Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing the debate. I welcome the Minister to her position; I believe that this is her first opportunity to contribute from the Dispatch Box. I heartily congratulate her on her achievement.

We have had an interesting debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne set out clearly some of the issues with the Employment Rights Bill from his constituents’ perspective. I then heard the completely opposite view from the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who inexplicably has not been readmitted into the bosom of the Labour party. I hope her readmission is imminent, because she put the governing party lines across very clearly.

The clue is in the name of the debate: we have to focus on employment. Today’s labour market data was sobering and should serve as a wake-up call to the Labour Government. Payroll employment has fallen by 142,000—more people than any one of our constituencies contains—and has declined in every quarter. It is not a blip. Sadly, it is a trend, and it is happening on this Government’s watch because of measures such as the Employment Rights Bill and the jobs tax. Vacancies are also falling. My first question to the Minister is how she reconciles that with Labour’s mission to deliver economic growth.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to deny the employment facts from the Office for National Statistics?

[Andy McDonald]

I wish to intervene, not to have the shadow Minister shape the terms of my intervention. She is talking about the impact of the Employment Rights Bill. How can that be? Has it yet been enacted?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman anticipates the rest of my contribution. Has the hon. Gentleman read the impact assessment that the Labour Government have put out for the Bill? It estimates that the cost on businesses will be £5 billion. I ask him how he thinks that will end up. It will not end with a hiring spree, I can assure him.

Against the background of rising unemployment, what is the Government’s answer? It is more regulation, more costs and more pressure on employers, as we saw last night when we debated the Employment Rights Bill. It would be more apt to call it the unemployment rights Bill. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of today’s rising unemployment and slowing job creation on those who really need an employer to give them their first chance, particularly young and entry-level workers?

If the Government are serious about making work pay, they must stop making it harder for businesses to hire, invest and grow. The British people deserve better than a shrinking jobs market and a Government who have clearly let the trade unions take the wheel. Yesterday, the Government chose to vote down all the amendments that had been agreed in the other place. They voted to reject the requirement to consult small businesses about the impact of the Bill. They voted against reinstating the requirement for the trade unions to choose to opt into the political fund. The Bill changes it to an opt-out. It is a vote for endless trade union payments. I hope that the Minister will declare her interest in relation to contributions from the unions to her election campaign.

Yesterday, the Government voted against the reinstatement of a 50% trade union member threshold for voting for industrial action. I am afraid that that is a vote for more strikes. How can the public trust that the Employment Rights Bill serves the national interest when over 200 Labour MPs have taken millions from the unions, and when the Bill appears to prioritise union access and strike powers over the much-desired economic growth?

As I have mentioned, the Government’s own impact assessment says that there will be a £5 billion cost to business. The Prime Minister’s new economic adviser, Minouche Shafik, has admitted that Labour’s Employment Rights Bill will lead to fewer jobs. We need not listen just to her. The National Farmers Union has warned that the Bill ignores the seasonal nature of agricultural work. The UK Cinema Association has said that it is “no exaggeration to say” that this Bill will bring the viability of some operators into question. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has highlighted the risk to small businesses: it is all but guaranteed, it says, that small businesses will adopt more risk-averse recruitment practices in response, if they are confident about taking on any new talent at all.

My heart goes out—my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne made this point passionately—to all those people who need an employer to take a chance on them. I am thinking of the people who are perhaps a little riskier to take into an organisation and who really need someone to give them that chance—possibly their first chance. One well-known employer is exceptional in that regard: the large employer Mitie. It warns of higher costs and tribunal pressures, and that the right in relation to unfair dismissal will cripple smaller organisations. It adds that it is crucial that the Government permit some flexibility for employers that need to adapt to fluctuating demand.

These are not fringe concerns. These are the voices of employers across agriculture, culture, services and finance, who are united in their message that this employment rights legislation will make it harder to hire, harder for the country to grow and harder to serve the public. The Labour Government’s refusal to listen to these voices is not just reckless; it is simply ideological. I think we heard some of that in this afternoon’s debate.

The Bill is not about improving rights. It is about empowering the paymasters, the unions, and about punishing enterprise. What I can say to the country is that under Conservative leadership, we will stand with business, grow jobs and deliver growth in the overall economy, because that is the only way to build a stronger, fairer economy that gives everyone an opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

If workers are in good, well-paid work, they can go on to lead good, flourishing lives, and they will return that as a dividend through their collaboration with their employer. They will also be in a position to be more active in the economy. We know that when working people have money, they are able to spend it and generate activity in the economy. Does the Minister agree?

[Kate Dearden]

I absolutely agree that all workers will benefit in some way from the Bill and be able to give back to the economy, whether by spending in the local economy or by contributing to other local businesses.

Employment Rights Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

In all the Front-Bench jobs I have had, I have enjoyed my exchanges with the hon. Gentleman, who is always constructive and well intentioned. I did not expect that we would enjoy that renewed relationship so soon in my new position. I say to him, and to the incredible businesses in his community, which I have had the pleasure of visiting, that a healthy workforce is a productive workforce. We intend to ensure the health and wellbeing of employees, and to ensure support for them in the workplace, structured in a way to get the very best out of them. That will be of benefit to employees, and certainly to employers as well.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will, without doubt, remember those dark days of covid, when people had to turn up in the workplace, despite being poorly. That contributed to the spread of the pandemic. Does that not illustrate the need to ensure that when people are ill, they can rely on a sickness absence framework that supports them, and allows them to return to work when they have recovered?

