was the spirit of the original 2008 legislation. The actual operation of the SSSNB in its original incarnation. If colleagues will take it from experience as a former trade union officer representing school support staff, the contractual issues that need to be addressed are so complicated they cannot be satisfactorily resolved on the Floor of the House. That complexity is a result of 14 years of drift, dither, and political disinterest, and the 800,000 support staff workers in England who keep our schools going and are a damning indictment of the decision to cancel the original SSSNB.

The amendment risks creating confusion at a local level as well. The amendment states that employers must not be restricted from introducing improved terms and conditions. But changes to contracts are not merely introduced, they are consulted on and agreed. Either individually or collectively under existing statutes. The effects of this somewhat loose wording in the amendment may be to encourage local attempts to make unilateral variations to contracts and terms and conditions that might, members who support this amendment might say that only improvements could be made under it.

Both improvement and detriment are subjective terms. They are in the eye of the beholder. I believe that if this amendment was to be carried through, the actual effect may be to have an increase in the number of court cases that are held concerning school support staff. So I urge the opposition not to push the point, and to reconsider their wider opposition to that School Support Staff Negotiating Body. School support staff undertake essential roles and they deserve the same kind of professional standards and professional respect that is afforded to teachers.

That is what restoration of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body will achieve. Staff Negotiating Body will achieve. We have debated at various stages the Official Opposition's amendments many times. But I would like to comment on some of the amendments that stand in the name of the Liberal Democrat peers, either whole or in part. Entering this chamber at the start of this debate, I did not assume that those amendments necessarily enjoyed the support of the Liberal Democrat Frontbench in the Commons.

But I'm afraid that impression was dispelled by the contribution from the opposition spokesperson, the Member for Richmond Park. I must say I am am at a loss to understand how the radical approaches come about among the Liberal Democrat in this House between Committee stage, report stage, further reading, and the debates that we are holding today. In fact listening to the honourable lady, I felt an uncomfortable sense of dej vu. It was like watching the Rose Garden press conference all over again.

After all, the frontbench colleagues of the honourable member were at all times appropriately critical, but they were essentially supportive of the principal of enhancing workers rights throughout the Commons committee process. But the amendment paper containing Lords Amendment 11, which was originally a Conservative amendment in the Commons, which now stands in the name of the Liberal Democrat peer, was not opposed by the Liberal Democrats, sorry, was not supported by the little Democrats, in committee. Amendment one would send the names of both liberal Democrats and conservatives seeks to amend clause 1.

At Bill Committee stage, Liberal Democrat supported that clause. And voiced their concern which was reasonable. Only that timely guidance to employers must be issued to accompany it. Indeed they voted with Labour members when it was put to a vote in committee. I fear that this amendment could have serious unintended consequences. The clause that it seeks to amend putting duty on employers to offer regular hours contracts to workers, that is a language in the legislation as it stands at the moment.

But the amendment seeks to convert that duty to write to request by employees. Employees is of course a more restrictive category than workers, and indeed section 148 of the Bill as drafted makes it clear that for the purposes of interpretation of this bill, workers and employees mean two different things. Many of the people who are classed only as workers are precisely those who may benefit the most from these protections. Some 5 million people, who are nominally casual workers in centres like social care, construction, hospitality, security and retail, could be excluded from these protections if this amendment would stands in the names of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrat peers was carried.

I hope that is not the intention of the Conservative benches. To exclude those 5 million people. At the start of this debate I could not believe that was intention of the Liberal Democrats but now I must say I am Democrats but now I must say I am

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not so sure. I would be delighted to give way. I thank my honourable friend. We heard very compelling evidence heard very compelling evidence earlier this year on the Women and Equalities Select Committee about Equalities Select Committee about misogyny in the music industry. This is exactly 1 of those areas where people who are classed as workers people who are classed as workers need that protection. To I thank the honourable gentleman for bringing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this issue forward. I thank my honourable friend for raising a very powerful and relevant point. She is right that those groups of workers who would enjoy groups of workers who would enjoy greater protection as a result of this legislation being carried. To respond to a couple of points that respond to a couple of points that have been made in this debate, it was a shame that the honourable was a shame that the honourable member for East Hampshire, who is not currently in his place, did not have the self-confidence in his argument to take interventions on argument to take interventions on the point.

He had referred repeatedly to the validity of repeatedly to the validity of estimates of the number of workers employed on zero hours contracts. But there are good reasons for not having confidence in these estimates having confidence in these estimates at all. After all, they are derived from the ONS Labour Force Survey. It has had well advertised and well understood problems of response rates which have wider implications for governments of both the current incarnation and the previous government. But it is well known that the number of people who identify as being on zero hours identify as being on zero hours contracts correspond to changing the wording of the particular question.

In addition, the Labour Force Survey has well understood limitations when it comes to reaching people who are employed, on what might be called the most marginalised parts of the economy. Urged Honourable members opposite not to have too much confidence in those estimates and look instead to the surveys of workers undertaken by many organisations such as the CIPD and trade unions. It was a shame to hear during the debate number of references to trades union political funds only the context of party funding.

Of course the great majority of trade union political funds are operated by trade unions which are not affiliated to any Political parties. Furthermore, the political funds, even of those labour affiliated unions, in practice often support meaningful and consequential campaigns which have been supported by members across the House. One example I would draw the attention of colleagues to is the assaults against emergency workers offences act, sometimes called the protectors legislation, which began as a result of trade union campaigning was not party political in its nature, and that legislation has been broadened out since.

I would pay tribute to the Freedom from fear campaign from USDAW and protections for retail workers. These are the sorts of valuable campaigns that members opposite sadly both the Official Opposition and the little Democrats are looking to restrict. Finally in terms of responding to points raised in the debate, I had not intended to talk about heritage railways at the start of this debate. And indeed, it must be said that during those long years in opposition, when we were looking closely as trade union officials at the potential future issues that would be covered by trade union legislation, I think it is fair to say that it is an issue that never once came up.

Perhaps we were guilty of tunnel vision. I won't do it again. One thing I will just say is, throughout all the debate on this matter and the other place and here, this issue has been discussed purely in theoretical terms. The contention has been that the 1920 legislation has had some kind of chilling effect upon the operation of heritage railways across the country. I do not think, but I would be glad to be corrected, that any examples have been brought forward of either court cases been taken or legal advice being received from those organisations.

But it certainly feels like an issue the transport Select Committee may wish to look at the future. I have tried to limit my comments today only to the details of the amendments before us. If I may make two general comments, the Labour manifesto committed, as my honourable friend the Member for Ellesmere Port said earlier, to implementing the accompanying Make Work Pay document in full. In introducing basic rights from day one to parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal.

And yet, in front of us are amendments that would either obviate any of those commitments or reduce the potency to homeopathic levels. Asma honourable friend rightly says, there can be no question of nodding through amendment that contradicts the clear mandate we received just a year ago, and which commands broad support among voters of all parties. Finally, it would be an omission not to congratulate those honourable members who have campaigned for specific changes to the bill and secured some of those important changes.

I include in that the honourable member for Bridgwater, who raised the issue of Special Constables in a very persuasive way in Bill Committee. Even if he may not be entirely persuaded to support the legislation in full now that Special Constables are named in the bill. I would also like to congratulate and thank my honourable friend, the Member for Luton North, and Sheffield Heeley, for their important work on a recent leave and nondisclosure agreements. The use of nondisclosure of in the case of sexual harassment cases have no place in any of our institutions.

