Terms and Conditions of Employment

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I, too, refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

When I saw the Order Paper and an item titled “Terms and Conditions of Employment”, I thought that it was good news—after the 20 times the Government have committed to an employment Bill, perhaps we would actually see it. I thought that nearly seven years on from the Taylor review, of which almost 50 recommendations have not been enacted or brought before the House, we would have an opportunity to create dignity, fairness and an inclusive labour market, leading to a fairer and more equal nation. But what we have today is a snail step, albeit one that I will welcome, with some qualifications.

The reality is that for thousands of workers across these islands, terms and conditions of employment see too many working people become victims at the mercy of bosses looking to cut costs, which is exactly what fire and rehire is about. It is also about zero-hour contracts, bogus self-employment and short notice of shift changes, leaving workers with additional transport and childcare costs, but I want to concentrate on the evil practice of fire and rehire.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), who has had to go to a Committee, has tabled two private Member’s Bills that seek to outlaw fire and rehire practices. The Bills are supported by over 100 MPs and the trade unions Unite, the British Airline Pilots’ Association and GMB. I listened carefully to the Minister’s exchanges with my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), and my scepticism about the order being approved today relates to what would happen in a tribunal case for unfair dismissal where a re-engagement order is placed on an employer following a dismissal, and the tribunal orders a reinstatement. We all know that very few cases in which a tribunal tells an employer to reinstate a worker who has been dismissed leads to a reinstatement, because employers will absorb the additional costs for failing to reinstate. I welcome the fact that there will be a penalty where fire and rehire has taken place, but the same principles are at play here.

I am afraid my scepticism relates to the fact that, as those on the Labour Front Bench have said, this order will not end the practice of fire and rehire. Large employers will get their calculators out and absorb the costs, like we have seen with British Airways and P&O. I saw the Business and Trade Committee’s extraordinary exchanges with P&O’s chief executive last week. I want to see real sanctions, so I ask the Minister to write to us and tell us how many tribunal cases where there has been an order to reinstate have actually led to a reinstatement. I understand that the rate could be as low as 3%, but I would be curious to know the figures, because I suspect that they could tell us what would happen with fire-and-rehire practices.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but will not companies such as British Airways, P&O and Asda, which have indulged in this behaviour, look at this as a balance sheet exercise and conclude that the penalty is so small that they can ride it out? Does that not make the case for the Government bringing forward an employment Bill to deal with the issue?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree that there should be an employment Bill but, exactly as my hon. Friend has outlined, our concern would be that large employers will get the calculator out and decide to absorb the cost. They will then, as they see it, take a smaller financial hit from paying a penalty than they would for fire and rehire. It is an evil practice, and I hope the Government will now consider ending fire and rehire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There are cases where these opportunities are abused—I do not deny that—but the hon. Gentleman is operating on the basis that it is the exception rather than the rule. It is our view, which he may disagree with, that the vast majority of employers do not treat their employees that way. There have been cases where a court has upheld the right of an employer to fire and rehire. Where the employer tries to restructure the company to save jobs, through a salary reduction of a few per cent. for everyone in the workplace, that is better than the business going down. The hon. Gentleman must see that there are some situations in which it is the only option for an employer, which operates in the interests of the wider workforce. It was the right thing to do in those situations. His describing it as an “evil practice” is wrong and misses the point, although there are abuses of the system, as he describes.

[David Linden]

Unusually, I find myself disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). Are there not scenarios in which the Government think that it is perfectly fine for somebody to be sacked and re-engaged? For example, when the Government led by the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) were collapsing, Ministers resigned and were then reappointed afterwards. Sometimes it is in the Government’s interest to have that option, isn’t it?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Well, there is no recourse to an employment tribunal in that situation, and there is certainly no uplift in the compensation that might be received.

I say to the shadow Minister that he should frame the order in its context. The majority of businesses in this country do the right thing by their employees, because they are run by honourable people and treating employees well is the right thing to do for business reasons. His approach of banning dismissal and re-engagement would cost jobs, as would having day-one rights in the area of unfair dismissal. Bringing forward a single category of worker would also cost jobs, and would create huge difficulties for many sectors. It is not just about the situations that arise in individual circumstances; it is about the fear of those situations arising for businesses when they are trying a new employee. That situation will strike fear into the hearts of many businesses across this country, and will cost jobs. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) asked me how many people had appeared before an employment tribunal and then been reinstated. I do not know those numbers but I would be happy to see what numbers we can find for him on that basis.