[Peter Kyle]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Both in times of crisis, such as during covid, and in good times, there are good employers and those who sometimes fall beneath standards. Covid shone a light on the challenges that can be faced in the workforce. In those times, we needed to see the best from everyone. The majority of businesses supported their employees through that time of challenge. We want to ensure that the floor is high enough, and that the standards for every workforce are those that were set by the best, not by those who fell short of what we expect in Britain in the 2020s.

Today, I ask the House to renew its commitment to this legislation. I will ask hon. Members to endorse Government amendments that seek to clarify and strengthen a number of measures, and to reject the amendments of Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers who joined forces to undermine the progress that we are attempting to make. I make an exception of those in the other place who had the sincere aim of scrutinising, and who ensured that the Bill was steered through the legislative process there with a steady hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

The reassurance that I give is that we will implement this policy, having listened to employers. We will make sure that the rights to which we have committed in our manifesto are fully upheld.

What employers want is to have workers who are fully committed to their life in the workplace. If employees feel that they have an unreasonable sword of Damocles over their head, employers will not get the best productivity out of those workers.

[Andy McDonald]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Peter Kyle]

I am going to make some progress.

We have said explicitly that our intention is to provide a less onerous approach for businesses to follow in order to dismiss someone during the statutory probation period for reasons to do with their performance and suitability for the role. The Government are committed to undertaking a public consultation to get the details of the statutory probation period right, to keep it light touch and to get the standards right. Most employers who use contractual probation periods operate them for six months or less. The Government’s preference is for the statutory probation period to be nine months long. That will enable an employer to operate a basic six-month probation period, with an option for extension where employers wish to give their employees further time to improve their performance. We will consult on the duration, which is why the Government will not agree to Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120.

Lords amendment 48 seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the requirements for seasonal workers when making regulations. The Government do not believe the amendment is necessary, because the Bill already reflects the realities of seasonal work. For example, it allows guaranteed offers for limited-term contracts where appropriate, such as for task-based or time-bound roles. This Government do not believe the amendment is necessary, as the approach taken in the Bill already protects seasonal jobs while ensuring fair rights for workers, which is why the Government decline to support this amendment.

Lords amendment 49 seeks to require a consultation on the effects of provisions in part 1, and to ensure that at least 500 small and medium-sized businesses are included in the consultation. SMEs are the backbone of the British economy, and their insights are vital to shaping policy that works in practice. That is why our approach to the implementation of the Bill includes 13 targeted consultations, running through to 2026. We think it is more effective and proportionate for us to engage extensively with SMEs, as planned through the consultation that we have described in our road map, and to ensure that SMEs’ views help shape the implementation. Given the comprehensive process, the Government consider that the amendment must be rejected.

Lords amendment 46 would have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations within six months to extend the circumstances in which an employee is automatically considered to have been unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing. It would require certain employers to take responsible steps to investigate whistleblowing claims. The Government do not support the amendment. We recognise that the whistleblowing framework in the Employment Rights Act 1996 may not be operating as effectively as it should be, but we believe that any reform should be considered as part of a broader assessment of that framework. That is why the Government consider that the amendment must be rejected.

Lords amendment 47 would insert a new clause into the Bill that relates to workplace representation. The amendment would allow workers and employees to be accompanied at grievance hearings by a certified professional companion. The law already guarantees workers the right to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing by a fellow worker, a trade union representative or an official employed by a trade union. Employers may allow other companions to attend formal 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.

Lords amendment 60 seeks to remove the restrictions on young people aged 14 to 16 working on a heritage railway or a heritage tramway from the meaning of

“employment in an industrial undertaking”.

The Government do not believe that this amendment is necessary. The benefits of youth volunteering in heritage railways cannot be overestimated and, with proper health and safety management, it already works well. The Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 does not ban youth volunteering in appropriate roles on heritage railways. Well-run schemes, such as the one in Swanage, show that young people can still take part safely and legally.

--- Later in debate ---

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 that and will deliver them the result they deserve when she reports back to this House next year.

[Andy McDonald]

I proudly refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which relates to support from trades unions. I welcome the Secretary of State and the new Employment Rights Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to their places. I especially pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax for her support and hard work in the taskforce, when I was shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights and Protections, that led to the production of the new deal for working people. We are in good hands as she carries on the excellent work. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for his excellent stewardship in securing the Employment Rights Bill and taking it thus far.

I welcome the return of the Employment Rights Bill and the opportunity to address the urgent priorities of the people of this country, which are 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 at work to tackle in-work poverty is crucial. This Bill starts the process of delivering much-needed dignity and security for working people. It will not have escaped the attention of colleagues that Members of the party now purporting to speak for working people are nowhere to be seen in this debate. We know whose side the Reform party is on, and it is not working people.

These Lords amendments demonstrate the problems before us. I urge the House to reject the Opposition’s amendments, which, if passed, would weaken the rights and protections that this Bill seeks to deliver.

On Lords amendment 1, 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 in which workers must request them would completely undermine the purpose of the Bill. Vulnerable workers, often young people on their very first job, should not be left in the position of having to plead with their employer for basic security. We have heard from Unite members such as Izzy, a pub worker who felt unable to raise issues for fear that her hours would be cut, and Caren, a restaurant worker who was left with 40 hours one week and barely any the next, with her mental health paying the price. This House cannot endorse a model that forces workers into the role of Oliver Twist, asking, “Please, Sir, may I have some more?” The duty must rest firmly with employers.

