Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Recalling Parliament today was absolutely the right thing to do, but to be frank, it is extraordinary that we find ourselves in a situation in which our sovereign steel industry is in such peril as a result of the Conservatives’ failings and the Labour Government are now trying to give themselves unprecedented powers.

It is astounding that, even after British Steel was sold for £1, even after it entered insolvency and even after the Government’s Insolvency Service temporarily ran it, the Conservatives pressed ahead to erect more trade barriers through their botched Brexit deal, scrapped the Industrial Strategy Council and allowed the sale of the steel plant to a Chinese firm that, according to Ministers, is now refusing to negotiate in good faith at least to keep the plant going. The Conservatives were asleep at the wheel. They failed to tackle energy costs and business rates, and now Trump’s tariffs and contagious protectionism are the straw that has broken the camel’s back.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Conservatives were also in government in 2015, when the steelworks at Redcar closed and thousands of people lost their jobs?

[Daisy Cooper]

As the hon. Member knows, the three things that I have just outlined—British Steel being sold for a pound, British Steel entering insolvency and the Government’s Insolvency Service being left temporarily running the firm—all happened in 2019.

With Putin’s barbaric war in Europe and Donald Trump’s disastrous tariffs causing economic turmoil around the world, we must secure the future of steel production here at home. We Liberal Democrats welcome the sense of seriousness and urgency shown by the Government in recalling Parliament. We must work together to rescue our steel sector and the tens of thousands of jobs that directly and indirectly rely on it. But under the terms of the Bill, the Secretary of State is giving himself huge and unconstrained powers that could set a very dangerous precedent. I urge him to make a commitment, in the strongest possible terms, to repeal the powers that he is giving himself as soon as possible—within six months at the latest—and to come back to this House for another vote to extend those powers if they are still required after that.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

As I tried to articulate in my opening speech on Second Reading, I understand the gravity of the situation, which gives puts some context to the demands for further powers to be included in the Bill. The limitation, as wide as it is, is the right measure, and I can give the hon. Member my absolute assurance that I shall seek to do exactly as she says.

[Daisy Cooper]

I am incredibly grateful to the Secretary of State for giving that assurance, which is important in the context of what the powers in the Bill actually are.

Clause 3(4)(a) gives the Secretary of State the power to break into anywhere to seize assets. Clause 3(4)(c) gives the Secretary of State the power to take whatever steps he considers appropriate—not what a court or a reasonable person might consider to be appropriate—to seize or secure assets. Clause 4(3), on offences, makes it a crime for anyone not to follow the instructions of the Secretary of State, or to refuse to assist the Secretary of State in taking those steps without a “reasonable excuse”. However, a “reasonable excuse” is not defined in the Bill, no examples are given, and, quite frankly, it is hard to work out what defence of a “reasonable excuse” might be accepted given that, under clause 3(4)(c), it is whatever the Secretary of State himself considers to be okay.

Clause 6(1), on indemnities appears to give the Secretary of State and potentially any other person who is with him—a police officer, a civil servant, or a Border Force official—immunity from prosecution for using any of these wide-ranging powers. These powers are unprecedented and they are unconstrained. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for saying that that is precisely why he intends to repeal them as soon as possible.

More broadly, the Government must now also bring forward plans to guarantee the future of this vital sector. We know the steel industry is surrounded by crippling uncertainty. After decades of underinvestment and shocking indifference to our sovereign economic security, the previous Conservative Government have left our sovereign national capacity on steel diminished and endangered. Yet there is no chance that UK demand for steel will disappear. How absurd and irresponsible is it that we have a sustainable and enduring long-term market for British steel, but that our supply could keel over in a matter of days because of the failures of the failed Conservative party?

So looking ahead, let us remember that saving Scunthorpe is necessary, but not sufficient on its own. There have been significant discussions about the future ownership structure of this company. Given the precarious fiscal position in which the Government find themselves, it is important that all options on ownership are put on the table, so that this House can take an informed decision about what they mean for the public finances. I hope the Government will make a commitment that, in the coming weeks, they will bring forward a report that sets out options for future ownership of the plant.

Looking ahead, many big questions remain unanswered. Will the Government immediately designate UK-made steel a nationally strategic asset? Will they be using direct reduced iron, and, if so, will that form part of the UK’s plans alongside protecting the production of virgin steel at Scunthorpe? When will the Government bring forward a comprehensive plan to ensure that more British steel is used in vital infrastructure projects, from defence to renewable energy? Will Ministers work shoulder to shoulder with our European and Commonwealth partners to tear down trade barriers, including by negotiating a customs union by 2030? Will they develop initiatives to retrain and upskill workers across the country as we transition to greener methods of steel production? How do the Government intend to respond to calls from UK Steel for the Government to achieve the lowest electricity prices in Europe, parity with competitors on network charges, and wholesale electricity market reform?