Finally, as has been said, a number of times, today's proceedings are not the end for this bill. There will be a long task of implementation ahead, to prevent that manifesto commitment. I look forward to hopefully playing some part in scrutinising the many Statutory Instruments that will be brought forward. And I'm sure they will gainfully employ the time of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many honourable members in years to Of course I draw attention to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course I draw attention to my register of interests, like most people on this side I am proudly
19:46
Sam Rushworth Portrait Sam Rushworth MP (Bishop Auckland, Labour)
-
-
people on this side I am proudly supported by trade unions. As others have already alluded to the absence of the honourable members from Reform in this debate, of course we know why they are not here. It's because they don't support the measures in the Employment Rights Bill, but they don't have the guts to tell that to their voters. I am here today to speak on behalf of my constituents. Particularly those who feel insecure at work. The people who don't have assets and safety nets, who are not mobile and confident, who live payday to payday.

And feel that they must take whatever pay and conditions they are offered because they are terrified of the alternative. It's 12 years since this party announced a commitment to end exploitative zero hour contracts. As a means to control workers and avoid employment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

obligations. I will happily give way. As a former teaching assistant,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As a former teaching assistant, any teaching assistants working under a form of zero-hour contracts, under a form of zero-hour contracts, would he not agreed that this bill as well as bringing back the as well as bringing back the negotiating body for teaching assistants and support staff at school will also greatly help them in taking away those zero contracts

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in taking away those zero contracts they are suffering under. It will. I mentioned 12 years

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It will. I mentioned 12 years ago, I remember canvassing 12 years ago and speaking to a young couple, ago and speaking to a young couple, a young woman who had just had a baby but because she was on a zero hours contract was not able to get maternity rights she otherwise would have been entitled to. And her young partner, who likewise was on a zero partner, who likewise was on a zero hour contracts. I remember listening to him talk about his pay and to him talk about his pay and conditions at work, and asking why he didn't challenges employer.

Understanding that so many young Understanding that so many young people don't feel they are able to, because they feel so insecure. And because they feel so insecure. And sometimes just so grateful to be in a job. That's why am speaking against amendment one today, it's against amendment one today, it's right that the onus be placed upon the employer to ensure that people have given regular contracts. And we are not asking people who are often the most vulnerable and insecure workers to go to that employer and start asserting and demanding their rights.

It is something I have sadly learned in this job over the last year or so, as I've met with many of my constituents. Just the sheer vulnerability that many working people feel. And whether that's a tenant, who tells me that they are frightened of demanding rights from their landlord because they feel they will be evicted, and of course Reform voted against our reforms on banning no-fault evictions as well. Or whether it's somebody who feels...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is making a very powerful speech. He quite rightly mentioned how He quite rightly mentioned how honourable members opposite from the reform UK party are not in their reform UK party are not in their place. Does he agree with me this really is a travesty. When you think really is a travesty. When you think about the social media posts they put out, the grand speeches that are put out, the grand speeches that are given up-and-down the land, does he agree with me that it isn't agree with me that it isn't transient for them to claim to beyond the side of working people when they had the audacity to vote when they had the audacity to vote against this bill in this house, introduced by a Labour government on the side of working people.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unsurprising that I completely agree with that statement. They are clearly not on the side of my constituents. The people I'm talking constituents. The people I'm talking about, who feel they just can't assert their rights, too many of assert their rights, too many of them feel powerless. It is right we put the onus where it is, and I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vote against the attempts in the Lords to water that part of the bill down. I thank my honourable friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend forgiving way. On that point of accessing those rights, does he accessing those rights, does he agree with me that there is a fundamental difference in terms of people going about their busy daily lives at work, possibly struggling to make ends meet, there's a fundamental difference in terms of them accessing the rights this bill will give them between a right to a contract with guaranteed hours and a right to request one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is a difference, and he is expert in this field. Having come to us from the Ulster. I know that us from the Ulster. I know that those who worked on this bill will have thought it through carefully. Chimes with my experience that people shouldn't have to exert their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rights. I thank my friend forgiving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my friend forgiving way. I draw attention to my register of interests as someone who received interests as someone who received financial support during the election from trade unions. As a trade union official I found out trade union official I found out people were not confident in asserting their rights, but they simply did not know what those simply did not know what those rights were. Finally enough employers went handing out cards saying here's what your rights are. If they are not made to explain

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If they are not made to explain employers their rights -- employees rights then who will? There's a power gap in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There's a power gap in this country between the ordinary working person who doesn't necessarily know person who doesn't necessarily know Andy is able to assert those rights, and the sort of person who might buy a house in their girlfriends name. I will progress. I also want to oppose the Lords attempt in amendment 106 to water down the bill by requiring six months for protection from unfair dismissal. There is of course a difference between unfair dismissal and fair dismissal.

No employer is prevented from using fair grounds to dismiss an employee. But what the previous government did, by extending it to two years before you could even claim unfair dismissal, it left far too many people vulnerable to being simply dismissed at a whim, or dismissed because they demanded their rights at work. I had experience of this myself, I've never talked about it before because I signed a nondisclosure agreement but shortly after becoming the branch rep for a trade union one I was a college lecturer I pointed out that the college I was teaching at was not paying the minimum wage to some of their staff.

The college then attempted to dismiss me for bringing the college into disrepute. I thankfully was able to take on one of the top employment lawyers in the area at the time, only because they forced me to teach an HR course and I'd given myself a crash course in employment rights. I left with a payout. I remember the shame I felt signing this nondisclosure agreement, because I felt I wanted to fight father people as well. But at the end of the day I was terrified I would miss my next mortgage payment and I was thinking of my children.

And that's the position far too many people find themselves in. So it's right what we do on nondisclosure. To try to water that down, I have to ask all members of this House as they vote on that particular issue whose side are they on? Will they beyond the side of those seeking to cover up sexual harassment rather than the side of the whistleblowers? In my mind I as a vote this evening real people in my constituency, I want to tell you about a few of them.

A few months ago I received correspondence from a parish councillor, he is also a local farmer. And a member of the Labour Party. He told me that he was concerned he was seeing, everyday he saw two women sitting in the bus shelter in a cold hilltop village. He approached them to ask what they are doing there, because they were there for several hours. It turned out these people were cared workers, they were dropped off in the morning, they would do a visit and at another point in the day they would do another visit, and another visit later.

But they were only paid for the specific time they were in those people's houses. They weren't paid for the entirety of the day. That's a workaround to avoid paying the minimum wage to these people. This bill makes the provision of a pay agreement -- fair pay agreement. He then opened the village hall for them and made sure they had a warm space to wait each day between their shifts.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was first referred to my register of interests, because I register of interests, because I also was a Unison rep and I've taken contributions from Unison and other unions toward my election expenses. unions toward my election expenses. The point I wanted to make is your point is very real in Cornwall as point is very real in Cornwall as well. Particularly care workers were left on a bench in a village from left on a bench in a village from the early morning shift to the late evening shift.