This order will increase the deterrent effect of the code by adding the protective award for non-compliance with collective consultation requirements to schedule A2 of the 1992 Act. That will mean that where an employer is found to have unreasonably failed to comply with their collective consultation requirements, as well as unreasonably failing to comply with the code, the employment tribunal may increase the employee’s protective award by up to 25%. Subject to the approval of both Houses, the code and the order will be enforced before the summer recess.

The Government are committed to making the UK the most dynamic place in the world to work and to launch, grow and do business. The UK’s flexible labour market is key to economic growth and helping businesses to thrive. However, labour market flexibility must be balanced with appropriate safeguards. The House should be left in no doubt that this Government will always continue to stand behind workers and stamp out unscrupulous practices where they occur.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment of Schedule A2) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 22 April, be approved.

Employment (Allocation of Tips)

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is genuinely a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell). I thank him and congratulate him on the private Member’s Bill that led to this code of practice coming to the Floor of the House. It is a small but significant step forward in improving workers’ rights. Regardless of our political differences—I suspect there are many—I have always found the hon. Gentleman to be kind, thoughtful and dedicated to public service, and I am very grateful for that. It is therefore no surprise that having won the equivalent of the parliamentary lottery, he chose to bring forward legislation that commands such cross-party support, and I thank him for that.

I will make reference to the briefing issued by Unite the union later in my remarks, but at the outset I declare my own membership of Unite, although I should be clear that I have no particular financial interests to declare.

One of the most frustrating aspects of the 2019 to 2024 Parliament has been the lack of significant progress on improving employment law more generally. Yes, there have been piecemeal bits of legislation, such as the Bills brought forward by the hon. Member for Watford, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), but they have all come forward as limited Back-Bench Bills. It is undeniable that a vacuum was created for these private Members’ Bills to move forward due to the sheer absence of the substantial Government employment Bill that many of us expected. Indeed, we were promised such a Bill on no less than 20 occasions by Ministers. It is now seven years since the Taylor review and still no action has been forthcoming from the recommendations of that report.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like to correct the record. A number of recommendations in the Taylor review have been implemented, not least the right to request predictable terms and conditions, which went further than the recommendations in the review. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that fact?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

I am absolutely willing to acknowledge that some recommendations from the Taylor review have been progressed, but no significant action has been forthcoming. A lot of MPs have said that; indeed, even the hon. Member for Watford said it was regrettable that there was not an employment Bill. I am simply pointing out the fact that an employment Bill was promised in this Parliament. We found time to legislate on a whole manner of other issues, some of which have, frankly, been with a view to creating a wedge at the general election, whereas we know that the legislation framework we have around employment law is not necessarily fit for the 21st century and the kind of economy we now have.

The UK exited the European Union in January 2020 to the cheers and trumpets of Brexiteers who promised that Britannia unchained from Brussels would lead to an improvement in workers’ rights. In reality, and from what I can see in Glasgow, all that has happened is that employers in the hospitality and tourism sectors now just have fewer workers.

In citing the briefing from Unite, I want to thank it for the work it has done to engage with employees and to gauge their opinions about tipping policy. For context, those who have responded are already engaged trade unionists with a track record of activism and a decent understanding of policy. That is what makes the answers particularly striking. When asking whether an employee’s workplace passed on all tips to its staff the answers were: yes, 63%; don’t know, 21%; no, 11%; and some 5% indicated that tips were only accepted by card on an employer-operated tronc that employees paid tax on. Those statistics paint a picture of the sheer scale of the issues workers face, especially when it comes to tipping in hospitality.

On tipping policy, some other issues need to be ironed out and considered further, namely whether backroom staff, such as those who are integral to preparing and producing a meal, not just delivering it to the table, be tipped, and whether the tips are being distributed equitably. All workers need to be eligible to receive tips, whether they are on a zero-hours contract or are permanent. Progress has been made on extending tips to agency workers, but in reality we now operate in a gig economy. It is vital that the legislative framework that comes from this place reflects that.

From the Government’s response to the consultation, 40% of employers admit that they do not issue tips to agency workers despite that being an obligation under section 27H of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The hon. Member for Watford was spot on when he said that the comms to employers and employees must be very clear in the run-up to October this year. There must be something that can be done, for example, with employees who still receive a payslip. Could the Government bring forward measures to require all employers to put some sort of small note on payslips to make clear that the laws on tipping will change in a couple of months?