This case should also raise concerns about the role of Chinese corporate interests in the UK’s national critical infrastructure. The decision by British Steel’s Chinese owners to turn down the Government’s offer of £500 million to support the future of the Scunthorpe plant has directly precipitated this crisis. We must now be clear-eyed about the risks posed by Chinese involvement in our country’s vital infrastructure. To that end, will the Minister tell the House when the Government’s promised UK-China audit will be released, and how the Government plan to strengthen protections for critical infrastructure? Can he assure the House that the Government have assessed whether there is any risk that Jingye, on behalf of the Chinese Government, has deliberately run down the plant to jeopardise the UK’s capacity to produce steel?

We are in a precarious position, and it is not as if there were no warnings. In 2022, the Royal United Services Institute think-tank said:

“Domestically produced steel is used in defence applications, and offshoring the supply chain may have security implications—for example, in a scenario where multiple allied countries rearm simultaneously at a time of global supply disruption, such as during a major geopolitical confrontation.”

The fact that Jingye has now closed down the supply of raw materials is further evidence that the plant should not have been sold to it in the first place. Quite frankly, the fact that some Conservative MPs are calling for nationalisation shows how far through the looking glass we really are.

Is not the Conservatives’ attitude abundantly clear? On national security, they cut troop numbers by 10,000; on food security, they undermined our farmers with unforgiveably bad trade deals; and on economic security, they left our country with almost no sovereign steel capacity. On security, the Conservatives left our island nation severely vulnerable, like flotsam in the sea, passively bobbing up and down or being bashed around by the tides of international events.

As for hon. Members from the private limited company Reform Ltd, they have a bit of cheek to claim to support UK steelworkers while cheering on their pal President Trump, whose punishing trade war is putting those steelworkers’ jobs at risk. Perhaps the company’s directors who sit in this House will come clean about whose side they are really on.

Time and again, we have seen the failures of an ad hoc, piecemeal approach to industry across all sectors, from the failure of our water companies to the shocking state of our housing nationally and the dismal situation of our health service. For too long, there has been no stability for these industries, which are constantly fixed on a short-term basis only, to the point where they are practically held together by string and tape and the dedicated workers who remain. We Liberal Democrats stand ready to help constructively to bring about an outcome that delivers real change.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

You will not need reminding, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will remind the House of quite how unusual a day this is, for a variety of reasons. The last time we met on a Saturday was at a time of war, and the last time we put a Bill through in one day was at the beginning of the pandemic. That is how serious the disastrous circumstances in which we find ourselves are. I assume that this House will accept the Bill, so I will address my comments directly to the Secretary of State.

At one level, this is a “nationalisation in all but name” Bill, because of the powers it gives the Government. Indeed, it actually gives them more powers than a nationalisation Bill would. It will allow the Government to do things that they could not do under a nationalisation Bill. Frankly, I would have voted for one. I am not a fan of nationalisation, as the Secretary of State will know, but I would have voted for nationalisation. I will vote for this Bill, for a simple reason: it buys us time. People have to understand that this is a reprieve, not a rescue.

I do not agree with the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) on his strategic nationalisation argument. Nationalisation under these circumstances buys the Secretary of State time and leverage, and he needs to be able to use his judgment on how to use that time and leverage. We have had just a hint of a view of how complex a game Jingye is playing. In fact, if I were to recommend any amendment to the Bill, it would be an amendment to limit to one penny the amount of money that the Government could pay to Jingye, because then no court could challenge that amount, and Jingye would know full well that it was not in line to make money out of the British taxpayer. We have to look at this in strategic and tactical terms.

[Daisy Cooper]

Will the right hon. Member give way on that point?

[David Davis]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not, because lots of people want to speak. I will refer to something she said in a minute, so if she really needs to intervene, I will let her come in then. We are trying to manage a disaster—a disaster for Scunthorpe, which is local to me, as members of my community work at Scunthorpe. The knock-on economic effects will be felt much more widely than in one town; this will affect thousands and thousands of people all round.

This is also a disaster for our last primary steelmaker, and steelmaking has suddenly become more important. It was always an important part of national strategy, but Mr Trump has made it a vital, unavoidable piece of national strategy. We have to create a circumstance that allows the Secretary of State and the Government to manoeuvre us through that. As Members have said, that means having an energy policy that makes the plant viable—not just viable when it is owned by the state, but commercially viable. It means having an energy policy under which we do not have the highest energy costs of our competitors, which we do now. It also means that we have to think very hard about carbon supply. At the moment, the technology does not exist that allows us to make primary steel without carbon supply, so we have to think about that. Primary steel is a strategic supply, so we cannot rely on another country for it.

I want to see this Bill used in a way that gives the Secretary of State the time to deliver those things, but it must also give this House the right to see what he is doing and how the strategies are turning out. Nobody has got this right. If those on the Government Benches want me to, I can go back to 1997 and park blame, but I do not want to do that today. I want to make this viable. We have to get our energy, environmental and industrial policies all in line to make this work.

