Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Caroline Nokes

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I begin by welcoming this Bill on behalf of my Green colleagues. I would like to gently comment on the tone of some of this debate. I find myself on the Opposition Benches, but that is not to say that I share the sentiments expressed by Conservative Members. In particular, it is a shame that we have seen some very polarised debate today. I want to challenge the rhetoric of, “It’s workers versus employers and unions versus small businesses.” That is both ahistorical and economically illiterate, frankly. It is ahistorical because if we did not have workers organising together to improve their conditions, we would still have children up chimneys and women being paid a small fraction of what men are paid for doing the same work.

Such rhetoric is economically illiterate because inequality is bad for growth. It is not just me and Labour Members who say that; the International Monetary Fund has specified that inequality is bad for growth. Let us try to look for the common ground together, and to welcome measures that will improve work and the security of people who work. Let us recognise that, frankly, this Bill is long overdue, because we have seen the erosion of workers’ rights over decades. We are now in a position where work does not pay well enough for far too many people in our country, which is why we have so many people on in-work benefits.

I really welcome the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who pointed out that there are much better labour relations in countries where there is a positive recognition that workers’ rights go along with improved economic growth. As a country, let us try to move towards that point.

I want to briefly mention a few areas where I would like the Government to go further. The Bill’s failure to fully ban fire and rehire practices is inexplicable. It leaves a loophole or get-out clause that effectively condones this practice, and I do not think there can be any grounds for treating workers in purely transactional terms.

Zero-hours contracts are a complex area. I know that some people welcome the opportunity to have zero-hours contracts, but this flies in the face of what the majority of the public wants. The current model leaves far too much power in the hands of employers.

I want to briefly mention other aspects of equality. It is disappointing that this Bill does not uphold previous Labour pledges on mandatory disability and ethnicity pay gap reporting. It will lead to increased inequality between migrant workers and others, because it does not address the risks that migrant workers face when their visas are dependent on employers, and they may exit the country before they have had a chance to pursue their employment claims.

I would like to see kinship care treated in the same way as adoption leave. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) talked about foster carers, too.

In summary, I welcome this bill, but there are areas where I would like to see the Government go further to protect workers’ rights.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Mike Tapp to make his maiden speech.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Caroline Nokes

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for her excellent maiden speech. Indeed, we have heard more than half a dozen excellent maiden speeches today, several of which touched on the climate crisis and the future of children in our country, themes that relate to my amendment. I was touched to hear the passion with which all the new Members spoke about their experiences and commitments.

My amendment 5 requires the OBR to report on the impact of fiscally significant measures announced by the Government on the UK’s statutory net zero target. The justification for my amendment is that we simply cannot separate the economy and the climate—they are interlinked. To deliver the green economic transformation that we so urgently need, as referenced by hon. Members speaking earlier, every single policy must be aligned with the UK’s net zero target and every Government spending decision should be as well.

It makes sense to increase the OBR’s remit on net zero to specifically consider the impact of climate risks on economic stability, and how far policies introduced at fiscal events will reduce or increase these risks. Fiscal events, namely Budgets and spending reviews, lock in what is happening in our economy for years to come, even generations, so it beggars belief that they are not properly taking account of climate impacts. Whether those policies are spending on new roads, subsidies and tax breaks for oil and gas, investment in renewables infrastructure or giveaways like a freeze on fuel duty, they all have direct impacts on the UK’s prospect of meeting our net zero targets. Those impacts should be made clear and considered explicitly in the policy-making paper. We need to be thinking about the impacts of today’s economic policies on the prospects for future generations.

The costs of failing to take an approach that considers climate impacts are eye watering. A 2022 report by the Grantham Institute found that climate change damages to the UK are projected to triple by 2050 and more than double again 50 years later, so climate prudence and fiscal prudence are one and the same thing. Given that the OBR’s main duty is to assess the health of the UK economy and the sustainability of its public finances, it needs to be charged with assessing whether fiscal events are reducing or increasing climate risks to the economy.

Bringing net zero into the OBR’s mandate is consistent with the Government’s five missions. Indeed, in announcing its clean energy superpower document, Labour said that it will add net zero mandates to all relevant regulators that need it. I would argue that the OBR is a relevant regulator that needs a net zero mandate. That is why I am proposing this probing amendment today. As other Members have mentioned, it would also represent increased transparency around how fiscal policy choices are impacting the UK’s progress towards our net zero targets and help ensure that future Governments also consider that.

It is also an important stepping stone towards a net zero test, which would assess the aggregate climate and nature impact of every fiscal event. Again, this is something that Labour committed to in opposition. In his winding-up remarks, will the Minister comment on whether he is able to ensure that this test is integrated into the legislation that he is proposing?