This is also something that must be addressed and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

something that must be addressed and will be addressed under this bill. It will absolutely. It's 2025, we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It will absolutely. It's 2025, we shouldn't have people working in those kind of conditions. And that sort of poverty in 2025.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sort of poverty in 2025. He spoke about care workers. Does he agree that one of the issues so he agree that one of the issues so brutally exposed during the pandemic was the fact that many thousands of care workers are classed as workers, care workers are classed as workers, not employees. As a consequence, they could not get full access to they could not get full access to sick pay and one of the consequences sick pay and one of the consequences of that issue was that fatality rates, both amongst residents and workers, was much higher in care workers that they not make that provision available.

Many thousands of lives could have been saved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He raises an excellent point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He raises an excellent point. Around the right to sick pay that would have been so important for care workers during the pandemic. To care workers during the pandemic. To my mind's eye are these women sitting at that bus stop in the sitting at that bus stop in the cold. And to other people I met, also care workers, one who lives in also care workers, one who lives in also care workers, one who lives in the red houses area and another, they both told me similar stories.

They didn't vote for me, they didn't They didn't vote for me, they didn't vote for anybody because they didn't believe anybody could fix their believe anybody could fix their problems. They just told me their lives were tough. They had to pay for their own uniforms, they won't for their own uniforms, they won't really getting the minimum wage for their work, they felt disrespected by everybody. They felt vulnerable and left behind. But I make them I promise, that if I came to this promise, that if I came to this place I would speak up for them.

And I'm doing that today. I'm voting for them today as well. Finally may I say the Employment Rights Bill is not just good for workers, it's good not just good for workers, it's good for businesses. So many family businesses in Bishop Auckland, and the surrounding area, they tell me the same thing. They tell me how much they enjoy contributing to our local economy and how important it is to them that they are responsible decent employers, they tell me how tough it is when there's a race to the bottom.

They want these employment rights strengthening, they don't want the watered down version coming from the Lords, they want the full fat version of this bill because they know it is good for their workers and it is good for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their business as well. I would like to start off by thanking all members who contributed to the debate, especially the new to the debate, especially the new ministerial team and senior Ministers across the government who have been committed to this legislation. Especially to the legislation. Especially to the previous ministerial team, who have also advanced this bill through the also advanced this bill through the Commons. In my constituency one of our six key pledges on our leaflets, this was the one that got the
19:59
Euan Stainbank Portrait Euan Stainbank MP (Falkirk, Labour)
-
-
this was the one that got the younger generation interested. Engaged. They were worried about where they would work, how they would work, how they would get ahead in life. The vast majority of young people in this country they are aware that the pastor that better life comes through the workplace. What we see from the amendments? Another week, another paltry attempt by opposition parties originating from the Lords to undermine my constituent rights to work. A couple of weeks back it was an Opposition Day motion that told my constituents if they worked behind a bar they would have less rights than if they work behind a desk.

Another feeble attempt at watering down a popular generational leak crucial piece of legislation. I would like to join the member from Dudley central who is no longer in his place in welcoming the announcement regarding Alexander Dennis today, which covers my constituency and the constituency of my honourable friend from Grangemouth. I campaigned on this issue since the day I was elected to this place and will continue doing so on behalf of the sector and the bus manufacturing workers will be sighing with relief today.

There's been a lot of discussion in the press about who is responsible, who gets the credit. The workforce get the credit for their resilience during what has been possibly the bleakest time we have seen for the bus manufacturing industry in Falkirk. I would also like to say to honourable members, trade unions at the credit. Their persistence, their work, their constructive nature through these negotiations is the reason we came to a positive Many of my constituents will benefit from this.

And young manufacturing workers will be uplifted in terms of their rights, they will benefit from the announcement today because bus manufacturing will continue as it has for a century to exist within the Falkirk area. And the work to make that move permanent with the announcement that gives us at least six months to make it permanent to my constituency must start today. Amendments put forward by those in the other place that looked at this are fundamentally undermining the mission this government was elected To Make Work Pay, and to ensure people are treated well at work.

From 16 to retirement. And predominantly those on insecure roles was not reflected in the way my generation came through. We have to not just lecture young people but show our young people that if they put in the graft they can reap the rewards of their labour. We need to pull it up to the level of the many good employers in our country and employers in Falkirk and beyond. Amendments to the bill removing clause 23 in my mind are simply attempts to water down one of the signature parts of this bill.

I understand if not agree with many people in the other place were talked about the potential problems with hiring and cost-of-living crisis in this economy. But the rights of employees and a young workforce should not be traded off at every instant in order to maximise spreadsheet efficiency what labour market looks like.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way. I wonder if he agrees with me that, when members opposite are opposing day one opposite are opposing day one writes, they are not really worried about the day the right starts, what they are opposed to the right they are opposed to the right itself. Which is why they talk about spreadsheet efficiency.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with that. Especially for look at unfair dismissal. It is not look at unfair dismissal. It is not looking at the actual cause of the dismissal, it is denying people recourse. The recourse you have recourse. The recourse you have cannot claim unfair dismissal is substantially weaker. It does not substantially weaker. It does not change the course of the conduct to be because you have been in unemployment place for 23 months or two years. This is real and two years.

This is real and corrosive. I find young people through my constituency office you have experienced this special in the have experienced this special in the run-up to this bill. There's potentially been a course of conduct potentially been a course of conduct in the workplace which has left them with someone wanting to force them with someone wanting to force them out, it is substantially easier for a bad employer to force them out on that basis. It does not change the that basis. It does not change the nature of the conduct.

Which is poor employment practices. I do understand this concern that has been raised. We are talking about a two-year threshold. It often leads to workers very much earlier on in their careers been taken out of that workplace without due process. Prior warning, and the only recourse is taking an employer to court. Under what is far weaker Redress and subsequently deters them from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pursuing their rights when we talk about day one access. I am grateful. Is he aware that many small businesses are fearful of day one writes? Because they fear day one writes? Because they fear that they take someone on and within a few days it is apparent that person is not appropriate for their person is not appropriate for their business, and then it is the fear of a procedurally unfair dismissal, and the threat of an employment tribunal, and the costs involved.

The result of granting day one writes is that small businesses will writes is that small businesses will be less likely to employ more people, and far less likely to people, and far less likely to employ people at the margins of the labour markets. For example someone recently out of prison, someone with recently out of prison, someone with mental health problems, and this bill will increase unemployment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill will increase unemployment. I have to disagree with the characterisation in terms of increasing employment. We have heard this with regards to other measures. this with regards to other measures. this with regards to other measures. But to tackle the point he's putting forward of someone coming into the workplace was not cut out for it. I've seen that happen in hospitality I've seen that happen in hospitality and retail industries and I leave this is in the bill. In terms of the deterrent effect for small

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deterrent effect for small businesses in hiring people, I will. I thank honourable friend for giving way. I fully agree with him that the probation period is the core of the answer to the question from the other side. But would you also agree that a large part of the fear we are seeing is due to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

scaremongering and misinformation spread by those opposite? I do agree in terms of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do agree in terms of misinformation being put out there. As is often talked about we talk As is often talked about we talk about hospitality. But to address the point that was being put forward, for small businesses I do recognise that but I recognise they have a right to a probation period have a right to a probation period and rights to other forms of employment law. And I have seen that happen frequently.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happen frequently. Would he agree with me that the party opposite bequeathed an economy party opposite bequeathed an economy where more and more people were moving out of work and onto long- term sick. A lot of that sickness was driven by mental health was driven by mental health disorders, particularly anxiety, worry, stress, is driven by an worry, stress, is driven by an insecure labour market. As he agree that the measures in this bill to make people safer and more protected make people safer and more protected at work will improve mental well- being, pre-productivity, and be good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for economic growth? I fully agree that the economic benefits of security in the benefits of security in the workplace is evident. I worked in some of the most insecure industries when it comes to hospitality, and people tried to rush themselves to people tried to rush themselves to work was a severe issue especially after the pandemic. They were aware their income did not have another source of income to go to. There was luckily financial support which was enough to cover wages, at that time for a temporary period of time.