The legislation we are piloting through the House today makes the point that our legislative framework does not reflect the reality of the UK economy and labour force in 2024. More needs to be done to protect workers, especially those on zero-hours contracts. Arguably, that point should weigh heavily on the minds of shadow Ministers who, if polls are to be believed, might shortly be assuming red boxes and Whitehall offices in the coming months.

As we approach the cigarette end of this Parliament, attention turns to the incoming Government and their ambitions for workers’ rights. It would be fair to say that the small c conservative approach to workers’ rights from the official Opposition has not necessarily been wholly welcomed by those in the Labour movement. Only last week, Unite’s general secretary, Sharon Graham, was on record as saying:

“It looks like all the warnings Unite made earlier about the dangers of Labour rowing back on its pledges for the New Deal for Workers have been proved right. This new Labour document on the New Deal, issued to the unions on Monday, is a row back on a row back. It is totally unrecognisable from the original proposals produced with the unions. Unrecognisable. Workers will see through this and mark this retreat after retreat as a betrayal. This new document is turning what was a real new deal for workers into a charter for bad bosses. Labour don't want a law against fire and rehire and they are effectively ripping up the promise of legislation on a new deal for workers in its first 100 days.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I assume the hon. Gentleman will be coming back to the motion before us.

[David Linden]

I am very happy to inform you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am talking on employment legislation, which I believe is germane to this debate.

Unite’s general secretary goes on to say:

“Instead, we have codes of conduct and pledges of consultation with big business. Likewise, the proposal to legislate against zero hours contracts is watered down to almost nothing…In truth this new document is not worthy of discussion. All unions must now demand that Labour changes course and puts the original New Deal for Workers back on the table.”

That was a warning shot to the Labour party that it, too, must be more ambitious and not leave the task of protecting workers’ rights to the valiant efforts of Back-Bench MPs who happen to be lucky in the private Members’ Bill draw.

I am sure that you will be glad to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will draw my remarks to a close, and say, yes, the measures before us today have the potential to put up to £200 million a year back into the pockets of hospitality staff and could benefit more than 2 million workers across the hospitality, leisure and service sectors.

That is a legislative achievement to be rightly celebrated in this place but it comes against a backdrop of increasing legislation that restricts the rights of trade unions to exercise functions of collective bargaining. It is no surprise, therefore, that the UK now has some of the most restrictive trade union laws in western Europe—something that has worsened over the past decade. Workers deserve better, and today is another baby step to improving things, but it largely goes against the grain of Westminster policy formulation when it comes to workers’ rights. And it is frankly little wonder that the Labour movement in Scotland, so ably represented by the Scottish Trades Union Congress, has now concluded that legislative competence for employment law should be devolved to Scottish Ministers. Failure to do so—be that by Labour or the Tories—will lead Scots to conclude one thing and one thing only: that Westminster is not working for working people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate in which we are seeking to ensure that the draft code of practice on fair and transparent distribution of tips is approved.

I will turn now to the specific issues raised. The shadow Minister talked about engaging with the sector, which is very important. I can tell him that we engage regularly with organisations such as UK Hospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association and the British Institute of Innkeeping on these matters and have been doing so for many months, as we want to make sure that their views are heard. The non-statutory guidance that we will be bringing forward should provide more help for those organisations to comply with the important provisions of this legislation.

The shadow Minister asked whether we would review the policy on a regular basis. We will obviously keep all these matters under review, and the guidance should help to inform the sector about requirements in terms of both employees and businesses. It is hugely important that we do so. He asked whether a person could take a claim forward to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal. Clearly, employment tribunals are there to ensure that workers can assert their rights if they feel that their rights have not been respected, so we would definitely expect an employment tribunal to hear such a case.

The shadow Minister asked about tipping by digital apps. We see this as a new phenomenon and an interesting development, enabling the customer to be able to tip an individual using an app, QR code or whatever, and we will not stand in the way of that. Where a tip has been given directly to a member of staff, it is clear that that tip should be kept by the member of staff. The app is there to allow flexibility in the implementation of the code or the guidance, rather than allowing businesses to avoid their clear obligations.