To put this in context, last year British Steel lost about £408 million—that was the September number. This year it is about £250 million. Neither of those are small amounts of money. The Treasury would shut down an operation if we just left something like that running inside the Government for very long. We need a new strategy that cuts our carbon emissions without exporting our industry to the rest of the world. I am afraid that most of our successes in carbon reduction over the last decade or two—or three—have been by dint of exporting industries to other countries, often with much worse records than us. In this case it would be China. China has 50% of the world market already. It has massive excess in steel capacity, and its steel capacity is the most carbon inefficient there is, so we would actually be worsening the circumstances.

Horizon Redress and Post Office Update

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

We Liberal Democrats welcome the progress that the Government have made, but the redress payment processes are still too slow. First, victims claiming under the Horizon shortfall scheme continue to face significant up-front complexity without legal advice. I welcome the Minister’s announcement that the Government will be writing to that group, but could he please outline a time by which they will receive those letters?

Secondly, the Minister announced that any compensation will not be subject to a penny of income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax or other taxes. Could he confirm whether that will require primary legislation? If so, will it be limited to this scandal or apply to other scandals as well? I am thinking in particular of the cross-party campaign on Philomena’s law because some victims of that scandal are struggling to access their compensation.

Thirdly, this scandal has involved many individuals working at the Post Office, Fujitsu and others. The Government have committed to bringing forward a statutory duty of candour; they initially said they would do so by 15 April, which is the 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. At business questions last week, the Leader of the House cast doubt on whether that deadline would be met, because the Government say they will take whatever time is necessary to get the issue right. We Liberal Democrats want the drafting to be done correctly, but is there any update on when we can expect the statutory duty to be brought forward?

Fourthly, the evidence of whistleblowers at Fujitsu was crucial in exposing the lies about Horizon. We Liberal Democrats have repeatedly called for an office of the whistleblower, and we have put down amendments to the Employment Rights Bill to strengthen protections for whistleblowers. Would the Government work with us on that issue?

Finally, I was surprised to see the announcement about directly managed post offices. The Minister will be aware that a cross-party group of Members has been infuriated by the poor communication from Post Office bosses on this process. I recognise that today’s announcement states that the Post Office will move to a fully franchised network, but that still provides no guarantee about the range or quality of services that will be available, no guarantee on the definition of “nearby”, no guarantee that there will not be a break in service and no guarantee that those post offices will not eventually be closed if the franchises do not work. Will the Minister please set out the next stages? Those will affect my constituents in St Albans and many constituents represented by Members here.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She is absolutely right to reflect the view of the whole House that there is still much more to do on compensation. We as the Government are very clear about that ourselves, and we are working at pace to try to step up even further the rate at which compensation payments are made. We think that, in just the first nine months of this Government, we have made significant progress, increasing by three and a half times the amount of compensation that has been paid out. But I completely accept that there is more to do.

We think that the launch of the Horizon shortfall scheme appeals process will help to address a number of cases in the HSS where sub-postmasters are concerned about the offers they have had. The hon. Lady asked me when letters would be going out. I set out the broad timescale in my statement, and I simply say to her again—shortly. We want to get this up and running as quickly as we can.

The hon. Lady asked me whether new legislation would be required to implement the commitments on tax that I set out. No, it will not be required. On the issue of the duty of candour, I do not have anything to add to what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said. However, the hon. Lady’s question is an opportunity to underline that we expect a number of significant issues to arise from Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry, and we as the Government—and, I am sure, the whole House—will want to reflect on the conclusions and recommendations that he comes up with.

The hon. Lady mentioned the issues about the decision to franchise the remaining directly managed branches. As I set out in my statement, I have heard the concerns from across the House—they were particularly significant on the Labour Benches, but I recognise those from the Opposition side as well—about the impact of losing post office services in the communities where those directly managed parties are. That is why we have made it clear to the Post Office that franchised post office services have to remain in those communities.

We expect the Post Office to work from the starting point of those services being what is called a mains franchise—a franchise that, as well as providing the more traditional post office services such as stamps and parcels, will also provide Government services such as passports and driving licences: the equivalent of what is available in those branches at the moment. I expect that, in the first instance, those franchised services will continue to operate in exactly the same place where they do at the moment, before decisions are taken about where they should be located in the slightly longer term.

The hon. Lady asked me what guarantee there is that services will continue to be provided in that space. She will know that access criteria have already been published that commit the Government to provide 11,500 post offices. The decision on directly managed branches does not change those criteria, and the Post Office is committed to continuing to provide a service in those communities. I would also expect the Post Office to talk to local stakeholders, including Members of this House, about the continued operation of post office services in their communities.

UK-US Trade and Tariffs

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

Donald Trump has launched a destructive trade war that threatens the jobs and living standards of people across the UK and around the world. Let us be clear: this is not about reciprocity or a level playing field. The US is conflating our high British standards with trade barriers, and it is doing so on purpose. This is Donald Trump saying to the UK that he will lower tariffs only if we lower standards. He is saying, “Sell out your NHS to US vulture firms, or else; sell out your farmers to US big business, or else; and give up protections against online scammers and for children’s safety to US tech barons, or else.” If the Government give in to Trump’s threats, it will only encourage him to use the same bullying tactics again and again.

