Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 17th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We are not happy with a number of other parts of the amendment. We are proposing a measure that we have already proposed in earlier debates. It is, of course, up to those in the other place to decide how they take their amendments forward, but we believe that this is fair. We are satisfied that it is an effective way to provide for clarity, and that the individual consultations for specific minimum service levels in relevant services required by Lords amendment 2D are not needed. The real impact of the amendment would be a delay in the implementation of minimum service levels, given the additional and lengthy consultation and parliamentary requirements which we strongly suspect are its purpose. Unnecessary delays in the protection of the lives and livelihoods of those whom we have been elected to represent cannot be justified.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Let me repeat, at the outset, our opposition to the Bill and our intention to repeal the Act that it will become should we be in a position to do so in the future. It is one of the most illiberal, unconscionable and ultimately destructive pieces of legislation produced by any Government. We believe that the right to withdraw labour is a fundamental right, a human right, and one that should not be extinguished. Even if some Conservative Members cannot see past their hostility to trade unions and past the easy headlines, they should see that what they are asking their constituents to do is distinctly un-British, because it infringes on individual freedoms that ought to be—even for Conservative Members—a basic part of any open and democratic society.

Freedom matters, and valuing freedom sometimes means that we protect another person’s freedom to do something even if we do not personally agree with the particular course of action. But our objections are based not just on principles, but on practicalities. Ultimately, we do not think that the Bill will work. The Bill is counterproductive because it will not quell the concerns of many people in the sectors that have taken industrial action. Taking away the right to strike will not take away people’s concerns. We cannot legislate away people’s legitimate grievances about their working conditions. Because the Bill is so ill defined and poorly thought through, Parliament must have a proper opportunity to consider its ramifications.

The measures set out in Lords amendment 2D attempt to address some of those issues. The amendment also provides yet another opportunity for us to raise our concerns about the Government’s lax approach to proper scrutiny during the Bill’s progress so far. Let us go back to when the Bill was first published. It is surely a basic expectation of Government that they should provide an impact assessment before asking hon. Members to vote on a Bill. But no—we were asked to trust the Government that the matter was in hand and that all would be fine. We said it at the time and we say it again: that approach is completely unacceptable.

The Bill had been trailed in the press for months before it was published, so not to have the impact assessment ready at the same time was a failure of basic competence. When it finally appeared, we could see why the Government were so keen to keep it under wraps. The Regulatory Policy Committee said that it was not fit for purpose—it could just as easily have been talking about the Government—and no wonder, given that the assessment contains statements that undermine both the purpose and execution of the Bill.

The impact assessment states that the Bill

“could mean a general increase in tension between unions and employers. This may result in more adverse impacts in the long term, such as an increased frequency of strikes for each dispute.”

When Ministers told us on Second Reading that the Bill would reduce the disruption caused by strikes, what they apparently did not know was that the Government’s own impact assessment would say that it could, in fact, have the opposite effect. The impact assessment also says, on at least half a dozen occasions, that assumptions are being made about the level of service that would be required. That is the point of the Lords amendment: unless we have some idea about what these minimum service levels will be—in the six months since the Bill was published, Ministers have not come to the Dispatch Box and told us—we are legislating in a vacuum.

The point has not been lost on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which wrote in its assessment that

“there is nothing in the Bill saying what those minimum service levels are. We shall only know when Ministers make regulations after the Bill is enacted. This is small comfort to Parliament, which is considering the matter right now.”

The Committee’s recommendation was that the Government should publish indicative draft regulations alongside the Bill. As it rightly points out,

“the Government must have some idea how they propose to exercise these powers.”

It is no surprise that the impact assessment got a red rating. Of the 861 Bills assessed by the Regulatory Policy Committee since its creation, just 2.9% have been given a red rating. When legislation represents such a fundamental departure from past practice, the importance of impact assessments increases rather than decreases.

If this all sounds familiar to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is because it is. Only last week the High Court said, in relation to the consultation process for the regulations that allow agency workers to break strikes, that

“this is not a case in which the evidence is that the proposal had obvious and undisputed merit based on cogent evidence, and enjoyed strong support from representative bodies in the sector”.

It could have been talking about this Bill—no doubt, in time, it will be.