Lords amendments 7 and 8 would 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 who is told late on a Friday night that their Monday shift has been cancelled; there is no compensation, but there is still childcare to pay for.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman says that a 48-hour time period is unacceptable, yet the Bill does not specify what time period would be acceptable. Does he have an idea in mind of what that number would be? How many businesses has he spoken to about that?

[Andy McDonald]

The amendment speaks to those sorts of figures. I am making the point that that sort of notice is simply not acceptable.

People cannot live structured lives and be able to plan for their futures under such a dreadful regime, and I reject it wholeheartedly. That is not reasonable notice; it is a transfer of cost and stress on to the worker. USDAW’s evidence shows that, in many sectors, workers already get four weeks’ notice of shifts. The risk here is that by lowering the standard, we drag conditions down across the board. That is why the Government have rightly committed to setting notice periods through consultation, not through arbitrary amendment.

[Chris Law]

The challenge is that we are waiting years before we have any response to what the numbers might be. Does the hon. Member find that reasonable? In the meantime, we have no protections whatsoever for these people who we are all trying to protect.

[Andy McDonald]

We want to get through this consultation as quickly as possible and to get this Bill on the statute book so that the position is clear, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. We need to move on these issues as a matter of urgency, and he is right to point that out.

Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120 propose to reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months. We cannot support that halfway measure. Our manifesto is clear: Labour will deliver day one rights. Accepting these amendments risks entrenching insecurity and delaying meaningful reform. Workers should not have to serve a probationary period of six months or two years before being protected from arbitrary dismissal. We will fully consult on probationary arrangements to get them right, but we will not compromise on our principle of security from day one.

I must urge the rejection of Lords amendment 62, which seeks to retain the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. The threshold was a deliberate barrier imposed by the Trade Union Act 2016. No other democratic process in this country faces such a hurdle—not parliamentary votes or 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, Lords amendment 121 would permit academies to deviate from pay and conditions agreed through the school support staff negotiating body, which risks entrenching inequality. It could mean teaching assistants in the same trust being on wildly different terms, creating a postcode lottery in education and exposing staff to equal pay disputes. Instead of undermining sectoral bargaining, we should be expanding it, ensuring fair, consistent and collectively agreed standards across the board. Let us be frank: after years of pay erosion, school support staff truly need a pay restoration deal that values the vital work they do.

In every case, the Lords amendments before us risk weakening rights, not strengthening them. Our task is to make work pay, end one-sided flexibility and ensure fairness and dignity for every worker. If this legislation does not go far enough to meet union demands for sectoral bargaining and a single worker status, Members of this House will rightly call for a second employment Bill this autumn. We cannot sustain this anathema of fragile, insecure work for so many millions of people in this country; they need that security to plan their futures, and they need to have the protections that those in employment enjoy. In addition, were they to be brought into that architecture, the Treasury would benefit to the tune of more than £10 billion per annum, opposite the uncollected tax and national insurance contributions.

Working people have waited long enough. It is time for us to deliver the stronger rights and protections that they truly deserve.

[Damian Hinds]

I intend to speak mainly to the provisions dealing with guaranteed hours, but I begin with a word of thanks to the Government for what they have announced about special constables. It is not quite as good as adopting the amendment, but I welcome the review. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for the work he has done. I hope the review will report quickly, and I hope for a growth in the number of special constables, not only in neighbourhood policing, which my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, but among people working in the tech sector. We need cyber-specials to tackle the scourge of cyber-crime and fraud, which is now the single largest category of crime, and is, sadly, growing once again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for suggesting that he will try.

I turn to the provisions dealing with guaranteed hours and 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. From listening to Labour colleagues, it seems almost as if “exploitative zero-hours contracts” is one word. It is as if those words must always go together. We all want to end exploitation—that is why, in 2015, the then Government passed legislation to stop employers imposing exclusivity. We said, “If you are not going to guarantee your employee a minimum number of hours, it is not all right to say that they must not work for somebody else.” But 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 its use of bank staff. I notice that the Liberal Democrats announced a new policy today, which would require extra pay for people on zero-hours contracts; I do not know whether they have yet costed that policy. By the way, for many of the people working as bank staff in the NHS, that is not their primary job but a second job. This allows a hospital or other setting to respond to spikes in demand. For many people with a zero-hours contract job, it is their second job, not their primary source of income. Zero-hours contract jobs are also very important to people coming back into work, as the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) said powerfully in an intervention.

Many people on zero-hours contracts are students. Particularly in hospitality, there is a pattern of work whereby an employee lives in two places: at home, and at their term-time address. They can stay on the books of their employer at home—it might be a local pub—while they are away studying during term time. It could be the other way around: they could have a job in their university town, and stay on the books when they come home. They can dial up or dial down their hours; for example, many students do not want to work a lot of hours, or any hours, during exam time. Contrary to what we might expect, and contrary to the all-one-word conception of “exploitative zero-hours contracts”, some people actually prefer a zero-hours contract.

[Andy McDonald]

And some people do not.

[Damian Hinds]

And some people do not, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly says.