It is simultaneously true that the way the White House has made its crude calculation actually makes Britain’s negotiating position a bit better than the position of other countries, and we genuinely welcome that—it is a relief to us all. With regret, there is, however, no sign that the Government’s lobbying has borne any fruit, given that we have been put on the same regime as a number of other countries such as Honduras, Peru and Guatemala. This must be a wake-up call.

We Liberal Democrats believe that we must end this trade war as quickly as possible, which means standing firm with our allies against Trump’s attempts to divide and rule. Will the Government take urgent steps to bring our Commonwealth and European partners together in an economic coalition of the willing against Trump’s tariffs? We welcome the month of consultation with business; will the Government confirm that they will look at energy costs and business rates reform as part of that four-week consultation, especially in respect of the car industry? Will the consultation run in parallel with talks with our allies to draw up plans for the co-ordinated use of retaliatory tariffs?

When do the Government expect to publish an assessment of the impact of the tariffs on small businesses, jobs and the cost of living? Will they look seriously at launching talks with the EU to create a bespoke customs union? Let us be clear: the UK would not be in a worse place if the Government had heeded our calls to negotiate a customs union. Even the Conservative party should be able to see that Turkey has been in a customs union with the EU since 1995, and it has likewise been hit with tariffs of only 10%.

Finally, will the Government rule out once and for all the watering down of the digital services tax, or our digital competition regulations, to appease Trump’s billionaire backers?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions and her submission. I am pleased to hear that she feels we need to end any potential trade war—although I am pretty certain I heard her in the media last week demanding that we escalate the trade war. I do not think that is in any of our interests, and it is not the route and direction we need to go in.

The hon. Lady mentions that there is no sign of the UK being treated in any different way; she will know that the US has a view of VAT that we do not share—the US compares VAT to its sales tax. If we look at our rate of VAT and the comparable treatment of the European Union, we see that there is a differential. That does not satisfy me, because I believe we could seriously get to a position in which we not only avoid the imposition of additional trade tariffs and barriers, but deepen our trade relationship and remove some of the barriers that already exist, particularly in the trade in services. That is the Government’s objective.

We of course work closely with a whole range of friends and allies, but when they go into any negotiation, they represent their own national or customs union interest, and we do the same. I would not expect any country to go into a negotiation trying to represent the UK; other countries will have their own interests. I do the same for the United Kingdom: I have to put our interests first. There is a different structure to the trading relationship between the US and the UK—for instance, the US does not have with us the large deficit in traded goods that it has with the EU or China—so it is a different level of conversation and it allows us to put our own interests first. That is all that the Government seek to do in our policy towards the US.

The hon. Lady mentions a range of other issues that I recognise. Colleagues know that I had strong views on the very large increases in industrial energy costs that occurred after 2010—there was an increase of almost 50% in real terms—and I think they need to be addressed. The industrial strategy and other Government initiatives set out our wider policy objectives and tools in this area. The consultation and call for input that I announced today is much more about the formal steps we need to take to understand from businesses the impact and give them the chance to put forward their views. As I say, that will not be necessary if we can come to an agreement, which I believe all Members want us to do. I believe that the relationship can be deepened. If we get it right, it will not come at a cost to our other key trading relationships, such as with the European Union. That is the Government’s objective and I welcome any support from throughout the House for fulfilling it.

Employment Rights Bill

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I rise to speak to parts 4 and 5 of the Bill, and specifically to new clause 19, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), and new clauses 110, 111 and 112, which stand in my name. I wish to put on record my thanks to my two Liberal Democrat colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay and for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson), for their work in the Public Bill Committee, alongside many other Members of the House.

Overall, throughout its passage, we Liberal Democrats have indicated our support for many aspects of the Employment Rights Bill, such as those we debated yesterday, including boosting statutory sick pay, strengthening parental pay and leave, and giving people on zero-hours and low-hours contracts more certainty. However, a lot of crucial detail has been left to secondary legislation, to lots of new Government amendments and to continuing consultations, which makes it impossible to explicitly endorse the Bill as a whole at this stage. Even with 264 amendments in Committee and 457 Government amendments on Report, major issues are still yet to be determined, especially in part 4. Even after all those amendments, the Government say that they intend to

“consult further on modernising the trade union landscape following Royal Assent”

of this Bill, including on admissibility requirements, a code of practice and secondary legislation. It is therefore clear that part 4, which we are debating today, is still far from finalised.

We Liberal Democrats believe that employee participation in the workplace is vital, but we also believe that it should go hand in hand with wider employee ownership. That is so important for diffusing economic power, promoting enterprise, increasing job satisfaction, improving service to customers and getting long-term economic stability and growth. The Government’s proposals on trade unions are aimed at strengthening employee rights in what can often be a combative and confrontational working environment, and we Liberal Democrats see this Bill as a missed opportunity to improve employee engagement and ownership to provide collaborative working environments and long-term growth, whether by reforming company purpose rules or putting a duty on employers to encourage employee ownership in large listed companies. However, given what we have before us, we have tabled a few amendments.