The shadow Minister asked about payments and why they are paid the following month. I think it is reasonable to allow a business to be able to calculate the amount of tips that are received in a month and then pay those out to workers in the month following. We think that that is a reasonable balance to strike. He asks why we are taking another five months to put this legislation in place. Clearly, we want to ensure two things—that we get this right and that we respect some of the pressures that exist in the hospitality sector, which has been through a difficult time, with increases in the national living wage, the cost of living crisis and the covid pandemic. We are trying to make sure that we take the sector with us, rather than impose unfair new burdens on it. We do not think that these measures are unfair, because we know that the majority of businesses would adopt these kind of rules even without this legislation.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) seemed to imply that we on the Conservative Benches were going to use Brexit to improve workers’ rights. I am always keen to improve workers’ rights, and we have done so in this Parliament, but I remember his party clearly saying that Brexit would be a bonfire of workers’ rights and that certainly has not been the case.

[David Linden]

Does the Minister consider that workers’ rights have improved? If he does, why is it that trade union organisations across Europe recognise that the UK has some of the worst employment rights across Europe?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, those rights have got better. We have introduced legislation that covers the right to request flexible working, neonatal care leave, carers’ leave, protection to cover redundancy during pregnancy and return to work, the right to request predictable terms and conditions, the tipping Bill, and shared parental leave. All those things have been introduced, or supported, by this Government. We see those protections not as an opportunity to create a wedge issue, but as the right thing to do by our workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

Is the Minister seriously trying to tell the House that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), did not relish the opportunity to bring forward the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, seeing it as a wedge issue that would cause trouble with the Labour party? Come on!

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is a refrain that we constantly hear from the SNP. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he did refer to ensuring that we worked alongside hospitality on the guidance, but apart from that, there was nothing in his remarks about the needs of business, and the legislation is about the needs of business. The strikes that affected this country, particularly at the end of last year and in the year before last, cost the hospitality sector around £3 billion. That is why we legislated as we did, and we feel it was the right thing to do.

The hon. Gentleman would do well to reflect further on the needs of business as well as the needs of workers. We believe that there is a balance to be struck, and he has got that balance wrong in Scotland. Hon. Members need not listen to me; just look at the numbers. The most recent figures for economic growth in Scotland over the 10 years from 2011 to 2021 show Scotland’s cumulative GDP growth at 7.2%, England’s at 14.9% and the whole of the UK’s at 12.9%. SNP MPs would do better to go back to their nation and constituency and drive economic progress forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who has done such good work in this area, talks about fairness. I know he stands up for fairness, and for Watford; I have seen the amazing montages of all the times that he has mentioned Watford in this Chamber. He deserves plaudits for his work. He says that he was lucky, but as the great Gary Player said, the harder you work, the luckier you get. The success that my hon. Friend has been an instigator of today is due to his hard work and determination. He talks about what we have done on communications, working with employer groups, employee groups and the hospitality sector. Yes, we do that—we work with trade unions, ACAS, UKHospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, the British Institute of Innkeeping and others to ensure that the code of practice and the guidance that will follow will leave them fully cognisant of the requirements on the sector—a sector that is so important to our economy.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) said he does not like giving tips. He is free not to give a tip if he does not feel it is appropriate, but most people would say that for good service, they would be prepared to provide a tip. The key point of this legislation is that that tip should be retained by the individuals who provided the service.

Draft Code of Practice on Reasonable Steps to be taken by a Trade Union (Minimum Service Levels)

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice on Reasonable Steps to be taken by a Trade Union (Minimum Service Levels).

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. It is good to see such a well-attended Delegated Legislation Committee.

The Government firmly believe that the ability to strike is an important part of industrial relations in the UK, and it is rightly protected by law. We understand that an element of disruption is inherent to any strike. However, strike action across our public services over the past year has highlighted the disproportionate impact that strikes can have on the public.

Taking that into account, earlier this year Parliament passed the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which seeks to balance the ability of workers to strike with the rights and freedoms of the public to go about their daily lives, including getting to work and accessing key services.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The Minister makes the point that he understands that people have the right to strike, but he says that strikes should not disrupt others. How does he reconcile that view with the fact that under Boris Johnson’s Government, scores of Ministers resigned at once and the Government almost ground to a halt? How does he reconcile that with what he proposes to this Committee?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do apologise, but I did not quite get the hon. Member’s point. Will he repeat it so that I can understand it?