But they then tried to drive themselves back to work place. I remember coming back after a 10 day isolation period from having Covid and I could tell physically, mentally, I was not prepared. It did make me think I wanted to call off sick. It is much more substantially hard for someone to re-enter work of high intensity. We forget hi physically intensive workplaces, and in retail it is difficult.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He has made a very powerful case. And there was some research And there was some research published by the University of Manchester about a decade ago which found that being in forms of found that being in forms of insecure employment may be more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

damaging to people. It is clear and I would add the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is clear and I would add the concern that long-term sickness translating into long-term unemployed something that is seen in insecure workplaces. We often insecure workplaces. We often characterise it as someone bobbing out. It happens through the labour out. It happens through the labour market, and with devastating consequences of the personal consequences of the personal stories. But to this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stories. But to this. I respect the decision he is taken. We have been accused of scaremongering and misinformation. scaremongering and misinformation. What does he say about that Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chamber of Commerce, and the British Chamber of Commerce, and the Confederation of British Industry, all of which have said that because all of which have said that because of this bill and the regulations that they impose, employers will be letting go of staff and there will be a damaging consequence to employment and jobs.

Does he think it is misinformation scaremongering or expert voices urging caution about this bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think to address the point, there are substantial issues facing businesses that I acknowledge. One businesses that I acknowledge. One of the things that is not talked about his energy costs or business about his energy costs or business rates. I'm unaware that we're talking about costs put on business I think this is the fundamental rebalancing effect, and that has to be respect of economic additions. be respect of economic additions. This is something we need to see in order to get generation to believe that work pays again.

Because my that work pays again. Because my generation sadly for many have not had that perception of work for had that perception of work for had that perception of work for long. They are potentially seen other avenues and easier incomes, passive income that does not come from actual hard graft and learning from actual hard graft and learning skills. The problem is the entry skills. The problem is the entry point for far too many young people has been appointed as casualised and insecure and does not have any prospects.

I believe this is a bill prospects. I believe this is a bill that would change that perception substantially. Going back to doorstep conversations, this is one of the pages in a manifesto that did of the pages in a manifesto that did get young people engaged thinking about how politics could fundamentally change their life, fundamentally change their life, their potential experience in the workplace. And to get on with my speech, I apologise. I want to put in mind of someone who is more likely to experience a zero hours contract for the first time.

To address Amendment one for some there was a reasonable point put forward by the member from Dumbartonshire about the right to request rather than a right to contract of ours. I would say zero hours contracts have been extensively extended to that younger generation the entry point within their career. The fundamental flaw with the concept of right to request is, imagine being your first job. Behind the till at Argos, or This is my CV prior to entering politics. At 18 you don't necessarily know the rights.

Often beyond what your mum and dad might tell you. Imagine being in the industry that essentially still adapting to the provisions of this bill after years of zero hours contracts and years of casualised working. Asking for a contract that reflects hours, if you reject this amendment would be entitled to under the spell, how likely people in those situations to press the issue with their employer and the scanner market? How likely would you be to see someone going and bash their fist on the table and say they want the contract that they can request rather than the one I'm entitled to? How likely is that person going to make that job, and we talk about retail and hospitality areas, people often do want to make a career out of these fields.

How likely are they going to do so if it is not something they can get entitled to. They can get the contract which reflects the shift they are putting in. The problem with this amendment as it shifts the current dynamic ever so slightly back to the employer, when the legislation is quite written, and it tipped the balance. Working people have ensured a pandemic, I lost my job and ability to privately rent and had to move back home at age 20.

I will give way. To quote my honourable friend is delivering an excellent speech. He talks about tipping in favour of the employee. How important is that we have heard of employees who have been exploited through zero hours contracts, when they cannot pay their bills, when people have been sexually abused at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation. I thank honourable friend for the intervention the dynamic is apparent within the workplace, even from within the workplace, even from potentially smallest to the serious criminal allegations she refers to. It is the power dynamic that we need It is the power dynamic that we need to address. Zero hours contracts put far too much power in the hands of far too much power in the hands of the employer over the employee. I have worked as an agency member of have worked as an agency member of staff to address this point about notice of cancellation, and been told not to come in the night for a told not to come in the night for a ship.

It is demoralising quite friendly. It alienates you for the workplace and potentially people you had a good laugh with Weber for. Most good employers know it. They Most good employers know it. They don't do it, they don't cancel shifts the day before. Sadly this shifts the day before. Sadly this has been MORI occurring. Something has been MORI occurring. Something post pandemic and I lost my job in the pandemic was top imagine working the pandemic was top imagine working payslip payslip and arranging childcare and then receiving a childcare and then receiving a message at 3am telling you not come in the next day.

We think this gives enough time to manage their life around employer? Or should we say it is insufficient to provide sufficient flexibility but cover for corrosive practices about employers? We must keep this process in mind for consultation with ministers. And that moral clarity should negate the need for consultation. It is no surprise to me that the parties oppose the introduction of the minimum wage and employment relations act to be opposed to this legislation. I have to say that parties purportedly of the left or centre left have to explain at the ballot box to young voters they seem so eager to court while their rights matter less if they were high in the bar, or if they work in the city or as a member of Parliament.

They were elected to displace to deliver for working people. The Employment Rights Act in full will deliver. I will vote tallies amendments will vote tallies amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With leave of the House I like to thank you and your colleagues for conducting this debate so efficiently and effectively. I'm very grateful to members from across very grateful to members from across the House the contributions that they've made to the debate today. they've made to the debate today. And of course throughout the development of this legislation. development of this legislation. It's been exhaustively debated, in committee, in both chambers, and now it's come back again to be it's come back again to be exhaustively voted on this evening.

exhaustively voted on this evening. The Employment Rights Bill benefits millions of people from across the country, raising the floor for workers and strengthening protections in the modern workplace. protections in the modern workplace. It will help unlock higher productivity, drive innovation, and productivity, drive innovation, and create the right conditions for long-term sustainable and secure long-term sustainable and secure economic growth. It's been a constructive debate today, and I want to thank members from all want to thank members from all across the House for their varied and valuable views.

I'm now going to and valuable views. I'm now going to turn to some of the individual contributions made during the contributions made during the debate. Many people spoke about their broad views on the bill their broad views on the bill without asking specific questions, but I would like to unpick as many as I can and reference because it was a very good high quality debate. I will start with my opponent, the Shadow Secretary of State for central rate. I enjoyed his contribution very much, particularly because we are both Sussex MPs.

He referenced many of the places in his constituency and asked in fact if I visited some in his constituency. I grew up in Bognor Regis just down the road from his constituency, and the weekends would often walk to places he now represents in Parliament. It's one of the most beautiful parts of the Sussex pounds. Now he did say that the bill was a bad day for Morrissey. Now he is not unknown for overstatement. But the fact that this bill in itself was in the Manifesto the one the trust of the public, I would say that today is a good day for democracy.