First, new clause 19 is about the right to be accompanied, and it does what it says on the tin. It would expand the right for staff to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings. That is a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy, and I hope it is not too controversial, as it simply rectifies an anomaly. The current law allows only trade union representatives or colleagues to accompany an employee, and that leaves many without proper support. Some sectors, such as the medical profession, already allow accompaniment by non-union companions, yet that is not reflected in law. Our targeted amendment would fix that anomaly, and I urge the Government to accept it.

New clause 110 simply requests that the Government conduct a review on the impact on small business. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have expressed concern about the cumulative impact of all the Government’s work in this area and the impact it will have on small businesses in particular. Just the other day, the Federation of Small Businesses told me that it spends thousands and thousands of hours giving advice to small businesses on employment matters, and these new obligations will create a huge amount of extra law for them to understand, interpret and apply.

Small businesses do not have the same resources as big business. They often have no legal department, no compliance team and perhaps no human resources specialist. Because small businesses are often rooted in their community, they are conscious of their reputation. They know their employees and they want to get things right. That means it will take extra time, effort and cost for them to navigate and comply with this part of the Bill, and that is before we get to everything else that the Government are seeking to introduce.

Small businesses are telling me that, taking the measures of the employment Bill together with the changes to national insurance and business rates and everything else, they feel overwhelmed. All that new clause 110 does is ask the Government to conduct an impact assessment. We know that small businesses are passionate about their employees. Small businesses are often the ones to give people their first job. They are often the companies that give people a second chance. They provide part-time, flexible working and opportunities to return to work, so I encourage the Government to look at the impact of part 4 on small businesses.

New clause 111 is about introducing legal aid in employment tribunals. When legal aid was first introduced, the intention was for it to become the NHS of the justice system, but we know that today legal aid is far from that. Our amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on options for expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals. We already know that many employees cannot afford legal representation, and that creates an imbalance of power when facing well-resourced employers. The amendment simply asks the Government to look at the options that might be available in that regard.

New clause 112 asks for a review of the single enforcement body. We Liberal Democrats positively support the Government’s efforts to create a single point of contact, rather than four. A similar measure was in our manifesto, where we called for a powerful new worker protection enforcement authority. As a matter of good practice, when putting different organisations together, it is important to make sure that no gaps are created in that protection. The review we ask for is not just a formality, but an important safeguard to ensure that employment rights enforcement is effective, fair and fit for purpose.

There is much in the Bill that we Liberal Democrats welcome, but there are many parts of it that we simply cannot support because it is not yet clear what the Government’s intentions are. We urge the Government, in the strongest possible terms, to look at the impact on small business, as it is an area about which we are deeply concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

My membership of Unison, and of the national executive of Unison prior to my election, is well documented. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

What people on this side of the House probably do not know is that I am also an associate member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the professional body for the people profession, and I have spent over 20 years as a manager and an employer. I have therefore spent most of my career working with people, managing people and employing people. I have ensured that staffing levels are maintained on the hours that people are contracted and available to work, and I have managed their flexibility without having to resort to bank or agency staff every week. However, as a trade union rep, I have prepared for and worked on consultative ballots, statutory industrial action ballots and—oh yeah—political fund ballots. I have done the hard yards: I have walked the wards at 3 o’clock in the morning to speak to the night shift, and I have gone out to remote workplaces to engage with people. But I have also met management to agree on what essential levels of service are.

I pay tribute to all of those who have worked on this Bill to get it to the place where it is today, and I welcome its coming back to the House. I believe in fair work; a relationship between the employer and the worker that is based on equality; a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work; and the right of an individual to withdraw their labour should workers collectively vote to do so. We discussed yesterday what a healthy employment relationship looks like, and it is about more than just pay. It is about how people are treated at work, and it is about ensuring that work pays and that people have not only a job but guaranteed hours, if that is what they want. If someone wants to work full time, they should not have to work two or maybe three contracts with the same employer to make up those hours, or to work the same excess hours every week for months and months—until they want to take an annual leave day, when they lose their entitlement to that.

Today’s amendments focus on two main aspects of the Bill: the rights of trade unions to organise in a way that we recognise in the 21st century, and how this vital piece of legislation is enforced. As we have been reminded, the world of work has changed fundamentally in the last 20 years, and so has the world of trade unions. I listened very carefully, and with great respect, to the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), who spoke of the combative and adversarial nature of trade unions, but that is not the world that I recognise.

[Daisy Cooper]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for addressing some of my concerns, and I look forward to hearing what she says. Just to be clear, I was talking about what can be a combative working environment for employees and employers, and I said there was a missed opportunity to create more collaborative environments. I was not necessarily accusing the trade unions, but working environments can be combative.

[Katrina Murray]

Thank you very much for your intervention. I have 20 years’ experience of working in a partnership arrangement, and staff-side trade unions have been the agreed and recognised bodies for staff in the NHS. It is natural to sit down together and say, “These are our issues. How do we resolve them?” It is a lot more financially advantageous if we do not end up in a situation that is adversarial.