[David Linden]

Does the Minister not understand that in the dying days of Boris Johnson’s Government, scores of Ministers withdrew their labour from the Government? Why is it one rule for the Tories and one rule for the workers?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I cannot speak on behalf of my colleagues, but I kept doing my daily job, as I am sure the hon. Member did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I say, I do not think that it is a complicated situation. As I set out to the hon. Member for York Central, the employer has a responsibility to contact their employees and union members, but I am happy to give more detail on that if the hon. Member for Luton South wants further clarification.

[David Linden]

Can I ask the Minister for clarification? As I understand it, the Minister said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West that there will not be a need for the Government to introduce a code of practice or guidance for employers. But in response to the hon. Member for York Central, the Minister has just said that it will be provided. Which of the two is right?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman was listening very carefully. I said that there was no need for a statutory code of practice for employers, but there will be guidance. We are debating the statutory code of practice for this legislation.

During the final stages of the parliamentary passage of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, the Government committed to introduce a statutory code of practice to provide more detail on the reasonable steps that a trade union should take. In accordance with section 204 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the Secretary of State consulted ACAS and, on 25 August, published a draft code of practice, enabling trade unions, employers and other interested parties to contribute their views.

Following careful consideration of those views, a number of changes were made to the draft code, and the updated draft code of practice was laid before Parliament on 13 November. It sets out four reasonable steps that a trade union should take to meet the legal requirements under section 234E of the 1992 Act. Although the code does not impose legal obligations, it is admissible in evidence and is taken into account where a court or tribunal considers it relevant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

I think the Minister will find that it was co-ordinated action and that, unlike trade union action, no ballot was required.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend will be aware that it was actually worse than that. What those Ministers were doing was practising fire and rehire: they resigned, and many of them were then reinstated in their previous job. I am thinking of the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for example. Perhaps the Minister may be just a little bit out of touch with what went on.

[Chris Stephens]

I say this charitably: as good-natured as the Minister can be, he is often accused by me and others of not understanding what actually takes place in an organised workplace. It is quite clear that Government Ministers collectively organised to leave their posts, causing huge inconvenience to the public, but I do not see delegated legislation to impose minimum service levels on Government Ministers.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. As others have done, I declare my trade union membership—I am a member of Unite. I found it mildly ironic that in the course of a debate about minimum service levels, at least one Conservative MP disappeared for the majority of the sitting only to come back, presumably to vote. I will not go as far as identifying that individual.

Before I go any further, I will pose a question to official Opposition Front Benchers. Can we get a commitment that any incoming Labour Government would repeal today’s legislation within their first 100 days? I am not the only one who has been slightly alarmed by the deviation of the current Labour leadership in terms of its commitment to workers’ rights. I think it is important to get that on record.

We find ourselves scrutinising this delegated legislation because earlier in the year, the Government brought forward a measure for a reason we all know: to have a pop at the likes of Mick Lynch. We know what happens when Governments try to legislate on the hoof as a result of press coverage: legislation tends to be rushed through and in the form of a dog’s dinner, and they then come forward with delegated legislation to try to tidy it up. I rather suspect that we will not be surprised to see further legislation at some point down the track. Members have outlined holes that are already in this code, and that is within only 75 minutes or so of scrutiny.

The first thing that concerns me is that the commencement of the regulations will come straight after approval from both Houses. The code of practice has to come into effect; that would be in mid-December, which is only a matter of weeks away. The very idea that Parliament, which we were told during the Brexit process was somehow taking back control, is having this kind of thing foisted upon it in a Delegated Legislation Committee raises a number of questions.

The regulations impose an effective strike ban. I do not want to detain the Committee for too long, but I draw attention to annex A of the draft code, which is absolutely wild. I do not know how many members of the Committee have actually looked at the Government’s draft code, but the idea is that a trade union official would be compelled to send a letter to its members, suggesting that they are required to work—the word “required” continues throughout the letter—beggars belief. The letter says:

“[Name of union] advises you not to strike…You should ignore any call to strike…we encourage you to notify the picket that you are required by the work notice to work at that time.”

The idea that the trade union official, who will probably be the picket supervisor, would be asked to send a copy of this letter, or a variation of it, really does beggar belief. It strikes me that whoever drafted this in Whitehall has absolutely no understanding whatever of trade union organisation, although that might not come as a surprise to many.