When I was working at the Department for Work and Pensions, the issue of zero-hours contracts became a totemic issue under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the immediate predecessor of the current leader of the Labour party. There was this idea that there had been a huge increase in the number of people in the country on a zero-hours contract. We discovered that less than 3% of people had a zero-hours contract as their primary source of income, and the average number of hours those people worked was not zero or close to zero, but 25. Even more unexpectedly—this was the bit that really got people—the average job satisfaction of people on a zero-hours contract was higher than it was for the rest of the workforce.

I think we understand why the Labour Government wish to legislate in this way. It is something for Labour MPs to bring home. When so much else in their manifesto is falling apart before our eyes, they can say, “At least we’ve killed off this modern scourge, this huge growth in zero-hours contracts.” As I say, the number of those contracts 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 forms, whether it be piecework, commission-only sales, agency catalogue work or 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 on their first job. Mine was washing dishes in a restaurant. We did not have the phrase at that time, but it certainly would have been a zero-hours contract, apart from the fact that there was no contract at all.

If the Government wish to reform this area, as they may, I ask them to consider the situation in sectors with great seasonality, including hospitality, tourism and retail, and to please look again at the concept of a 12-week reference period, which does not reflect the reality of seasonality. I know that this will be introduced through regulations, not the primary legislation, and I welcome what the Secretary of State said; I think he indicated that the Government were open to looking at a more sensible length of time. The Government could also do things differentially by sector; there could be one period for employers in general, and another for sectors or sub-sectors that have particularly strong patterns of seasonality.

I also ask the Government to reconsider the requirement to not just offer guaranteed hours once, but keep on doing it. That is introducing unnecessary bureaucracy. If the Government want to make changes in this area, I encourage them to at least ensure that once an employer has made the offer once, the right can become an opt-in right.

The Government think that these provisions are something for Back-Bench Labour MPs to take home, but I ask Labour colleagues whether they really want to take them home. Do they want to take home higher unemployment, and particularly youth unemployment? Do they want to take home fewer opportunities for people returning to the workplace after many years away? Do they want to take home fewer opportunities for ex-offenders—those furthest from the labour market? Do they want to take home—because this will come as well, as night follows day—a further trend away from permanent employment and towards fixed-term temporary employment? Do they want to take home a shift from waged or salaried work to more self-employment? Is that really what Labour wants to deliver?

British Steel

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly congratulate my hon. Friend on her sterling work and very much welcome her statement. No doubt she will remember that on 11 April, the Leader of the Opposition said that in government she had negotiated a steel modernisation plan. The next day, when the Government brought in emergency legislation to save Scunthorpe, she said she was still negotiating a deal when her boss called the snap general election. There was never any agreement for an electric arc furnace on Teesside, as she claimed, as much as me and my colleagues support the concept. Will the Minister confirm that it was the Conservative party that presided over the end of virgin steelmaking in Redcar and Port Talbot, and that it would have done the same at Scunthorpe were it not for the Labour Government? Will she also confirm that if the private sector will not sufficiently invest, the Government will maintain British Steel through public ownership and use their public procurement strategy to make the company sufficiently profitable?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is completely correct. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition confirmed on the “Today” programme this morning that the Conservative party policy is for an electric arc furnace at Scunthorpe or Scunthorpe and Teesside—it is unclear—which would have cost nearly twice as much as the existing proposals, without any mention of primary steelmaking. I understand that the official Opposition’s position is that they are not in favour of retaining primary steelmaking capacity in the UK.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Our friends in the press will follow that up and find out exactly how much money the Leader of the Opposition secretly promised to Jingye to transfer those jobs out of Scunthorpe. I think it might be wise, on all counts, for that statement to be withdrawn.

The situation we inherited across the board on assuming office is one where most of our foundation industries were in some substantial difficulty. Since 2010, UK crude steel production has almost halved, and we know that rebuilding our steel industry after years of neglect will be a challenge, but it is one that this Government have grasped.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend and I were in this House in 2015 when the Conservative party sat on its hands and kissed goodbye to the Redcar blast furnace and, with it, the state-of-the-art coke ovens that could have resolved this situation today. Before he sits down, will he say something about the Jingye activities at Lackenby and Skinningrove and how they will be impacted by today’s announcement?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am really grateful that my hon. Friend has been able to put that point on the record for his community, to avoid the kind of situation we have seen in lots of industrial communities, to be frank, over the years. This is why we take this action today in the national interest: to provide that bridge and that possibility to the future.

Specifically in relation to the downstream mills, even if we were willing to accept a situation in which they were supplied from a foreign country, as in this case, the confidence of consumers and businesses would surely be put at risk and it would bring into question the entirety of British Steel’s workforce and business and a huge part of our strategic assets. That, again, is why this decisive action today is necessary.

Employment Rights Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp]

I think the hon. Lady has slightly missed the point of what I was saying. Reading the body language of Members on the Government Benches, I think they all wanted to hear how this story ended up.

It did help that the then Secretary of State for Defence was a friend of mine, with whom I served in the Scots Guards. We did get the £20 bung for all the service personnel who stood in—regardless of the fact, interestingly, that all the generals, air marshals and admirals were against it, as were all the officials. There you go—I very much have the same values at heart.

Secondly, to win over the other side of the House to the very fair point I will come on to make, let me pay tribute to the remark of the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), in respect of union membership, that he wanted people to

“make a fair choice one way or the other”.

I note that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) also referred to fair work. I want to come back to that theme of fairness in addressing amendment 292.