It's a day when the government elected by the people delivers on that promise made to the people. When a bill introduced into the House of Commons, debated here in committee goes to the House of Lords, is debated extensively and comes back, this is democracy at its very best. I hope you will reflect on that this goes further. Now there is a lot of issues about the percentage of voting thresholds that he also raised. I do point out that he was elected to this place on 28% of the vote of the community that he represents.

And I think that if we represents. And I think that if we now apply that logic, then certainly he is suggesting one rule for him and another for the rest of the country. And as a Labour Party that does not stand. I also pointed out during the Conservative period in government, employment tribunal government, employment tribunal delays increased by 60%. From 2010 onwards. Increased by 60%. So we take no lectures on those people who criticise some of the costs that may or may not be incurred as a result of this bill because they inflicted enormous measures and costs on businesses right around the country.

My honourable friend the Member for Ellesmere Port made a passionate and detailed and personal speech about the bill. It's very clear that this is the culmination of his career, both before coming into politics and in politics, both in opposition and in government. I cannot thank him enough for the work is done and the way he has approached, certainly engaging with me since I was appointed just over a week ago to this job. I hope he sees in today's debate and the approach of this Frontbench the legacy that he's left being represented loud and clear.

The honourable member for Chatham, he spoke passionately about the cause of seasonal workers. He spoke of the consultation that we have pledged to give to make sure that we get this right. Several members from across the House spoke about seasonal workers and it's good to see them represented as a Member of Parliament for Sussex. He, for Kent. These are issues we care very deeply about, and we will work and strive to make sure we get it right. The right, might I right honourable friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley is the important point that she had campaigned so hard for about nondisclosure arrangements.

I would like to thank my right honourable friend, the member for Sheffield Heeley because she spoke with not only Passion but also standing on a record of delivery on this matter. She is an advocate for which we should all be proud because she used her parliamentary prowess to deliver the real change that was needed in NDA reform. And I want to thank Celtic Perkins. She is not in the chamber now believe but she did come here. She has shown extraordinary bravery through advocacy for victims of harassment and discrimination.

And I've been stood in admiration of the work she has taken, undertaken. She asked what the consultation will cover. We will consult on the regulations that expand the types of individuals and the measures that applies to beyond those who were within the definition of employee and worker. And in the conditions for accepted NDA's. An example where victim requests one and who workers are covered by an exempted NDA can speak about the relevant harassment and discrimination, for example a lawyer or a medical professional.

She also asked about the timings. Now unfortunately I cannot provide a timetable tonight, but I want to be very clear that this is a personal priority for me, and I want to reassure my right honourable friend that we will be moving as fast as possible to consult on the related secondary legislation and to commence with this measure, and I will stay in touch with her so that she is fully informed along the way. I'm grateful to members from across the House their contributions today and their hard work in getting the bill to where it is at this present moment.

It is of paramount importance that we get this bill onto the statute books and start delivering for businesses and workers as soon as possible. I urge members...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He is rightly talking about the contributions that have been made in this debate by members of various this debate by members of various different parties. I'm always reluctant to criticise individual members who may not attend a debate
20:24
Peter Kyle Portrait Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP, Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Hove and Portslade, Labour)
-
-
members who may not attend a debate because there are often good reasons. But it's now become a pattern that at no point in this bill's passage has any reform member spoken to justify their stance of scrapping thousands of lords, including employment. Does he agree it's a deficit of democracy that not one of them has ever spoken to defend the status?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes indeed. When we talk about seasonal workers, we don't mean seasonal workers, we don't mean those members from reform. And of those members from reform. And of course members have lots of duties elsewhere, but it's not surprising elsewhere, but it's not surprising to me that a party led by somebody that goes to another country and invite that country to punish this country would be absent from a debate which is all about giving rights to workers in this country.

They want to strip our workers of the rights, dignity and indeed the rights, dignity and indeed through their actions, their pay in their pocket. And the absence today their pocket. And the absence today shows nothing else than that. I urge shows nothing else than that. I urge members on both sides of the House to consider carefully the amendments that I have proposed today in lieu that I have proposed today in lieu of those made in another place. Now one of my predecessors as President one of my predecessors as President of the Board of Trade once argued that workers need protection because that workers need protection because without it,, " The good employers, a without it,, " The good employers, a good employers undercut by the bad, and the bad employers undercut by the worst." That predecessor was Winston Churchill.

Churchill knew that the best employees need protecting from unfair competition by companies who trade at the expense of rights at work. This bill protects workers from exploitation. And protects businesses from unfair competition. That is why this bill is pro-worker and pro-business, and I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment A proposed to Lords amendment 22. The question is that amendment A be made. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now have it. The ayes have it. We now come to amendment B to Lords amendment 22, ministered to move amendment 22, ministered to move formally. The question is amendment B be proposed to Lords member 22.

The question is the amendment made. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it, the ayes think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. I called the Minister to me that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment 22 as Lords in their amendment 22 as amended. The question is that this House agrees with the Lords and their amendment 22 as amended. As their amendment 22 as amended.

As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords amendment one. I called the Minister to move one. I called the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the boards in their amendment one. As many as in their amendment one. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." Division! Clear
20:29
20:43
20:54
None Portrait Division: Employment Rights Bill, Lords Amendment 8, Govt. Motion To Disagree
-

House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment eight. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." Division! Clear The The question The question is The question is as The question is as on The question is as on the The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." Tellers for the ayes, Gregor Poynton Deirdre Costigan. Tellers for the noes David Simmonds, Mike

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Locks Locks on Locks on doors! Order, Order, order. Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right, 315, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

note back to the left, 172. The Ayes to the right, 316, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right, 316, the Noes to left, 172, the Ayes carried. Noes to left, 172, the Ayes carried. Noes to left, 172, the Ayes carried. Unlock! We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords Amendment... disagree with the Lords Amendment... We come to the motion to disagree We come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 21. I called the Minister to move the motion. The the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 21.

As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". The Ayes have it. The Ayes carried. We come to The Ayes carried. We come to government amendments letter a and government amendments letter a and B. I will put a single question on these amendments, Minister to move? The question is that government amendments be made in lieu of member 21. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". The Ayes have it. We come to the motion to disagree with Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 23. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords Amendment disagrees with the Lords Amendment 23. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No".
21:07
None Portrait Division: Employment Rights Bill, Lords Amendments 23, Govt. Motion To Disagree
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

At At the At the far

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At the far end At the far end of At the far end of the At the far end of the chamber... We have all night, it will last even longer, if they do not sit. The question is on the Order Paper. As question is on the Order Paper. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". Tellers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Locker Locker doors!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order Order order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order order. The ayes to the right, 329. The noes to the left 163.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 163. The ayes to the right, 329. The noes to the left, 163. So the ayes noes to the left, 163. So the ayes We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 106. I disagree with Lords amendment 106. I called the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 106. As many as are their amendment 106. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it.

We now come to the ayes have it. We now come to government amendment A to the words restored to the bill by the Commons restored to the bill by the Commons disagreement to the Lords amendment 106. Ministered to me formally. The question is that the government question is that the government amendment they make the words restored to the bill by the Commons disagreement to Lords amendment 106. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it.