[Patrick Grady]

Is my hon. Friend concerned about the increasingly authoritarian approach of this Government? People are now required to turn up to polling stations with photo ID, and now they will need a slip to allow them to cross a picket line. Is this the kind of libertarian approach that people had originally expected from the Conservative party?

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It was not that long ago—only a couple of weeks back—that we had a Home Secretary who called for insurrection in Whitehall. The reality is that this Government have a questionable record when it comes to libertarian values, whether it is these restrictions, the—frankly—voter suppression mechanisms that they have brought forward, or the Public Order Act 2023, which seeks to curtail people’s basic rights to assemble and to demonstrate. We know that many provisions in the Government’s legislation have been criticised by the ILO for the fact that they go against the basic and most fundamental right for an employee to withdraw their labour.

I have particular concerns about the identification of members. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act mandates extremely tight timelines for the identification of members in work notices. Even Conservative Members struggled to keep a straight face when confronted by the contradiction of requiring a postal ballot for taking part in industrial action, but the issuing of work notices within the space of three or four days. That rather suggests that the Government are on shaky ground. The Minister would do well to reflect on that in his summing up.

Where union members do not have an email address, or have not shared their email address with the union, the union is expected to rely on sending information via the postal service. The code does not recognise that challenge. Given the way Royal Mail has decided to run its business in recent months and years, it is not uncommon for there to be a postal strike. We could have something of a perfect storm there.

The code states that unions should also tell a worker who is named in a work notice that they must

“carry out the work during the strike or could be subject to disciplinary proceedings which could include dismissal”.

I know that it is perhaps not normal for Conservative Members to be completely au fait with how the trade union movement works, but the absolute nonsense of a trade union writing to a member who has joined that trade union to collectively organise being threatened with disciplinary proceedings or dismissal really does make a mockery of the situation.

Many other hon. Members have referred to the fact that the original legislation, which was rushed through on the Floor of the House, made absolutely no reference to pickets. Yet—surprise, surprise—we get legislation that is pushed into a Delegated Legislation Committee. A rather stuffy delegated legislation Committee, in which I suspect most people are either playing Candy Crush or considering what to write in their Christmas cards, is debating legislation about strikes and picketing, when we were promised on the Floor of the House that that would not be the case.

The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 is draconian legislation that attacks individuals’ fundamental rights while doing nothing whatever to improve industrial relations. At a minimum, the associated regulations—the provision that we are looking at now and the regulations that we will be looking at this evening—intended to implement it should be subject to proper scrutiny. Parliament must be given more time, sufficient time, to examine each of the regulations in proper detail and to consider the analysis of the Regulatory Policy Committee.

All of this makes the point that my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North and for Glasgow South West and I, and indeed many other SNP Members in this place, have been sent here to stand up and make the argument for stronger workers’ rights. We were promised during the period of the Brexit referendum that Brexit would not be a bonfire of workers’ rights. Six or seven years down the line we are once again served up legislation in here that Scotland did not vote for, that Scotland opposes at every turn, and that I suspect in about six or seven minutes’ time will pass, because there is a democratic deficit in this place—and that makes the case for Scottish independence.

[The Chair]

I want to bring the Minister back in at about five minutes to 6. I call Rachael Maskell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am sorry, but I will not have time to conclude the debate if I take interventions, which use up a lot of time during speeches. It is right that I conclude the debate.

If the hon. Member for Glasgow South West checks Hansard, he will see what I said in response to his intervention, which was that there is no need for a statutory code of practice for employers, but guidance has been issued; it was published on 16 November. That is our view. I advise him to check Hansard. On his point about minimum service levels effectively requiring an increase in service levels, if he checks the guidance that we have put together for rail, it clearly stipulates 40% of the normal timetable. We are not expecting an increased level of service; we are just expecting a service.

To help to secure minimum service levels, it is vital that trade unionists take reasonable steps to ensure that their members who are identified in a work notice comply with that notice and do not take strike action during the periods in which it requires them to work. It will help to provide a greater level of assurance that trade union members who are required to work as part of a work notice will be encouraged to do so by the trade union, and therefore increase the likelihood of minimum service levels being achieved.

Ultimately, the code will help all parties to achieve minimum service levels where they are applied, and moderate the disproportionate impact that strike action can have. I commend the code to the Committee.

[David Linden]

On a point of order, Ms Nokes. I beg to move, That the Committee sit in private.

[The Chair]

No, we are not going to do that.