The Bill is, to put it politely, something of a cat’s cradle of clauses, so I will briefly remind the House that the Bill seeks to place on employers an obligation to give their workers a written statement that they have the right to join a union, and, if they do join, to contribute to the political fund. Amendment 292 would simply inject a bit of balance into the legislation by requiring trade unions to notify their members annually that they have a right to opt out of the political fund and to obtain an annual opt-in from their members.

This all puts me in mind of November 1988, when Mrs Thatcher was about to visit Poland. At Prime Minister’s questions, just prior to her going, an Opposition Member stood up and asked whether she would raise with Lech Wałęsa the right to join a trade union. There may be some Members present who were there—I will not be so ungallant as to ask. A roar went up from the Labour Benches, and the redoubtable Mrs Thatcher replied that she would raise with the Poles the right to join a trade union, but that she would also raise the right not to be a member.

The Bill seeks to whack the pendulum pretty hard in favour of union power; our amendment would bring it back into balance somewhat. We all know someone, after all, who has fallen prey to one of those charity muggers who stop people in the street and try to sign them up to whichever charity they are being paid by that day. I have known people who have done that job, and it is not an easy one. Similarly, any Member of this House who stood in a precinct and tried to sell their political brand and get people to sign up will attest to that completely. Sometimes, the charity collectors are successful, and the all-important direct debit details are extracted. In fact, I remember hearing a number of Labour Members railing against this practice in the previous Parliament.

Amendment 292 would remind workers that they still have an off-ramp, if they want one—they still have agency, and they still have freedom of choice. We have heard Member after Member stand up over the past two days of debate and declare—in some cases sheepishly, in some cases more proudly—the money they receive from the trade unions. This is only right and proper. The public can make up their own minds as to whether this money has coloured the judgment of Labour Members, or whether it is simply support from an organisation that shares their values. But to turn down amendment 292 would, in my view, be a dreadful look. This is a totally measured, balancing amendment and, if Labour Members vote against it, the public would be right to conclude that the Government are being motivated not by a sense of equality, fairness and justice, but instead by something else. I urge hon. Members to vote for amendment 292 and to give power to the people.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak for a second time on Report. I proudly refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Unite the union.

Much has been said about trade unions and strike action, as if the only purpose of a trade union is to get workers out on strike. It is a mischaracterisation of unions, as was so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). It is also a mischaracterisation of corporate Britain to think that everyone is exploitative and abusive. The majority of companies in our country adhere to environmental, social and governance principles, and they make that commitment; they want to demonstrate that they are responsible people. They want that for their investors and for long-term sustained investment, so we have to draw back on those views and step away from the disdain and the contempt for working people and for trade unions, which is not helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I have hardly started. There cannot possibly be anything that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene on me for just yet, but I will come to him.

[Andy McDonald]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gregory Stafford]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.

Yesterday, we heard that Labour clearly does not understand business, and today we get to what it really does understand: how it can support its trade union paymasters. Government Members have given us a masterclass in how to support trade unions. Opposition Members have mentioned the 1970s. When I heard Government Members speaking, especially the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), John Williams’s score from “Jurassic Park” soared in my mind. But instead of Jeff Goldblum being savaged by the dinosaurs, the dinosaurs that walk among us today will be savaging our economy. We know that because the growing influence of the unions, especially under the Bill, impose a heavy burden on corporations, stifling their ability to operate efficiently. As new businesses struggle to adapt to the new regulations, which the Government’s very own impact assessment predicts will cost £5 billion to implement, industry leaders have publicly shared their fears—

[Andy McDonald]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had directions from the Chair on this matter, and I ask for your guidance. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) has just been immensely critical of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), who has a history of standing up to defend his industry, and who had the courage to go on strike for 12 months. Was he given notice that he would be named in this debate in that way?

“Chapter 4A

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am attending a wedding in Farnham later this year, and I look forward to visiting the Nelson Arms and thanking his constituent for the service he also gives as a paramedic.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Is the shadow Minister aware that the TUC’s survey clearly shows that the vast majority of people on zero-hours contracts really want regular hours? Can he respond to that?

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman says it is “the vast majority”. I do not know whether it is the vast majority, but some people, of course, will want the guarantee of the hours he talks about. The point I am making is about allowing flexibility for those for whom it does work. I gave the example of students, and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) gave another example of someone for whom this flexibility works. That is not to say that there are not many people in our economy who do seek the change the hon. Gentleman wants, but it is not a universal rule, and it should not simply be applied to everyone. I gently invite him to reflect on the impact this will have on people such as those my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon referred to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon]

It is always a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour from the other side of the House, the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke).

I really welcome the Bill, which needs to be put in its historical context. With the exception of those passed under the last Labour Government, virtually every time we have seen an employment rights Bill or a trade union Bill in recent decades, it has been an attack on trade union rights or workers’ rights, whereas this Bill makes a real difference in advancing the rights of working people in this country. They have been kicked around for too long, and it is right that we do not accept that it is fine for workers in this country to be some of the easiest to sack and mistreat in the continent. Workers in our country deserve better employment rights, and this Bill sets about putting them in place.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend will have heard constantly, particularly in response to the P&O disaster, that the Conservatives were going to introduce an employment Bill when they were in government. Does my hon. Friend agree that they have criticised this Government for doing what they promised: to bring in this Bill within 100 days?

[Richard Burgon]

I certainly do. The previous Government never got round to introducing such a Bill. When the Conservative party was in government, all we had about the P&O debacle were crocodile tears or statements of sorrow from the Dispatch Box, which just do not cut it.