Electronic balloting has long been common practice, but not for statutory trade union ballots. This is not just about public votes on “Strictly Come Dancing” or “I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here!” I noticed that the Conservative leadership election in 2024 made great use of electronic balloting. It is absolutely time for trade union ballots to be brought into line with society, so I welcome the measures in the Bill to widen the methods of voting in industrial action ballots.

While I am on the subject of balloting, let me also say that I support the extension of the period of time before a re-ballot takes place to extend the mandate for strike action. The ultimate aim of any form of industrial action is for disputes to be resolved by all of the parties involved, ideally before any action is taken, before labour is withdrawn, before individuals lose their money and before the public are affected. The role of the Government should be to ensure that intransigent parties get round the table and talk in order to resolve any issues. Conservative Members have reminded us that when faced with that opportunity, they did exactly the opposite. They introduced the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, a piece of legislation that is so useless that it has stopped precisely zero strikes. It was used precisely zero times and is rightly being repealed as part of this legislation.

What Conservative Members do not recognise is that trade unions and trade union members do not take action lightly. I do wonder what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), was thinking, because he has obviously never talked to trade union members. People know their rights, they want to belong to things and they want to be involved. People collectively make such decisions, and they individually make decisions about their subscriptions—and by golly they know, because they have told me. These provisions have not been brought in with businesses kicking and screaming. Most businesses that work well with people know exactly what is going on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

Is the hon. Member surprised, as I am, that there is so much support on these Benches for caps on political donations and greater transparency about them?

[Gregor Poynton]

We have mentioned that, of course, and it is certainly the case. I would love to see more transparency from the Conservative party.

It is right and proper that we reward the good businesses that contribute to good employment and sustainable growth, and it is right and proper that we take action against rogue employers that do not. With this Bill, the Government are also calling it quits on the Tories’ scorched-earth approach to industrial relations, which led to the worst strikes chaos in decades. A new partnership of co-operation between trade unions, employers and Government will ensure that we benefit from more co-operation and less disruption.

North of the border, the Bill signals the largest upgrade of workers’ rights in Scotland for a decade. It marks an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts and fire and rehire practices. It will establish day one rights to paternity, parental and bereavement leave for millions of workers. However, it will also be beneficial for employers in Scotland, helping to keep people in work and reduce recruitment costs by increasing staff retention and levelling the playing field on enforcement. It is both pro-worker and pro-business.

Members of the Scottish National party—including the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law) today —have been calling for the devolution of employment law for many years, but at no point have they explained how, beyond the banning of zero-hours contracts, those powers would be used to improve workers’ terms and conditions, to increase productivity and to accelerate economic growth. Moreover, it might be nice if the SNP practised what it preached. During the Rutherglen by-election in 2023, it chose to use zero-hours contracts to employ people to deliver leaflets. In government, the same party has chosen to include zero-hour contracts in their definition of positive destinations for school leavers. Financial insecurity, anxiety and stress do not sound like my idea of a positive destination.

The SNP says that it wants to transform Scotland’s economy for the better—to boost wages and productivity and grow key sectors—but the fact is that Scotland has a higher rate of zero-hour contracts among people in employment than any other UK nation. How are people supposed to plan financially and improve their quality of life when they wake up on a Monday morning to find out via text message whether this week they will have eight shifts, two shifts, or no shifts at all?

The reality is that the Scottish Government already have the powers to introduce changes to many workers’ terms and conditions through public procurement, but they choose not to do so. They would always rather blame someone else, and further constitutional grievance, than use the extensive powers that they have to improve the lives of ordinary Scots. That is why the Bill is of such paramount importance. Across the UK, acute benefits will be delivered to the people who need them the most, and in Scotland the Bill will right the wrongs of the SNP’s laissez-faire approach to regulating zero-hour contracts.

The tenure of this Labour Government is still measured in months and not years, but this Bill is yet another example of their delivering the new direction that the workers, businesses and people of Scotland and the wider United Kingdom deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

As I noted in my speech, there are problems with the Bill. The hon. Member has mentioned the problems on public transport. Does he recall that in 2022 the train unions and the train operating companies actually resolved their dispute, and does he regret that the Transport Minister at the time intervened to block that agreement to resolve the strikes?

[Mr French]

My experience as an MP is great frustration, particularly in outer London, about train companies constantly going on strike, with a very small minority of train drivers going on strike. What we saw from this Government was a load of money going straight to those same unions, without the productivity changes that we would like to see, and no adaptation in the system. My personal opinion on some of these proposals is that it is increasingly likely that automation and a loss of jobs will be direct consequences of the rigid trade union laws being forced on to more businesses. I suspect that the only thing that will rise in this Parliament is unemployment.