The pattern is familiar. The Government decide the policy, although “policy” is probably too strong a word. The Government decide the headline that they want to create, rush through ill-thought-out legislation and then ignore all the voices that point out principled and practical objections. That is to treat democracy with contempt. Parliament is not a rubber-stamping process to agree whatever the Government of the day decide. When Parliament is starved of its ability to properly scrutinise legislation, that impacts on fundamental human rights, as it does in this case. It should come as no surprise that there is pushback from the other place requiring that a robust process be followed.

The amendment is important because the International Labour Organisation’s conference committee on the application of standards called on the Government to ensure that existing and prospective legislation is in conformity with the convention that governs freedom of association and the protection of the right to organise. I would not have thought that is too much to ask of a modern liberal democracy. In fact, I am rather ashamed that the ILO has had to point it out at all.

All this amendment does is what the ILO is asking the Government to do anyway, which is to undertake genuine consultation before implementing minimum service regulations. This means that, when regulations are published, they would include an impact assessment and there should be genuine consultation on the regulations, including on the protection for workers named in work notices and the reasonable steps a trade union needs to take to ensure compliance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is why it would have been so interesting to see what the consultation responses were to the draft regulations, because those might have told us whether employers were saying, “Don’t do this; we don’t think it is going to work.” We know that a long list of employers’ organisations are opposed to this Bill, and I will come on to that in a moment. They understand that, ultimately, it is not going to help industrial relations but will sour them.

In summary, the Bill’s impact assessment turns up late and is inadequate; no pre-legislative scrutiny or evidence sessions for the Bill took place; the Committee stage is rushed through in one day; and subsequent consultations are incomplete and leave many questions unanswered. Yet the Government still say that this Lords amendment is not necessary. The evidence to date and the opinion of the ILO say otherwise. I referred to the fact that the ILO is not alone in expressing concerns about the Bill. Many organisations have expressed alarm, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, NHS Providers, the rail industry, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the TUC, and the Welsh and Scottish Governments. The Transport Secretary and the Education Secretary have also done so, and I could give more names, but I have only an hour for this debate and so I will leave it there.

When we have the shameful spectacle of the ILO calling this Bill out, Members need to think again. By rejecting this Lords amendment, the Government are, in effect, saying one of two things: either they do not know whether they break international law; or they do know but they just do not care. We ought to care, we ought not to be trailing behind in workplace protections, and we ought not to be mentioned in the same breath as Turkmenistan. We ought to be leading from the front, as an exemplar for other countries to follow and a leader on the international stage that says, “Yes, good workplace rights and strong trade unions are a key component in any prospering modem economy, and the right to withdraw your labour is a fundamental one.” However, this Bill is the hallmark of a weak Government who have run out of steam, have nothing left to offer but division and want to silence the very people who keep this country going—shame on them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson

[Alan Brown]

It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). I agree with all his comments, but I hope that Labour stays resolute on this. If it comes into government, we do not want to see another U-turn, given what we heard at the weekend.

The Minister put forward the myths again about how this Bill is about saving lives and livelihoods. I do not know how he can talk about saving livelihoods, as he is bringing forward a Bill that is going to allow workers to be sacked more easily. Workers’ livelihoods are at stake because of the Bill and the intentions behind it. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Lords for the fight they have brought on this, but I am a wee bit disappointed that the Lords amendment is only about the consultation. Even if we manage to defeat the Government tonight, the Lords amendment does not provide any additional proper protections for the unions or the workers, because it is all about consulting. At least consulting would draw out some transparency, because the Government would need to publish responses and allow the House or a Joint Committee to debate those. In itself, however, the amendment does not provide any additional protections.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 4, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 7, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 3.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

This Bill was introduced with the intention of balancing the ability to strike with the rights and freedoms of the public, by applying minimum service levels on strike days to protect the lives and livelihoods of the public. We should not ignore the fact that the economic costs of these strikes have been estimated at around £3 billion, and much of that impact falls on business sectors that are already facing difficulties, such as the hospitality sector.

The Bill brings the UK into line with many other countries: Spain and France have statutory minimum service levels in ambulance services and they also, along with Belgium, have statutory minimum service levels in fire services. In some countries, such as the United States of America, Australia and Canada, some services are prohibited from taking any strike action altogether. However, the Government are not suggesting we go that far.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and it is why only a few days ago we published a framework for better regulation to look at these things in the round and to make sure we have regulators that serve the public, rather than the interests of the regulator. We do not want to see regulatory creep for any purpose other than consumer benefit, and he and I will continue to have significant dialogue on those issues.