I hope that Labour will use this opportunity to commit publicly to introducing a net zero test in Government, and will take a step towards doing that by backing my amendment.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I call Lauren Edwards to make her maiden speech.

Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome you to your place. I pay tribute to the very moving and passionate maiden speeches we have heard from across the House today. I probably do not have time to go through all the details in them, but I shall remember not to fall asleep in the Library. I recognise the passion with which many people spoke about defending their constituents’ interests and, in particular, tackling child poverty.

I would like to speak to the formal topic of the debate: the modernisation of the House. I very much welcome the initiative by the Leader of the House in setting up the Committee and I look forward to feeding into it in whatever way possible, including through this debate. Modernisation should be about how we can become more efficient and effective as a House, and therefore more productive in our roles as MPs. That is what we have been elected to do. As I mentioned, I hope the Committee can be as representative as possible. It strikes me that as more than half the MPs are now newbie MPs—as, indeed, am I—there is perhaps an opportunity to ensure that the Committee is balanced in that way, so that the voices of new MPs, who are able to draw on a wide range of experience and perhaps have fresh eyes and fresh insight, which I think was mentioned in one of the maiden speeches, are represented.

From my perspective as a newly elected Member, I would like to offer observations on three elements of how the House operates, to feed into the deliberations of the Committee. I would like to speak about sitting, speaking and voting—very day-to-day activities. I have spent only three weeks in this House, but I know from conversations in the corridors that my observations are shared by other Members in all parts of the House.

My first point is about sitting. We are in a Chamber that is far too small to fit us all. I know that is not a novel observation, but as a newly elected MP, I find it really striking; it is quite extraordinary. I have served as a councillor for several years, and I have served as a Member of the European Parliament. In each of those chambers, we would have our own seat and our own desk, and we could plug in our devices, so that we could work off electronic materials. It seems extraordinary that we do not have space in this Chamber for each of us to sit and speak. Indeed, I was amazed to discover that there are seats in this Chamber on which we can sit, but from which we cannot speak. That seems an extraordinary limitation on the ability for everybody to participate in our debates. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we all had somewhere to sit?

The limitations on space also lead to some frankly rather ridiculous behaviour, such as the practice of queuing up at the opening of the Chamber to place a prayer card and book a seat. At times of great demand, such as the King’s Speech or Prime Minister’s questions, that leads to a contestation over space that simply would not happen if we had enough space for everybody.

While I am on the topic of prayers, there is a practice in this place of having Christian prayers. As the daughter of preachers, I am very familiar with those, but I suggest that in this day and age, in a country of all faiths and none, it might be time to consider an approach a little more like Radio 4’s “Thought for the Day”, with a moment of reflection at the beginning of the day and an opportunity to hear views from people from a range of faiths, and indeed with none.

I will move on to speaking. I am glad that a time limit has been introduced for speeches today; I am used to speaking in chambers with a time limit. Time limits aid the democratic process, because they mean that everybody gets a fair crack of the whip and an equal chance to have their voice heard in the Chamber. If we had more time limits, there would be more opportunities for people to participate, and perhaps MPs would be keener to participate in debates. There is also the process of getting a slot. I have been busy bobbing up and down to attract your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I did for five solid hours last week without managing to attract the Speaker’s attention. In recent days, a number of Members have wanted to make a maiden speech but have not been able to. The practice of bobbing might be good for the glutes, but I suggest that it is not so good for democracy. Perhaps we could find a more efficient way of allocating speaking time.

While we are on the topic, I note that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) spoke about the processes for Government or non-Government control of speaking time. An initiative to increase Back-Bench influence over the allocation of speaking time would be very useful.

My final point on speaking is about the culture in this House. In the few short days that I have spent in this Chamber, I have witnessed everything from excessive deference to, frankly, braying. As other Members have said in their maiden speeches, we really need to clean up politics. We really need to show that we are all here to debate in as positive a spirit as possible, as the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) said.

It is extraordinary to me that we do not have electronic voting. We have a semi-system. While I have been here, I have participated in five votes, which has taken at least an hour and a quarter. If we add up all our votes, it basically comes to a month of MP time. It is an utter waste of time and totally unproductive. We could be getting through far more. Let us get rid of the voting Lobbies. We can double the physical size of the Chamber if we get rid of them—that is a genuine, practical suggestion. We can take the opportunity of the decanting process and having newbie MPs to really modernise how we operate here.

Finally, if we want to be a truly modern House of Commons, we need proportional representation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Sureena Brackenridge to make her maiden speech.