We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 107. I called the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 107. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion disagree with Lords amendment 108. I called the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in amendment 108.

As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 109. I called the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in amendment 109. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 110.

I called the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in amendment 110. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 111. I called the Minister commuter motion. The question is that the House disagrees with the Lords in amendment 111. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it.

We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 112. I called the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in amendment 112. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 113. I called the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 113.

As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 114. I called the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 114. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 115.

I called the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in amendment 115. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 116. I called the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in amendment 116. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it.

We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 117. I called Mr to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in amendment 117. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 118. I called the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in amendment 118.

As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 119. I called the Minister to move the motion. Question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in amendment 119. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 120.

I called the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in amendment 120. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 46. I called the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in
21:24
21:37
21:37
21:47
21:58
22:11
22:22
22:33
22:46
None Portrait Division: Employment Rights Bill, Lords Amendment 121, Govt. Motion To Disagree
-

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that this The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in amendment 121. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." Tellers for the ayes are Claire Hughes and Mark Ferguson. The tellers for the noes, Andrew As many As many as As many as are As many as are of As many as are of that As many as are of that opinion As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it.

The ayes think the ayes have it. The ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. The Minister to be appointed for a committee to draft reasons. I beg to move that the committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the committee be drawn up. At Peter Kyle, Gen be drawn up. At Peter Kyle, Gen Kitchen, Marie Tidball, Michael Wheeler, Andrew Griffin and Sarah Olney the members of the committee. Olney the members of the committee. There Peter Kyle be the chair of the committee, that three be the core of the committee. That the committee to withdraw immediately.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw immediately. The question is that a committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments one, disagreeing to their amendments one, seven, eight, 23, 107 220, 46 to 49, 60 to 62, 72 and 121. At Peter Kyle, 60 to 62, 72 and 121. At Peter Kyle, Gen Kitchen, Doctor Marie Tidball, and in the lease, Michael Wheeler, Andrew Griffin and Sarah Olney the Andrew Griffin and Sarah Olney the members of the committee.

There Peter Kyle be the chair of the committee. That 3p the quorum of the committee. That 3p the quorum of the committee. That the committee do withdraw immediately. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes contrary, "No." I think the ayes That concludes consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Rights Bill. Motion number three on national security, ministered to me. The question is as on the order paper.

As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary,
22:59
22:59
23:00
23:02
Chris Hinchliff Portrait Adjournment: Provision of council housing Chris Hinchliff MP (North East Hertfordshire, Independent)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now adjourn. Thank you, council housing is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, council housing is the first and most important and only viable solution to the housing crisis that matches the hopes of both the Labour movement and the wider public. Not long ago, Labour frontbench is declared that housing is a fundamental human right and Labour would secure social housing ahead of the private and ministers mantra would be council housing, council housing, council housing! As voters demand a change the government was elected to deliver, now is the time to recapture the clarity and optimism of that vision.

It bears repeating, solely expanding market supply of housing is not a solution to providing the affordable homes that so many families across our country need.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for giving way. In my constituency, giving way. In my constituency, according to one the charity, only 1.4% of one to three bedroom 1.4% of one to three bedroom properties are affordable to renters who need housing benefits, whilst the number of people on the waiting the number of people on the waiting list is nearly triple in three years and rents have surged by over 35%. Does my honourable friend agree that the housing community -- crisis deserves urgent action and as he welcomed the commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

generation. I thank my honourable friend for that intervention, I fully agree, that perfectly exemplifies why the that perfectly exemplifies why the provision so important. England has provision so important. England has seen 724,000 more dwellings than new households since 2015, in the same households since 2015, in the same period, the number of households in England on waiting lists rose by England on waiting lists rose by more than 74,000. Happy to give away.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

away. I thank my honourable friend for giving way, given that there are 1.3 million households on council housing waiting lists, given the Previous commitment to tackling the social housing crisis, does he agree, it is extraordinary that the Minister has repeatedly refused to set a target for social housing, whereas the government thinks that setting a target for building any tab of housing will address the crisis but fails to address the specific problem of building social

**** Possible New Speaker ****

housing? Thank you for that intervention, I fully agree, council housing is I fully agree, council housing is essential to meeting the crisis, I hope we will hear ambitious remarks hope we will hear ambitious remarks from the Minister. The question is not how much housing is built but not how much housing is built but the type of housing and for whom. As was referenced, more than 1.3 was referenced, more than 1.3 million households are trapped on million households are trapped on waiting lists, a rise of 10%, the scale of the failure to provide homes for their citizens is homes for their citizens is staggering and feels that the folly of relying on the private sector to of relying on the private sector to meet the basic needs.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

meet the basic needs. I commend the honourable gentleman for bringing this forward. Obviously, I suspect everyone else Obviously, I suspect everyone else is obvious, housing is the second issue of importance, one of the solutions, perhaps, I want to be solutions, perhaps, I want to be constructive, we need to focus on building smaller units in the social building smaller units in the social housing to enable older couples to move out of family homes, this will enable families to stay within the community and older people to have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

easy to heat homes. As usual, he makes a very good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As usual, he makes a very good point, I wholly agree. As our nation point, I wholly agree. As our nation loses out on the stifled energy, talent and creativity of so many people held back by the fact that people held back by the fact that they do not have a secure home where they can put down roots and they can put down roots and flourish, it is clear that the magic of the invisible act of the free market is little more than a fairytale, told by economists to fairytale, told by economists to justify a refusal to meet our obligations to the least well-off obligations to the least well-off members of society.

However, if we look to the past for inspiration, there are many parallels between the challenges confronting us now and those facing the post-war Labour government that took office two years ago. Labour came into office, years ago. Labour came into office, determined to change the approach to determined to change the approach to policy, which was described as the higher income groups had their houses, the lower did not. Speculative builders supported enthusiastically by many leading organisations, that solve the problem of the higher income groups in the matter of housing whilst the in the matter of housing whilst the left were left behind.

The solution was to start at the other end and focus on meeting the needs of the working class. Our current state of affairs is the same, we need the same priorities to get to the root of the crisis. Whilst House prices in many parts of the country are very high for all, the reality is that, frustrated though the ambitions be, those at the other end of the spectrum cannot. Simply flooding the market with speculative development will not address this problem, the only way to get high quality homes that those can afford is to directly plan and deliver housing for people on low incomes, that is why we must have council housing, not housing to maximise profit council housing, offering rents linked to local incomes.

As Bethan said, and I will be quoting him extensively...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I congratulate him for bringing this important debate. The number of this important debate. The number of council houses reduced since the Labour government established the social housing policy and built the House is needed, the Thatcher government decided to sell those government decided to sell those off. I am not going to object to people buying their own homes but the government at the time did not allow the money generated to be allow the money generated to be reinvested in social housing, the number of social housing stock reduced over time and it has not been replaced, the only way to address the issue is to replace the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

housing lost, would he agree? I do agree, and I will come to right to buy later in the speech, as I said, as Bethan described, the speculative builder is not a speculative builder is not a cannibal instrument, they build what makes the most money, we'd councils empowered to assess the needs of communities and directly deliver for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them because it is in our interest. I would like to thank my honourable friend for giving way, he honourable friend for giving way, he quotes a man with whom he shares the honour of being unfairly suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party, sure he will return, but will he agree with me, a mass council housebuilding program could help to drive down rents in the private sector as well, it is a lack of cancer has provision that has allowed private rent to rocket, pricing people out.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is correct, one of the many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is correct, one of the many benefits of council housing, the provision of council housing is important for meeting the objective important for meeting the objective because the risk of designing housing policy around a target housing policy around a target delivered by a market over which we have limited control. Bevan was right when he said meeting targets would be crystal grazing, and if we attempted to say that by a certain date we would build a certain date we would build a certain number, that statement would rest upon no firm basis.