This Bill contains important advances, such as establishing bereavement leave and introducing menopause action plans. Over 1 million people on zero-hours contracts will benefit from the guaranteed hours policy, and 9 million people who have been with an employer for less than two years will benefit from the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one. It seems to escape the understanding of many Conservative Members that this does not mean that employers cannot dismiss people; it means that they cannot dismiss people unfairly.

The Conservatives are arguing for the right of employers to dismiss people unfairly. As it stands, before this legislation comes in, the only way that workers can claim unfair dismissal from day one is if it is a discriminatory dismissal. To be clear, an employer could, six months into someone’s contract of employment, say, “I’m sacking you because I don’t like people who wear green jumpers,” or, “I’m sacking you because I find your voice irritating.” That would be unfair dismissal. As it stands, people do not have the right not to be unfairly dismissed until they have accrued two years of service, and the Conservative party needs to come clean about that.

Before I move on to my new clause 6, I want to say that I welcome many of the Government amendments and the amendments tabled by Labour Back Benchers, including the many important amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who did such a good job at developing employment policy in opposition; the important amendments on sick pay, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain); and the important amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and for Luton North (Sarah Owen).

My new clause 6 would right what I consider to be a historical wrong. The last Labour Government brought in the groundbreaking Equality Act 2010, which we can all be proud of. As part of that, they introduced statutory discrimination questionnaires. When I was an employment lawyer before becoming a Member of Parliament, I lost track of the number of times that we used statutory discrimination questionnaires to smoke out discrimination in the workplace in relation to age, disability, sex, race, sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity, gender reassignment, religion or belief, and marriage and civil partnership.

I bumped into an old colleague who is a trade union lawyer on a train, and he made the point that statutory discrimination questionnaires also—[Interruption.] I make no apologies for having a friend who is a trade union lawyer—I think the Conservatives need to get out a bit more. He made the point that statutory discrimination questionnaires showed when a claim did not have a good chance of succeeding at an employment tribunal, helped to manage potential claimants’ expectations, and thus led to an unmeritorious claim either not being pursued or being settled. Such questionnaires helped to smoke out discrimination in workplaces, helping not just the individual employee, but tackling discrimination against workers more widely in that workplace. The truth is that in 2025, given some of the rhetoric from politicians in this country and around the world, it is as important as ever to have mechanisms in place to tackle discrimination in workplaces across the country.

That was part of the last Labour Government’s pioneering Equality Act. Shamefully, the Conservative Government abolished statutory Equality Act questionnaires in 2014 as part of their attack on workers’ rights. In their consultation, 83% of respondents said it was wrong to remove this important mechanism for workers to unmask and tackle discrimination—83%—yet the Conservative party when in government, aided and abetted by some of their erstwhile friends, ploughed ahead in any event.

I tabled new clause 6 because this is an important opportunity for our new Labour Government to right the wrong done by that Conservative-led Government and reinstate a very important advance made in the last Labour Government’s Equality Act. I look forward with interest to hearing the Minister’s response. If he will not accept this amendment to the Bill, I invite him to come forward with a proposal to reintroduce statutory discrimination questionnaires as soon as possible. They made a real difference. They helped to stop some claims going to tribunal that should not have gone to tribunal, but, more importantly, they empowered workers to smoke out discrimination in their workplaces not only for their benefit, but for the benefit of their colleagues in that workplace and for the benefit of wider society. We need that now in 2025, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Employment Rights Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Just to inflame matters more, I am the chair of the RMT parliamentary group as well.

Next Monday is the third anniversary of the P&O scandal. Members might recall what happened: 800 members of staff—RMT members, largely—turned up for work and were sacked by video. Many of them were marshalled off their vessels by trained bouncers and guards who dealt with them roughly. The reaction across the House and across society was that this was repellent and should not happen in a civilised society. The Labour party then made a commitment that it would introduce legislation that would install in law the seafarers’ charter, and that is exactly what the Bill does, so I welcome it wholeheartedly and congratulate the Minister on doing this. But as he can guess, we see this as just the first step, because there is so much more to do, particularly in this sector, where many workers are still exploited compared with shore-based workers.

Government new clause 34 extends the maximum period of the protective award from 90 days to 180 days. We were looking for an uncapped award, to be frank, because P&O built into the pricing the amount it would be fined as a result of its unlawful behaviour, so that did not matter to P&O—it simply priced that in.

In addition, we were looking for injunctive relief, and I thank the Government for entering into discussions about that. Many employers can get injunctive relief on the tiniest error by a union in balloting procedures, but workers cannot. We are asking for a level playing field. We hoped that an amendment would be tabled to the Bill today, but it has not been. We hope the Government will enter into those discussions and go further.

[Andy McDonald]

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend recalls the evidence of Peter Hebblethwaite, the chief executive of P&O Ferries, to the Business and Trade Committee. He made it clear that he deliberately broke the law and had no regard for it. Was my right hon. Friend as horrified as I was to see that in this House, and as disappointed at the lack of response from the Conservative party?

[John McDonnell]

I think that across the House it took a long while to recover from the anger at the behaviour that was displayed in front of the Select Committee. The chief executive was acting with impunity because he had been able to price in those sorts of fines, and it was a cross-party view that we were angry about that behaviour. That is why the charter is so important to us, and why injunctive relief that is open to trade unions would provide an adequate starting point for getting some form of justice.