Some Members will argue that we should legislate more like the EU’s Digital Markets Act, by using this Bill to create sweeping, one-size-fits-all measures. However, our Brexit freedoms mean we can draft legislation that drives innovation without placing blanket obligations on firms or creating unnecessary regulatory burdens. Some will respond to the Bill by saying that we should go harder against big tech, but I remind them that the Bill’s primary purpose is to reduce economic harms, to boost competition, to create a fair and level playing field, and to give consumers greater choice and better prices.

We need to act, but we must act proportionally because tech firms make a valuable contribution to the economy and our lives. Big does not equal bad. A war on tech will not create growth. It has already been argued in this debate that the CMA has enough power, and my response is that technology is changing rapidly and our watchdogs need to be equipped to fully support businesses and consumers in this competitive world.

I look forward to engaging with colleagues as the Bill makes its way through the House, and I hope Members will give it their backing so that the Government can continue our work of protecting consumers, increasing competition in all markets and growing the UK economy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

Indeed. I do not wish to go into the details of a recent case, because I have not studied all the documents, which would be necessary to do justice to both sides of the argument. Thinking back to when I was competition Minister—a good while ago now—when I was acting for the then Secretary of State, there was a difficult issue that arose over media challenge to the then existing limited number of media players where two of the new services wanted to merge together. I recommended, and we decided, that the two should be allowed to merge because they made a more effective competitor to what was already there, rather than taking the narrow pro-competition view that we needed to have two new challengers. The danger was that they would both fight each other to the death and leave the main media institutions—ITV and the BBC—unchallenged by alternative services.

The regulator has to understand that competition is not always furthered by blocking something; sometimes it can actually be furthered by encouraging the new. The main issue in competition law is often the definition of what is the market. I have already mentioned retail. If the market is online retail, we might want to stop a successful online retailer growing by acquisition, but if the market is retail, we might want a strong online competitor in order to challenge the previously dominant shop retailers. However, it is now coming to the point where it may be the other way around—where we need to be worried about the adequacy of the conventional retailer response.

Let me illustrate the importance of the central issue of capacity to the debate. One thing that has been extremely scarce—this has been blamed by many for the worst part of the inflation we have been experiencing—is energy. If the United Kingdom persists in saying that we do not want to get our own gas out of the North sea, we will not automatically transfer to green electricity; we will import gas from somewhere else. By doing so, not only will we damage our economy, as we forgo the jobs in the North sea and the cheaper gas, because the imported gas will be dearer; it will also be much worse for the environment, because by delaying or blocking the gas that we could get out, we will automatically import more liquefied natural gas. LNG generates at least twice as much CO₂ as burning our own gas down a pipe because of all the energy entailed in compressing a gas, liquefying it, transporting it and then converting it back to the gas that we need to use. It is therefore a doubly foolish policy.

We need to expand our capacity in energy where it is available and we need to understand that there are huge economic gains to producing our own. We also need to be worried about national resilience. If we wish to say that we can defend our country and its allies, it is terribly important that we produce enough for ourselves. Having energy self-sufficiency is always critical to having a country with resilience and strong defences.

The electrical revolution seems to be popular in most parts of the House of Commons, with people urging the Government to achieve a faster electrical revolution, switching more and more people from being predominantly users of fossil fuel—most of us predominantly use fossil fuel with a petrol or diesel car and a gas boiler—to using electrical means for our main energy uses. If we are to pursue that electrical revolution, there needs to be a massive expansion in grid capacity and in cable capacity into everybody’s homes, offices and shops. It is simply not possible at the moment to generate the competition that we want for electricity against fossil fuels, and within electricity for renewables against more traditional ways of producing electricity, because the new renewable ways are so grid intensive and need so much more grid and cable capacity—we have to time shift them because they are often not available—that we are not going to get very far.

Already, I have helped with a major investment in my constituency, which was very welcome. One possible stumbling block was that the electricity companies could not offer enough power for the particular business development. There had to be an agreement over how much power the development could have available, because there was not limitless power for it to buy. The issue was to do with grid capacity. We will find that that becomes more and more common if we do not get on with dealing with this particular issue.

A very topical issue today is capacity in motor vehicles. If we are to have a full range of choice and enough domestic production, it is not a good idea to ban the sale and therefore the manufacture of petrol and diesel cars as early as 2030, when no other major country in the world is doing so and when there will still be quite a lot of buyers who want petrol and diesel cars. I urge the Government to understand what competition choice means. It means that people will buy electric cars when they want to buy them. They will buy electric cars when they are cheaper and better, and when they believe that the range is right and that the necessary back-up facilities are in place. I have no doubt that electric vehicle sales will grow, but it would be quite wrong to have an artificial injection of policy to ban older cars and prevent capacity and choice.