These strikes are costly, disruptive and damaging to Britain. They ought to be a last resort, but this Government’s proposals will take us back to the 1970s—before I was born—when strikes were a political tool for division, damage and disruption. This is yet more evidence that Labour is not on the side of working people or of serious economic growth, as its own impact assessment—even partial—tells us. Londoners will not thank this Government if this results in yet more disruptive and longer rolling strikes that grind our city down even further than Mayor Khan has. Working people will not thank this Government for empowering their trade unions to bring our country to a standstill, especially as we pick up the Bill as they fill their pockets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jayne Kirkham]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare my Unison membership, although I am also an ex-solicitor. I am going to address the Government amendments relating to enforcement, rather than trade union rights.

We have a large demand for social care in Cornwall, as is the case in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell). Our population tends to an older demographic and, with many people leaving friends and family to retire to Cornwall, the availability of care is very important. Our social care system is close to breaking point due to the combination of years of underfunding and a fragmented privatised system. Skilled care workers are chronically underpaid for what they do, often at minimum wage, and we struggle to get and retain care workers.

The Bill contains many provisions that will help: strengthened sick pay; parental leave; protection from unfair dismissal from day one; improved family-friendly rights and flexible working; measures to tackle zero-hours contracts, including for agency workers and workers at umbrella companies, as well as for direct employees; and strengthened redundancy rights. The Bill also specifically gives social care workers respect and recognition through a fair pay agreement, and reinstates the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. It will be a game changer for those low-paid workers—mostly women—who work in care and schools.

[Daisy Cooper]

The hon. Lady will be aware that there is a debate on the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill next week, where we will debate whether health and social care providers should be excluded from national insurance contributions. Would she care to comment on whether Labour Members will support that amendment made in the House of Lords?

[Jayne Kirkham]

Local government funding will, of course, be increasing to take that into account, and funding for adult social care is rising and will rise further in the next three-year settlement under this Government.

To return to my speech, in Cornwall we have seen the rise of care workers coming from other countries to work on sponsorship visa schemes. These workers are often in a financially precarious situation, which increases their dependency. Some have been charged by their employers for induction, travel or training; in some cases, workers receive a salary below the minimum wage to make up the cost of their flights to the UK.

Draft Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 General Committees

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

In so many sectors, we have this enormous power imbalance between large companies and the smaller companies that they often contract through their supply chains, and construction is no exception. The Liberal Democrats have no objection to this and broadly welcome it. Anything that increases transparency is a good thing. Anything that tries to redress the power imbalance in those supply chains is also incredibly welcome.

I have just two questions for the Minister. As a liberal, I strongly believe in the power of incentives, and we always hope that incentives work. In many cases they do. My first question to the Minister is that if these incentives show that they do not work, will the Government have some system for monitoring that process? Is there some point at which, in the future, the Government intend to review the effectiveness of this legislation? Secondly, the Minister mentioned that more broadly the Government are looking at the issue of late payments: is he at liberty to mention, either now or at a later stage, the scope of that particular review and which sectors that might apply to?

UK Supply Chains: Uyghur Forced Labour

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

May I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the urgent question, and welcome the Minister back to Parliament and to his place?

Food labelling and food safety are among the most important issues for our diet and for our health. They allow consumers to make informed choices, and to ensure that food is safe and consistent with consumers’ ethical and moral beliefs. I am very pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government will look at the impact of legislation in the US, the EU and other countries, particularly where it may involve import bans on products that have been produced using forced labour. May I press him to tell us the timetable for doing that review?

[Mr Alexander]

I thank the hon. Lady for her observation, and for the characteristically calm wisdom with which she spoke about issues on which I think there is a high degree of consensus across the House. Given that we have been in government for five months, it is appropriate that we review the effectiveness of the Modern Slavery Act, which, in its day, was clearly a pioneering piece of legislation that commanded support across the House. In that sense, the review and the desire to understand the impact of the Act are informed by more recent innovations, such as those in the United States, the EU and Canada. I can assure the hon. Lady that alongside the trade strategy that we are publishing and the industrial strategy that we aim to publish in the spring, we are already carefully considering the critical elements of other legislation and seeing whether there is scope for strengthening the approach taken by the UK.

Budget Resolutions

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), who has given another customarily powerful speech and reminded us of the injustices facing those who fall between the cracks.

We live in an uncertain and unstable world, and the US election result makes it more so. As we debate how to rebuild our great country after the mess left by the Conservatives, many of us will have a sense of apprehension today about what the presidential result means for the US—including women and minority groups—as well as for the UK, Europe and the world. Families across the UK will also be worrying about the damage that President Trump and his Administration may do to our economy and our national security, given his record of starting trade wars, undermining NATO and emboldening tyrants such as Putin. None the less, that may well be the context within which we must rebuild Britain.