Question put.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

David Linden Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

All jurisdictions differ, and the way that minimum service levels are set differ. Some are set by the Government; we have done that, through consultation with stakeholders, and we will decide what the right level of minimum service will be. All jurisdictions differ somewhat, but the key point is that in many jurisdictions there are restrictions placed on the ability to strike.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

On the issue of stakeholders and jurisdictions, may I turn the Minister’s attention to the devolved Administrations? The SNP Scottish Government have been crystal clear in their opposition to this tawdry piece of legislation. In the interests of the UK Government’s respect agenda when it comes to the devolved jurisdictions, why are they ploughing ahead with this Bill that drives a coach and horses through the fundamental human right to withdraw one’s labour?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will deal with that question in a second; it is covered by one of the Lords amendments that I will speak to, so I will address it when I come to the element of my speech relating to the devolved Administrations.

The Bill returns to us with a number of amendments made in the other place. I would like to be clear that, with the exception of our own Lords amendment 3, the Government consider the majority of the changes to be designed to make the Bill either less effective or entirely ineffective in achieving its aims. The Government will therefore be disagreeing with those amendments.

I will speak first to Lords amendment 3, which was tabled by my colleague Lord Callanan in the other place and provides clarity in respect of the matters to which an employer must not have regard in respect of trade union membership and activities when deciding whether to identify a person in a work notice. The amendment addresses a point raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Either way, the Bill will need to be repealed as soon as possible, and I am pleased that the leader of the Labour party has committed to doing so. Whether or not Conservative Members agree with the scope of the Bill, there can be no doubt that it is autocratic, undemocratic and unworkable. Conservative Members, who claim to be democrats, must on principle oppose the Bill and join Labour MPs in the Lobby this evening.

[David Linden]

It is a pleasure to be called in this debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). I am glad that she touched on point that any future Labour Government would repeal this Act. I am just struck, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), by the quote from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who said:

“We can’t come into office, picking through all the conservative legislation and repealing it… It would take up so much parliamentary time. We need a positive agenda.”

If a positive agenda is not standing up for the principle of human rights and democracy, I do not know what is. Perhaps when the Labour Front Bencher sums up at the conclusion of the debate, they will outline exactly how quickly this Bill will be repealed from the statute book, as well as anti-trade union legislation more generally.

As others have done, I declare an interest. I am a member of the Unite trade union, which opposes this Bill, and I am happy to stand in solidarity with it. We are very much beyond the looking glass when it takes Members of the House of Lords to be the people standing up for the principles of democracy and human rights; none the less, I thank their lordships for the amendments they have made to the Bill.

As I was sitting here listening to the Minister opening the debate, I found it rather ironic that we are discussing minimum service levels when the Conservative party’s Back Benchers have literally not turned up for this debate. Other than Bill and Ben, the PPS flower pot men, there are literally no other Conservative MPs here to scrutinise this legislation. If the Government want to talk about minimum service levels, let us have Conservative MPs who campaigned for Brexit by talking about Parliament taking back control coming here to talk about the horrific Henry VIII powers that give unprecedented power to a Secretary of State who would be completely out of control.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun mentioned that statistically, when we look at the amount of industrial action that has happened across these islands, Scotland has had the lowest. That is because we take a partnership approach with trade unions. Yes, there are times when the Scottish Government and local authorities in Scotland will have difficult conversations with trade unions, but by and large we understand that the best way to resolve those disputes is to come to the table, not to use legislation as a way of trying to strike down the trade unions and to big up the likes of Mick Lynch and Sharon Graham as some sort of bogeyman or Grinch. That is exactly what this Bill is designed to do. It is designed to be a wedge issue for the next general election, and that is why it is so important that Labour Members stand up and oppose this Bill, even if they cannot stand on picket lines.

Lords amendment 1 relates to the principle of devolution. I was certainly heartened by what we heard earlier about the opposition to Lords amendment 1, but the reality is that First Minister Humza Yousaf, First Minister Mark Drakeford in Wales and the Governments in both Wales and Scotland have outlined their absolute opposition to this Bill, which we consider to be an affront to democracy and to the basic fundamental human right to withdraw one’s labour. That is one reason I would like to see employment law devolved to the Administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff. It is good enough for Northern Ireland. Let us not forget that because of the territorial application of this Bill, we will find ourselves in the ridiculous situation where healthcare staff who go on strike in Scotland, England and Wales will be subject to the sack, whereas people in Northern Ireland who choose to use their fundamental human right to withdraw their labour will not. For a Government who talk about how important the Union is and how important it is that we do not have divergence of policy, this does rather fly in the face of that argument.