If the UK does not have battery production capacity, all we will do by banning petrol and diesel cars is destroy the successful industry that we have, which makes extremely good petrol and diesel cars, without having the replacement industry in place. It is not a simple matter of switching the production line from a diesel car one day to an electric car the next; it is a totally different product, built in a totally different way. An electric car needs a battery, which may be 40% of its value, and currently we cannot produce those batteries in any numbers to replace the capacity that we wish to cancel. I urge the Government to think again about consumer choice, competition and investment flows, because there is no way that people will want to invest serious money in the UK motor industry if its regulatory environment is more hostile than those elsewhere.

I was pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister take a great personal interest in food production. I believe he held a very successful seminar yesterday and asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to go away and work up a series of measures. I do not doubt the enthusiasm of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which I fully share and have often promoted, for us to grow much more of our own food in this country and to offer that much more choice to people in our supermarkets. However, when I look at the package of measures the Department has brought forward, there is hardly anything in it that would carry that ambition through.

The Department still intends to spend most of its subsidy money, most of its exhortation and a great deal of its regulation on encouraging farmers not to produce food, to wild their land and to achieve great things on managing the landscape for us all. That is all very nice, but it is possible to have perfectly attractive fields growing food, and that is clearly what we need rather more of.

We need to back the new robotics, artificial intelligence and electromechanical technologies that could transform the production of fruit and vegetables and other market garden products, as they used to be called, where we have allowed our market share to fall dramatically in the last 30 or 40 years. We are now reliant on imports, which limits choice, drives up prices and puts our national food resilience more in doubt because, were there to be problems with the supply from our normal suppliers abroad, I am sure we would be towards the back of the queue when it came to getting to what we needed.

I am conscious that others wish to speak in the debate, so I will not go into every sector, but the Government need to review sector by sector what they are doing that could help to increase capacity. Can they not reposition their subsidies, grants and direct investments, which they are making around the place on a pretty colossal scale, in a way that promotes that capacity and thus eases the position for competition? There is a particularly worrying trend at the moment—one that is bad for public spending and bad for business—that we make so many confused interventions that we need another intervention to deal with the previous intervention.

I will finish on the issue of high energy usage industries—steel, ceramics and other similar industries—which are gravely at risk. We have lost colossal capacity and market share under Governments of all parties since I have been around watching such things. The danger is that that loss will accelerate from here because we decide to impose the highest carbon taxes of any advanced-world country, as far as I can see—another major problem for the cost base of industries that are struggling to compete—and we then draw back in horror when we see that there could be closures and job losses, so the Government put some subsidies back in and we have a subsidy trying to countervail the tax. However, the subsidy is usually not as much as all the taxes combined, because when we add the 31% corporation tax—should there be any profits, and unfortunately there often are not—on top of the windfall taxes on the energy companies and on top of the carbon taxes on the steel and ceramics businesses, the tax burden is colossal and would be punitive were businesses to succeed and start making money. The demand for subsidy then becomes greater.

To have a competitive market would be extremely welcome. We have a market that is not nearly competitive enough. I ask the Government to look at what they are doing, because I think they are in danger of doing counterproductive and contradictory things: taxing too much, subsidising not quite enough and then inventing rules that stop people doing business.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Post Office: Horizon Compensation

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before we come to the statement, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. As has been said to the House on previous occasions, there are relevant active legal proceedings in the Court of Appeal. I am exercising the discretion given to the Chair in respect of matters sub judice to allow reference to those proceedings, as they may concern issues of national importance. However, I urge Members to exercise caution in what they say and to avoid referring in detail to cases that remain before the Court of Appeal.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Post Office and compensation for the Horizon scandal.

The Horizon scandal was a truly appalling episode in this country’s history. Our postmasters—those hard-working, thoroughly decent people, who give so much to our communities right across the country—were made to suffer horrifically and for many years. We want the postmasters who fought to expose that injustice through the High Court to receive compensation on a similar basis to their peers. I put on record our thanks to Alan Bates and the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, and to many others, journalists and parliamentarians, who were key to the campaign.

On 7 December we announced the outline of the group litigation order compensation scheme. I am delighted to tell the House that from today, the scheme is open to receive claims. Details of how to claim can be found on the gov.uk website. I am writing to GLO members today with further information and placing copies of that information, the scheme application form, scheme guidance and principles, and questions and answers for the scheme in the Library of the House.