It is only with to housing, supplied by public to housing, supplied by public authorities, we can give confidence to the electorate in our ability to to the electorate in our ability to deliver. The last time we were building 300,000 homes per year, half the total was council housing. If we want to secure an increase in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If we want to secure an increase in construction, but lion's share of the bonds must come through council housing. I'm grateful for my honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for my honourable friend, having today's debate, of course, Evan also said, only course, Evan also said, only municipal authorities can build the housing for communities. In my constituency, council housing originated with the great committee and with Joseph. Does he agree, we need to restructure the HRA debt so that local authorities can borrow more in order to build the new housing... Council housing that we need.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I fully agree with her, Madam Deputy Speaker, before we get to costs, I would like us to lift our eyes to the prizes to be won by a eyes to the prizes to be won by a new generation of housing across the country because it is not just the most effective tool, to cut waiting lists, not just the best policy to transform the futures of children transform the futures of children going to sleep every night in temporary accommodation, it is not temporary accommodation, it is not just the surest way to save billions of pounds from the housing benefit bill, each of these were not justification enough, council justification enough, council housing is also the best hope we have to create new communities to foster life and society at the foster life and society at the Labour movement has always trimmed off and strived for.

It is not seem off and strived for. It is not seem to be debated often in this place, the built environment that we go about our lives in matters about our lives in matters profoundly in the provision of council housing is not just about progress towards social justice and progress towards social justice and eradication of inequality, it is about building a world around ourselves that contribute everyday to the experience of self worth, happiness, peace, connection and happiness, peace, connection and leisure.

If we are to be judged by future generations, not just on how many houses were built but what we build, a policy dominated by council housing, with local authorities in the driving Street, matching hopes and identity of every community, is essential to avoid the condemnation from history, too many of the estate thrown up in recent years by the private sector have been notably for their identical and bland miserable-ism, leaving aside the appalling quality of new build housing, the status quo approach that housing policy has stuck into has created a new phenomenon of spiritual slums where a lack of facilities or features capable of instilling any sense of interest or pride condemns Myung to a sentence of boredom, when we are building a state with more land given to car parking down space for children to play, antisocial behaviour should not be a surprise to anybody.

The choice facing the Labour government is between socialism or delinquency. Similarly, the record when it comes to integrating nature into our lives, a basic need which we know is essential to our mental health, is shocking. Research has found that environment features are promised in planning conditions and not been delivered most half the time. Simple measures to help declining insect populations, birds, bats and other species, have been shirked by developers and nearly half of the native hedges that was supposed to be laid at exist.

Once again, public goods, even when legally permitted to, failed to materialise when we rely on private interests to meet housing need. Public led housing, council housing, offers the opportunity for different priorities that deliver something better, just as 100 years ago the trailblazer set about housing the working class of Bermondsey whilst improving their lives by planting thousands of trees and fling open spaces with flowers, so now we can have council housing hand-in-hand with nature. What is more, whilst the so-called affordable housing, set at 80% of market rate, often used to justify these developments, in reality it prices key workers at a part of the country, the promise of a new era of council housing, with rents linked to local incomes is a more democratic and less stratified society in which people of all incomes live side-by-side.

I welcome the reassurance that the 60% of the affordable homes program will be for social rent or council housing. Prioritising council had led to deliver it should mean greater public accountability for the maintenance and tenant support which is often lacking from housing associations that have moved from their original purpose. If we want genuinely affordable homes, if we want better place making and greener communities, if we want all of the things our constituents are demanding to go from English to a better society to lift reality, we must have housing funded by patient capital that is able to focus on these wider benefits, rather than Across the country the evidence could be clear that only public funding could be capable of mobilising the necessary resources at the scale required through long- term investments that will deliver the public goods so conspicuously absent for the last years.

In six years at a time of shortages, debt, constraints and competing demands on public expenditure, even greater than our own, the post-war Labour government oversaw the construction of more than 800,000 council houses, some of the best ever built in this country. I better make some progress. That's the yardstick the government should now measure itself against. And now, last two how we might go about achieving this. The place to start of course as before the herd is to plug the gap training our stock of council House year on year.

It's a fact of mesmerising absurdity that in the last year of the previous Conservative government there was a net loss of social housing in this country as over £20,000 for social rent were lost to right buyer, and I therefore welcome the determination of labour minister is to reform the right to buy and ensure that more homes are built than lost, especially the planned 35 year exemption for newly built properties. I urge the government to bring forward the necessary legislation for these changes as swiftly as possible.

Next we need further planning reform to empower local authorities to drive forward a council housing renaissance up and down the land. We need new social housing targets, making the delivery of council housing the Asian priority for every local planning authority. Ministers must bring together local authorities and charities like crisis to create fairer rules for eligibility, the social housing to ensure homeless people are no longer unfairly excluded. And we need to build upon the welcome measures ministers have only brought forward on Hope Valley by allowing local authorities to disregard it entirely for the purposes of purchasing land to meet housing targets.

This would not only make the provision of how council housing vastly increased scale viable by ending the payment of inflated sums of public money to wealthy landowners and the slashing estimate 38% of the total development cost for mass scale building program. It would also allow local authorities to capture the full uplift in land values associated with the delivery of their local plans, funding projects that combine high quality council housing with improved space for nature and expanded public infrastructure.

We must also face up to the reality of serious constraints and construction capacity due to a workforce that is too small and an inadequate supply of key materials. If we are to have the hundreds of thousands of council houses we need to swiftly tackle the housing crisis, the government should ensure that the new strategic planning authorities created through devolution have tools at their disposal to direct available resources towards where they are needed most, even if that means putting limits on construction for private profit.

Of course many of our local authorities will need substantial support to rebuild, the capacity necessary for major cancer housebuilding program as shown to have said, in trying to balance budgets after years of funding cuts, local authorities have been forced to shut down the building operations may transfer the council stock to housing associations or focus on building private homes for sale. We will only see council housing our country desperately needs if we reverse this trend. Started making more low interest loans available, the government should raise the money needed to invest in a new generation of local authority planners, colleges, designers and architects through a win for tax and the largest property developers who have dominated the market and enjoyed supernormal profits for too long.

On funding, the government has committed to a transformative £39 billion over 10 years of the new affordable homes program and I'm not going to try the ministers patients by calling for additional money today but frontloading disinvestment and driving it primarily towards cancer housing conceals well on our way. I recognise that even with all of this, matching the scale of the delivery and the provision of council housing overseen by at least government is a daunting task but in the context of the upcoming budget and decreasing for syphilis debates on the merits of a wealth tax, I will take this opportunity to briefly fly the flag for comparatively straightforward proposal of a levy on mountable homeownership.