A range of other issues need to be addressed, including schedule 4, where the Government are introducing the ability to monitor the behaviour of companies. Harbourmasters monitor some of that behaviour as well, with declarations that companies are abiding by basic health and safety practices—some practices in the past have been frankly terrifying. We want health and safety to be about more than just basic legislation; it is also about rosters and how long people are working. We still have ferry contracts where people are working for 17 weeks without a break. We want to ensure that the regulations cover rosters, as well as holiday pay, sick pay, pensions and ratings training, so that we can start to get some form of accountability within the sector. That is not much to ask for, yet we have given shipping owners £3 billion of tonnage tax exemptions in return for the employment of British seafarers, and I do not think we got a single job as a result of that £3 billion. There is a need for proper regulation of the sector.

I tabled an amendment to ask the Government to stand back once a year and bring a report to the House on how implementation of the Bill is going, and to update us on the implications for maritime law and International Labour Organisation conventions, and the impact on the sector. A lot of debate on this issue has been about ferries, but we want to ensure that the provisions apply to all vessels, not just ferries. One point made by those on the Labour Front Bench when considering the Seafarers’ Wages Bill was that if a ship came into a harbour 52 times a year, the legislation would apply. Now—I do not know why—that has been extended to 120 times year, which means that thousands of workers will lose out because the measure will not apply to them. Will the Government have another conversation about that and see whether we can revert to the original position of the Labour party all those years ago when these scandals happened?

There is not much time but, briefly, I am interested in the extension of sectoral collective bargaining right across the economy. We are doing it with social care, but what I have seen from proposals in the Bill does not look like sectoral collective bargaining to me; it looks simply like an extension of pay review bodies. Indeed, the Bill states that any agreements within those organisations cannot legally be accepted as collective bargaining.

The Bill is not clear about how members of the negotiating body are appointed or by who. We were expecting that it would be 50% employers and 50% trade unions, and I tabled an amendment to try to secure that. We think that the negotiating body should elect its own chair, not that the chair should be appointed by the Secretary of State. We want such bodies to be independent and successful, because I see that as the first step in rolling out sectoral collective bargaining in many other sectors of our economy. That is desperately needed because of the lack of trade union rights and the low pay that exists.

The Bill is a good first step, but there is a long agenda to go through. I look forward not just to the Bill proceeding, but to the Minister bringing forward an Employment Rights (No. 2) Bill in the next 18 months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

I agree. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. When we look back at the national agreement in the early 2000s which led to the expansion of school support staff roles, the justification was that they would alleviate pressure on teachers and add to the quality of teaching in classrooms. That is exactly what school support staff workers in my constituency and his do every day.

School support staff roles are essential for SEND support, but the contracts those staff are employed under are so squeezed that no paid time is available for professional development or training. In other words, we cannot resolve the SEND crisis without contract reform, and we cannot achieve that contract reform if the drift and delay, which is the legacy of the 2010 decision to abolish the SSSNB, continues. I urge the Opposition, even now, to think again and not press their amendment to a vote.

In the time remaining, I wish to say a few words about the provisions on hospitality workers and their right not to be subject to third-party harassment. When the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who was formerly in her place, brought forward her private Member’s Bill in the last Parliament, it contained the same provisions that are being advanced now. At the start of the debates in the House of Lords, the extension of the protection to “all reasonable steps” was supported by the Government of the day. Baroness Scott, leading for the Conservative party, said that the measures would not infringe on freedom of speech; in fact, they would strengthen it. The Conservative Front Benchers were right then and they are wrong today.

The Bill is incredibly important. Employment law in the United Kingdom has tended to advance by increments; the Bill measures progress in strides. I am proud to have had some association with it through the Public Bill Committee. I thank the departmental team who were part of the process and the other members of the Committee. I will be proud to vote in favour of the extensions to rights in the Bill when they are brought forward to a vote tonight.

[Andy McDonald]

As a proud trade unionist, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Today marks a truly historic moment: the most significant expansion of employment rights in more than a generation. I extend my congratulations to the Secretary of State and the Deputy Prime Minister for their efforts, and express my enormous gratitude to the employment rights Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), for his time and engagement with me over recent months in discussing the measures in the Bill. I also wish to acknowledge the dedication of Bill Committee members, as well as the countless trade union officers, academics, Labour party members and staffers who have worked tirelessly for decades to bring us to this day. This is a milestone we have long strived for. On a personal note, I extend my sincere thanks to the Prime Minister for entrusting me, while in opposition, with the responsibility of delivering Labour’s Green Paper, “A New Deal for Working People”.

I speak in support of the Government’s amendments and will touch on my own tabled amendments selected for discussion. Specifically, I support Government new clause 32 and Government new schedule 1, which will extend guaranteed hours protections to nearly 1 million agency workers. This is a crucial step, aligning with my own amendment 264, and I am pleased to see the Government taking it forward. The TUC has rightly emphasised that for these rights to be effective, they must apply to all workers. Including agency workers is essential to prevent unscrupulous employers from circumventing new protections by shifting to agency staff. Exploitative tactics employed by a minority of employers, designed to avoid responsibilities and deny workers job security, remain a deep concern, which is precisely why I have consistently advocated for a single employment status.