Our legal powers to pay compensation expire in August 2024. We certainly intend and expect to make payments much faster than that. We said in December that we would follow an alternative dispute resolution model. We have appointed Dentons as claims facilitators to promote the fair and prompt resolution of each case. We have also appointed Addleshaw Goddard as our external legal adviser on the scheme. They have been instructed to recommend fair offers.

In December we also announced an independent advisory board to oversee the scheme. Reports of its meetings are available on gov.uk. I put on record my thanks to board members Professor Chris Hodges and Professor Richard Moorhead, as well as to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and Lord Arbuthnot—who is in the Public Gallery—both of whom have long been tireless campaigners for the wronged postmasters. I am pleased to announce that the remit of the advisory board will be expanded to cover the historical shortfall scheme, postmasters’ suspension pay, and compensation for postmasters with overturned convictions.

I am pleased to report that good progress is also being made by the Post Office on compensating other groups of postmasters. As of 20 March, the Post Office has paid out more than £17.6m in compensation to postmasters with overturned historical convictions, 79 postmasters have received interim compensation payments, and 49 non-pecuniary claims have been paid. The Post Office has reached full and final settlement in four cases.

On the historic shortfall scheme, 98% of eligible claimants had been issued offers of compensation, totalling £90.2 million, as of 21 March. I recognise that in recent weeks concerns have been raised about the tax position of claimants in that scheme. It has always been the intention of the scheme to return postmasters to the position that they should have been in had they not been affected by the Horizon scandal. The Government want to see fair compensation for all victims, and my Department is working urgently to address that issue with the Post Office, the Treasury and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

As we talk about financial compensation schemes, we must never lose sight of the human cost of this dreadful injustice. That is why, as the House will know, Sir Wyn Williams is chairing a statutory inquiry to establish what went wrong, and to identify those responsible for what has happened so that, where possible, we can hold them to account. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his words. He is absolutely right that it has taken too long and people have died waiting for compensation. That is totally unacceptable, and the worst part of that delay was the obfuscation and denials of the Post Office when clear evidence that something was sadly amiss was brought to light by parliamentarians. Yes, it is absolutely the case that we want every single person of the 555 who merit compensation to get it so that it is fair across the board—so that, between them, the three schemes deliver fair outcomes and there is parity across them. I am determined to make sure that that happens, as is the advisory board. We will report back to Parliament regularly to ensure that Members are aware that that is the case.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. Of course, I welcome what he outlined, and, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices, I am very grateful to him for keeping me updated.

We now have three streams for former postmasters and sub-postmasters who were affected by Horizon to claim compensation—that is really important. The Minister has talked about achieving parity, and I think he will agree that that must be done. I would be keen to for him come back to the House to tell us that it is happening and that the latest compensation scheme will not run out of time.

I think it worth mentioning again the hard work done by the JFSA, by journalists such as Nick Wallis, by Members of this House and by former Members who are now in the other place. They have all been of great help to the APPG. I came into the House not knowing anything about Horizon—I wish I did not know what I know now. I congratulate the Minister and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), on grabbing hold of this matter and making things happen. So many people will be grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his points, and I also hope that some good comes out of this terrible scandal. I am a big fan of mutual organisations. I am happy to have a conversation with him. I will respond in writing, and perhaps we can meet following that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and advance notice of it, and the members of the advisory board for their important work.

I want to focus on one particular sentence of the Minister’s statement, which is very important. He said that the intention of the compensation scheme is

“to return postmasters to the position that they should have been in had they not been affected by the Horizon scandal”.

He will know that that has an important meaning in law for the calculation of compensation. Some victims of this scandal feel that they have not been fully put back into the position they would have been in had they not been a victim of this scandal. Can he confirm for those victims what process they should follow to ensure that the compensation scheme delivers on its intention as stated on the Floor of the House today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point out the emotional distress that many people felt, and the fact that some people have passed away while this process has been ongoing, a point also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). To be clear, any compensation can, of course, be paid to family members in that situation—a situation that, clearly, is entirely unacceptable. The Sir Wyn Williams inquiry will look at all the different factors at play in terms of why this happened, what could have been done, what should have been done, and who is responsible. I am absolutely determined to make sure that we learn the lessons from it, but not just that: if people can be held to account for what they have done, they should be, and I will do everything I can to make sure that they are.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Minister for his statement.