With so many in our society unable to access suitable housing at all, requiring those who own multiple to contribute to the public offers a small percentage of their value of their additional properties will be both fair and proportionate, which leaves the final concluding point. The case for more council housing to deliver for our society is overwhelming in its own right, but even if we were to reduce ourselves to desiccated calculating machines, concerned only with economic statistics, the irrefutable fact is that we cannot afford not to invest in hundreds of thousands of new council houses over the coming years.

A major council House building program would deliver a huge boost economic activity in every region of the country and alongside the fast savings to be made to the cost of temporary accommodation provided by councils, the knock-on benefits of secure, decent homes would reduce costs right across the public sector from the NHS to our schools. In short, it would be fiscally reckless not to invest in a new generation of council housing. We all deserve a warm, safe affordable home where we can put down roots with the safety and security of our lives to flourish and grow.

It's our duty to make this a reality. Hundreds of thousands of families cannot afford for us to delay or go slow. Now is the time for this Government to live up to its heritage and provide a new era of council housing that transforms lives of done this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country. Let me begin by congratulating
23:22
Matthew Pennycook Portrait Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me begin by congratulating the honourable gentleman the four North East Hertfordshire on securing this debate as well as thanking those other honourable members who made contributions to it. The made contributions to it. The provision of council housing is of the utmost importance to this government. After decades of marginalisation, we are once again asserting the necessity and the value of social and council housing as a crucial national asset to be proud of, to invest in, to protect and to maintain.

Doing so is imperative. Because successive governments have for decades failed to build sufficient numbers of social and council homes in England, and that is at the heart of the acute and entrenched housing crisis we face today. As has been noted, as a result of diminished and affordable housing supply, particularly in the wake of the coalition decision to slash grant funding, over 1.3 million households now languish on waiting list, millions of low-income families have been forced into insecure and affordable and often substantive private rented housing, and our shame as a nation, over 169,000 children will go to sleep tonight in temporary accommodation.

Now I'm acutely conscious of it be quick or easy. We enter government attempt to turn the situation around and that's precisely what we've begun to do, and in the brief time have available I want to detail how this government is kickstarting a decade of social and affordable housing renewal and set at the ways in which we've laid the groundwork for a reinvigoration of cancer housebuilding. As you know the government stood on a clear manifesto commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable House holding in a generation.

We did so in order to address the urgent need to provide homes for those for whom the market cannot cater but also because the provision of social and affordable housing support wider housing delivery. We know for example that sites where more than 40% of homes are affordable, built-up rates are twice as fast. Boosting the supply of social and affordable homes is therefore at the heart of our efforts to ramp up housing supply more generally and meet housing need and housing demand in full across the country.

I will briefly give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. Given the Minister feels the social housing is so important, can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

social housing is so important, can he explain why he will not set a target for it? I thank her for her intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for her intervention. The reasons we've debated on many previous occasions she will know we've not set a target as things stand but we keep the matter under stand but we keep the matter under review. And we debated the issue on many previous occasions and I've given the honourable member very detailed answers as to why at this detailed answers as to why at this point in time with not set a target but we will keep it under review. but we will keep it under review.

Boosting the supply of social affordable housing is the heart of affordable housing is the heart of our efforts and it's been key to high rates of housebuilding pass, getting councils building again as an essential part of our strategy. When it comes to social and council housing the governor has put its housing the governor has put its money where its mouth is. At the spending review is the only to make clear in his remarks will announce clear in his remarks will announce £39 billion for a successor to the affordable homes program over 10 years from 2026/27 to 2035 /36 and I years from 2026/27 to 2035 /36 and I can confirm that given the protein this Government affords to social this Government affords to social housing, at least 60% of homes delivered through the program will be the social rent.

Accurately forecasting long-term delivery is inherently challenging. One of the reasons we falsetto social and affordable housing target to date, but we believe the program, our grant funded program could deliver around 300,000 social and affordable homes over its lack of the round hundred 80,000 social rent. The program will continue to support regeneration schemes to provide a net increase of homes. And will also permit a limited number of acquisitions. We know these two delivery avenues are important councils including those with older homes and those looking to rapidly grow the housing portfolios to deal with acute local patients.

We also recognise that certain types of much-needed housing can cost more to deliver including those built by councils. That's why the program isn't designed to be is designed to be flexible with councils encouraged not to self censor were coming forward with bids. And as members know, to improve financial capacity, to deliver new supply and support long-term planning for the first time we announced a 10 year social housing rent policy at the Spending Review and in addition recently completed consultation on how to implement the social rent conversions mechanism, the outcome of which will be confirmed at the Autumn Budget.

The inclusion of this mechanism will be beneficial to councils with many authorities letting homes at below formula rent. Both these measures will support their capacity to borrow and invest in new and existing homes. Beyond investment, we've developed a series of measures designed to enhance councils confidence, capacity and capability to deliver and I want to cover some of those as they directly address the subject of the debate. As the young gentleman is aware, one of the early active this Government was introduced transforming changes to Right to Buy.

We want to retain a scheme that helps long-standing tenants to buy their own homes be good not ignore the detrimental impact the Right to Buy was having an existing stock and councils confidence to deliver new social and affordable housing so we take decisive action to deliver a fairer and more sustainable scheme that provides better value for money and create certainty for councils to once again build a scale. Changes that have already come into effect include retaining the maximum cash discounts to between 16,030 8,000.

Also enable councils to keep 100% of the Right to Buy receipts for reinvestment into new and existing homes, but we won't stop there. Following consultation we will legislate from a competitive set of reforms when Parliament return allows. These reforms will include a 35 year exemption from the scheme the newly built homes and a first option for councils to repurchase homes acquired through Right to Buy if they are sold on. On top of this, from 2026/27 people act on a long- standing ask them councils by allowing them to combine Right to Buy receipts with grant funding from the social and affordable homes program.

In addition to revenue generated from sales to Right to Buy and capital subsidy, we know how important borrowing is the councils delivery plans. Since 2023 a preferential borrowing rate has been available from the Public Works loan Board for cancer housebuilding. So for this preferential rate has enabled councils to borrow £6 billion for investment in new and existing homes unconscious this right was due to expire at the end of this financial year and recognise the calls from councils for long- term certainty. Considering this we will confirm our approach to this discounted rate at Autumn Budget.

Many of the measures I've mentioned so far relate to councils financial capacity. We know command again the honourable gentleman mentioned in his remarks, we note that the challenges they face are not solely financial and that as rates of delivery has declined, so too have delivery has declined, so too have the skills and capacity of the housing teams. In response, in partnership with homes England and the Local Government Association, which launched the cancer housebuilding skills and capacity program backed by £12 of funding this year.

This program aims to upskill councils existing workforces, recruit and train new graduates to become qualified surveyors and construction project managers and drive engagement with the social and affordable homes program. To conclude, this Government rains firmly committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation. Now can we have prioritised the delivery of social rented homes and we are taking steps to enable councils, whether it's those who are already delivering or those with closed housing revenue accounts who want to deliver, to once again build at scale.

We've achieved an incredible amount over the space of just 14 months there is so much more to come. We will continue to engage with councils and pull every lever at our disposal to increase their confidence, capacity and capability to deliver the social homes that low-income families across the nation need to live, grow and to build a better life for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

themselves. The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it.
00:01
None Portrait Oral questions: Home Office
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page