We Liberal Democrats believe that rebuilding Britain starts with rebuilding our NHS and social care. Never before have I heard so much desperation as at the last general election. The legacy of the last Government was to leave people saying that they could not see a GP or a dentist, and were waiting months for mental health assessments or special educational needs documents. People were asking me on the doorstep whether maybe everything was so broken that it could not be fixed at all, but we Liberal Democrats know that health and social care must be fixed hand in hand. We welcome the Government’s investment in the NHS, but they cannot remain silent on social care—they cannot dismiss it as a second-term issue. Businesses know that people’s productivity plummets when they have to pick up the pieces of a broken social care system.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady makes absolutely the right point about the NHS and its interdependence with social care, but the Government have done more than be silent on social care: through the minimum wage and the NICs, they have imposed £2.5 billion of additional costs on social care while giving just £600 million to local authorities. They are taking an already difficult situation and making it rather worse.

[Daisy Cooper]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. He may remember that at Deputy Prime Minister’s questions two weeks ago, I raised precisely that point with the Deputy Prime Minister and advised the Government that if they went ahead with the rise in national insurance contributions, it would affect social care. The right hon. Gentleman will, however, remember that it was the Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson who stood on the steps of Downing Street in 2019 and promised to reform social care “once and for all”, but clearly failed to do so.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

Two managing partners from GP practices in my constituency have written to me about the significant impact of the increase in employer NI contributions, which they say will directly undermine access and patient care. They will also have a huge impact on the brilliant work of Princess Alice hospice in my constituency, which is already hugely stretched—it will cost that hospice £400,000 a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that that hospice and those GP practices should be exempt?

[Daisy Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. I absolutely agree that they should be exempt; I think the rise in national insurance contributions is the wrong thing to do, full stop, but if it is going to go ahead, there must be exemptions. In my own area, for example, one local hospice in Hertfordshire will see its national insurance contributions go up by £150,000. Its warning is very clear: that if this rise goes ahead, beds will have to close.

People must see opportunities in enterprise as well, but the rise in national insurance contributions will hit small businesses hard, especially those on the high street. The success of our high streets really matters, not just for growth but for confidence: for so many people, the high street is the most visual and visceral mark of whether or not the economy is thriving. I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate later today whether the Government intend to bring forward a high streets strategy, and if so, when we might see it.

I have been inundated with messages from small businesses on my high street in St Albans. Here are just some of the quotes: one business said that

“the reality of last week’s budget will mean no more investment and no further recruitment as was planned and in all likelihood redundancies.”

Another small business said:

“I provide employment locally, raise money for local charities and have created a much-loved addition to our town centre…I am worried about how much longer I can go on.”

One business said that it

“would be impacted mainly with our business rates increase and my plea is that that can’t happen. The high street challenges are hard enough as they are”

without having to face

“an uncertain Christmas trading period.”

Other colleagues have mentioned the impact on medical charities, hospices and GPs. In Hertfordshire, the local medical committee said:

“Since 2014 we have seen 56 practices close or merge across Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, representing 35% of the 216 practices that existed back in 2014.”

GP practices need certainty as to whether any of these costs will be passed on to them at a time when they are already feeling the squeeze. I can guess what the Minister may say: he may encourage Members on the Opposition Benches to indicate how we would raise taxes instead. In the spirit of constructive opposition, we Liberal Democrats urge the Government to think again, because we believe the burden of fixing our public services should fall on the shoulders of the big banks, the gambling companies and the big tech companies, not the small businesses that are the beating heart of our communities. Suppressing small business is not the route to growth.

The business rates reforms in the Budget not only fall short of what we need, but actually make things worse in the short term. The last Conservative Government promised to reform the business rates system, but failed to do so. The current system penalises bricks-and-mortar retailers, while out-of-town retailers manage to get off almost scot- free. Pubs, high street shops and the rest of the hospitality sector have been hit really hard, with the discount being reduced from 75% to 40%. That is going to have a major impact. St Albans is renowned for its pubs—as many of the more long-established Members will remember, I talk about the pubs in St Albans on many occasions. We have more pubs per square mile than anywhere else in the UK, but those pubs will now face additional business rates bills of between £5,000 and £35,000. Some fear that this could push them over the edge.

Over the past few days, much has been said about food security as well. We Liberal Democrats agree that the loopholes that are being exploited by big corporations that buy up swathes of our land must be closed, but we are concerned that the Government’s approach is rather crude—that as they try to close those loopholes, some family farms will be collateral damage. Again in the spirit of constructive opposition, I encourage the Government to look again at our proposal for a proper family farming test, as is used in some other countries.

Finally, I will say a word or two about investment. We Liberal Democrats believe that the Government have done the right thing in changing the fiscal rules, and in principle, we believe in the importance of borrowing for productive investment. However—once again, I say this in the spirit of constructive opposition—I think the Government have put all of their growth eggs in the building back basket. I understand why they may be doing that. However, given the Trump presidency and the prospects of potential tariffs and trade wars that could drive up the price of products such as semiconductors and construction materials, there is a very real risk that the investment that the Government make will not reap the rewards that we all hope for—through changes in the global climate, rather than any fault of their own. We need a resilient economy, so I praise the Government for investing, but urge them to look at the question of resilience. At this time, it is even more important that we look to small businesses and high streets for growth, so I urge the Government to think again and unleash the power of our high streets and small businesses, rather than hamper them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Irene Campbell to make her maiden speech.