Tonight we will vote against all the Government’s motions on the Lords amendments they are opposing, but when the Bill goes back to the other place, I urge their lordships to hold firm against this Government. They should not give in, because Parliament was told we would be taking back control, and all we are seeing is a Government running out of control and running roughshod over some of our most basic rights. Of course, we were told Brexit was all about strengthening employment rights. The Government talk about that, but what they have brought forward is this tawdry Bill, which once again tramples all over people, just as Thatcher tried to do.

The warning to people in Scotland is that, for so long as they continue to have Conservative Governments they did not vote for—indeed, they have not voted for them since 1955—they will continue to get legislation that tramples on workers’ rights. The only way to protect our Parliament and to protect our workers’ rights is with the powers of independence, not Tories whom we did not elect.

[Christine Jardine]

I rise to support the Lords amendments and to oppose the Government’s intention of rejecting them. I am no longer a trade union member, but I was, so a lot of this Bill offends my belief in the right of the individual to withdraw their labour and the rights of the trade unions.

Lords amendments 4 and 5 would tackle the unfair obligation on the trade unions to ensure that members comply with a work notice. The thought of sacking anyone for going on strike is particularly difficult for me, because I actually have experience of that. I have experience of my husband being sacked, in 1989-90 in Aberdeen, because he went on strike. I know the damage it did to us and to a lot of people’s careers. To take away the right to object to what people believe is an unfair practice or to ask for better pay is, to me, a contravention of rights that people have fought long and hard for in this country. So I will be voting no on those two motions, as will the other Liberal Democrats.

On Lords amendment 1—

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but remind him that we are here to discuss this Bill and its implications, which are very serious. Yet again, there is an attempt to divert us on to the constitutional issue, which in this particular instance is not appropriate. Yes, I will be voting against—

[David Linden]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I will tell the House exactly how we are going to vote: we will vote no on the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 1. Like the Labour party, we are very proud of the devolution settlement in Scotland and the achievement of devolution in Scotland and in Wales, which I would remind SNP Members they actually opposed at the time. They campaigned against it, because they were in favour of independence and did not want devolution, so the commission did not involve them. But that is not what we are here to talk about. We are here to talk about this Bill.

[David Linden]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Christine Jardine]

No, thank you.

The Bill is fundamentally flawed, not least in the fact that it will do nothing to address the current shortfalls in employment in the public sector. It will do nothing to protect the rights of patients in hospitals, which as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, are what the nurses who have been on strike are seeking to protect. It will do nothing to help them.

The arguments against this Bill were rehearsed thoroughly on Second Reading, and I do not want to spend too much time going through them again, but I pay tribute to the Lords for their amendments, which do go some way to addressing the failings that so many of us identified on Second Reading. The Liberal Democrats will be voting no to the Government’s attempts to reject the Lords amendments, because they would improve what is a flawed—I believe, fundamentally flawed—Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

Unfortunately, I have to come to the Dispatch Box—that is just the way it works—so I disappoint the hon. Member by not being the Secretary of State. However, he knows that steel is absolutely key to our sovereignty and security and for the resilience of all our sectors. The Secretary of State has mentioned repeatedly that the quotes that are being repeated in the Chamber are a misrepresentation. The commitment to the sector continues. It was in place for years: it is why we had £800 million of support for the energy sector, and it is why we have a £1.5 billion competitive fund to help the sector decarbonise.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Small businesses such as coffee shops and cafés in our high streets are the lifeblood of a local economy—one example would be Jeanie’s Coffee Shop in Baillieston. Running a kitchen all day is an incredibly intensive process for energy, and John Devaney was telling me last week how that business’s energy bills have gone up. As the Minister is being so generous with other meetings, would she be willing to meet me to look at how we can support businesses such as Jeanie’s in Baillieston to ensure that they get through the cost of living crisis?

[Ms Ghani]

I will be full of meetings, but I defer to the Minister with responsibility for small businesses, who is more than happy to have that meeting. We have provided billions of pounds of support for businesses to deal with their energy costs, and we have the new supercharger in place. We lobby the Treasury long and hard, and we are more than happy to represent businesses small and large.