Royal Assent

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2023

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023

Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Act 2023

Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023

UK Infrastructure Bank Act 2023

Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 24th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)]

I rise in support of the Bill and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for her incredible work to ensure that it reached this stage. I also thank the Minister and his team for their work to ensure that it happened.

I am slightly biased, because I was a Minister for a short period and worked on the Bill with the hon. Lady. Its importance goes beyond politics and party lines, so I am pleased that hon. Members have come together to ensure that it goes through to the next stage. I hope that, when it reaches the House of Lords, the Lords realise how important it is to this place and to society. During the pandemic, and in the lead-up to it, society changed and flexible working became much more important to us, because the technology had finally caught up with where society wanted to be.

The challenge is that we live in a fast-paced, 24/7 world where it is easy to be switched on all the time. Sadly, some workplaces expect us to be switched on 24/7, which can be challenging for families, parents and everyone. It also means, however, that we can be switched on to work from home, when it is beneficial to be at home or to be flexible in the hours that we work, and so fulfil our duties as family members, parents, siblings and carers while delivering on the job at hand. Flexible working is often seen through the lens of workers, and that is absolutely right, but it is important that businesses know that it is also beneficial to them. Some employers already have lots of flexible working opportunities, and they do that not only for the right reasons, but because it is good for them, as it is good for employees, for productivity and for morale.

I want to raise several points about the Bill. First, it introduces a requirement for employers to consult with the employee before rejecting their flexible working request, which facilitates a more open and constructive dialogue between employers and employees. That is important, because to have that conversation in the first place enables action to be taken, but if the request cannot be achieved, the Bill would ensure there is an understanding of why, which ultimately may enable a future request. That is important because it opens employers’ eyes to the importance of flexible working to the employee.

Secondly, the Bill allows an employee to make two statutory requests in any 12-month period. That is important, because at the moment it is just one, and the problem is the stress on the individual. It is quite a moment when someone needs to go in and ask for time to be flexible within the workplace. For many, even asking makes them worry and fear that they will then be judged and that ask will be seen as negative. The Bill makes a level playing field by ensuring that both employee and employer are aware of why the flexible working request is important and what the benefits are, and ultimately what difference it will make to the employee.

Thirdly, the Bill reduces the decision period within which an employer is required to administer the statutory request from three months to two months, reducing undue delay for the employee, who is balancing multiple commitments. I have had a family member have to go into hospital, which all of a sudden throws everything out. It throws up the challenges of picking up one’s child from school and the worry about one’s family member—it picks up so many different issues that can affect someone within the workplace. It can affect what they are thinking about and where they can physically be at certain times. Making that request and knowing that one can get a response within two months rather than three makes a big difference. That could perhaps be even shorter, but I appreciate that for many employers, making a change within two months can be challenging in and of itself.

Fourthly, this important Bill removes the requirement that the employee must explain the statutory request, the effect the change would have on the employer and how that might be dealt with. That is crucial, because previously the employee had to explain to the employer how the request for time and flexible working practice would impact on the business. The challenge for employees is that they might not know the full context. They might not be able to make that argument. Someone working as a cleaner in a business might not know why the request has an impact on the wider business, but that does not mean the request is not still crucial or that it will have an impact on their ability to do their job.

Fifthly, it was pleasing to see in Committee that the amendment tabled on the entitlement to make flexible working applications from day one was accepted by the Government. That took a lot of time and effort to get right, because for some businesses the concern was that if they are doing it on day one, how can the person be judged on doing their job when they are not physically in work, and how can the impact of the request be judged? The amendment would enable any employee on day one to go in and say, “I’ve got a need to be flexible, but I can still offer something positive to the business and make sure that I am delivering.” This is about productivity and flexible working in the best possible way, but it is ultimately about ensuring fairness at the heart of workers’ rights and within businesses.

With the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill that I have been working on with my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), the key thing is workers’ rights, but it is also about fairness. In the workplace, we often go to work to make a life. We work to live or we live to work. Many of us in this place often live to work and we all love what we do 24/7, which is why we do what we do; it is about community and civic service. However, many people go to work to get a wage in order to go home and look after their family, and flexible working is a key part of that. When we are looking at this Bill, we have to make sure we are delivering on that part.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We shall now observe the national one-minute silence to mark the one-year anniversary of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.

A one-minute silence was observed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Slava Ukraini.

[Hon. Members]

Slava Ukraini.