I tabled new clause 61 because I believe that establishing a single status of worker is a necessary step to ending unfair employment practices. The Government’s “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document, published alongside the Bill, states their intent to consult on moving towards a single worker status. On Second Reading, I noted that we cannot truly eradicate insecure work until we establish a clear and unified employment status. Since then, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, Margaret Beels, has told the Business and Trade Committee that

“the whole business of employment status needs to be addressed”,

adding that

“you can probably consult until the cows come home on this issue…it is about time to do something about it”.

The TUC also urged a rapid review of employment status to prevent tactics such as bogus self-employment from proliferating as employers respond to new rights.

I welcome the Business and Trade Committee’s recommendation that the Government must prioritise their review of employment status and address false self-employment

“so that these reforms are rolled out alongside…the Employment Rights Bill.”

I acknowledge the new clause tabled by the Chair of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), which seeks to establish a deadline for this consultation. I urge the Government to accelerate progress on this front, but take reassurance from the fact that this issue is well understood at the highest levels.

I turn to collective redundancy and the unacceptable practice of fire and rehire. ACAS reported in 2021 that the use of fire and rehire tactics by employers was prevalent in the UK and had increased since the pandemic. Nearly a fifth of young people say their employer has tried to rehire them on inferior terms. Many will recall how P&O shamelessly broke the law, choosing to pay compensation rather than comply with its legal obligations because it calculated that replacing its workforce with cheaper labour would ultimately be more profitable.

I welcome the Government’s consultation on collective redundancy and their introduction of new clause 34, which doubles the maximum protective award for unfairly dismissed workers to 180 days’ pay. However, while this may deter some employers, I question whether it is a sufficient deterrent to prevent further abuses. The TUC has raised concerns that merely doubling the cap will still allow well-resourced employers to treat breaching their legal obligations as the cost of doing business. The TUC instead proposes a stronger deterrent: the introduction of interim injunctions to block fire and rehire attempts—an approach I have sought through new clause 62.

Mick Lynch, the outgoing general secretary of the RMT, told the Bill Committee that unions should have the power to seek injunctions against employers like P&O. He rightly pointed out:

“The power is all with the employers,”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 59, Q57]

and that unions currently lack the legal means to stop mass dismissals before they happen. My new clause offers a solution, giving employees immediate redress through an injunction if they can show that their dismissal is likely to be in breach of the new law, ensuring that they remain employed with full pay until a final ruling is made. I encourage the Minister to address this issue in his response and to indicate an openness to considering injunctive powers in this Parliament.

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend has played such an important role in the development of these policies. He is making a wide-ranging speech—in his remaining remarks, will he reflect on the importance of not just individual rights, but collective rights?

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend highlights a critical issue—this is about making that shift and reversing the decline in collective bargaining. We should be looking for the International Labour Organisation standard and, as per the European Union, to get to 80% collective bargaining coverage across the piece.

I also note the concerns of the TUC and Unite regarding Government new clauses 90 to 96, on the “one establishment” issue, and urge them to engage with the unions on these issues.

Much has been said about wealth creators, but there needs to be a recognition that working people are wealth creators and they are entitled to their fair share. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee calls for consensus. At the core of this discussion has to be that good, well-paid, secure, unionised employment is good for our constituents, our businesses and our economy, and this crucial Employment Rights Bill is an essential step along that road to a brighter economy and a brighter future for all our people.

Draft Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment of Schedule A2) Order 2024

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 General Committees

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I had wondered whether it was necessary to speak, but given some of the comments I have just heard, I feel compelled to do so.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the Employment Rights Bill, on the back of the “New Deal for Working People”. The Bill will be the single and foremost change to working people’s terms and conditions in this country for more than a generation. It is long overdue. When I first saw this order, however, I got quite a shock. I thought, “Is this it?”, although I suppose a 25% uplift is better than nowt. But of course it has not come from our Front Bench, thank goodness; it is something we have inherited.

I want to look at this draft measure through the prism of fire and rehire—actually, not fire and rehire, but fire and replace—that we came up against in P&O Ferries and Peter Hebblethwaite. I was a member of the Business and Trade Committee that heard evidence from that chief executive. He made it abundantly clear that he was quite prepared to break the law of the land on consultation periods and to price it into the compensation, the pay-off, of his workforce.

All we got from the then Government was a wringing of hands, a condemnation and very little else. The draft order seems to be the sum total of their response to that travesty. I have to tell the Committee that the 25% uplift would be a doddle to the likes of P&O. It would not be impacted one jot. I am delighted that the Minister mentioned interim relief; when we go forward with our excellent Employment Rights Bill, I am sure we will discuss what that will look like.

I gently say that if we are going to be able to stop another P&O, we will need injunctive relief because trying to bring out interim relief after the horse has bolted will be no good whatever. I also gently suggest that the sorts of financial penalties that need to be imposed on the egregious behaviours of the likes of P&O will have to be significantly higher. There was discussion about unlimited fines being visited on those who had deliberately prepared to break the law for their own ends. We have to look at those issues very carefully.

In addition, now that we have the opportunity we have to reflect on the appalling record of enforcement across the piece. The number of tribunal awards that are not paid out by employers is legion, and the ability of people to then pursue their enforcement is sadly lacking. It is critically important that we should have rights and protections for our workforce and the powers to have those enforced. I will close with that; I just express my relief that we did not bring the measure forward—

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

You are bringing it forward—that’s what we are doing here!

[Andy McDonald]

I get the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but the legislation did not originate from the Government side. We are taking this first step, but I put the Opposition on notice that it is simply a first step.