Employment Rights Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Wera Hobhouse

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wera Hobhouse]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 74, which appears in the name of the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh). I pay tribute to her and to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) who have campaigned on these issues for a long time. New clause 74 seeks to ban non-disclosure agreements that prevent workers from making a disclosure about harassment, including sexual harassment—we have talked about sexual harassment in the workplace for the last four or five hours.

NDAs were initially designed to protect trade secrets by restricting the sharing of certain information, but in recent times they have taken on an entirely different and quite sinister role. They have essentially become the default solution for organisations and individuals to settle cases of misconduct, discrimination and harassment, keeping the extent of such incidents unaccounted for. Incorporating clear provisions to ensure transparency in cases of harassment would strengthen protections for all workers.

Data from Can’t Buy My Silence has revealed some deeply worrying statistics about the misuse of NDAs. In a survey of more than 1,000 people who experienced harassment and discrimination in the workplace, 25% reported being forced to sign an NDA, while an additional 11% stated that they could not say due to legal reasons, implying that they had also signed an NDA. Four times as many women as men sign NDAs, and they are used disproportionately against women of colour.

In Committee, the Minister said that the Government had “reservations” about changing the law in this way, as there may be “unintended consequences”. I struggle to understand why the Government have committed to banning universities from using NDAs in cases of sexual misconduct, harassment and bullying but have not committed to extending those protections to other sectors. NDAs are clearly being used in a totally different way to what they were designed to achieve, and we must stop this before more victims are silenced. I heard the Minister say earlier that he is at least looking at what new clause 74 is trying to achieve.

Despite my concerns about the misuse of NDAs, the Bill as a whole has many very positive provisions. Importantly, it finally legislates to protect workers from third-party harassment. I brought that forward in my original Bill that became the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023, which recently became law. However, it was blocked by amendments made to the Bill in Committee in the House of Lords by the Conservative party, so that such liability and protection from sexual harassment by third parties in the workplace was not created. We have already discussed that several times this afternoon.

I am most pleased that the Government have committed to making workplaces safer through this protection, because that is what this is all about. Creating safer workplaces is good for everyone, including businesses, despite what the Conservative party says. A study by Culture Shift found that 66% of businesses believe that preventing sexual harassment is very important. I do not know what Conservative Members are talking about when they say that their inboxes are full; I have not seen a single email from a business writing to me to say that it is worried about protecting its own employees from third-party harassment. According to WorkNest, three quarters of employers are still concerned about protecting employees from harassment by third parties. Businesses are concerned that they cannot protect their workers from third-party harassment; they clearly want these protections to be included in the Bill.

Too many people still suffer from third-party harassment at work. Amendment 288, which tries to remove those important provisions, is plain wrong. Employers have a duty to ensure the safety of their employees from not just other employees, but third parties who may interact with them in the workplace. That responsibility should be part of their broader commitment to workplace safety. If the Conservative party is truly committed to a world without harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace, why is it still condoning offensive language and behaviour as “banter” and “free speech”, rather than taking a step to support businesses and protect workers from sexual harassment in the workplace, as proposed in the Bill?

I am grateful that the Government have ensured the completion of my Act as it was intended a year or two ago. Although I remain concerned about the misuse of NDAs, I welcome many of the provisions in the Bill. I will be proud to walk through the No Lobby when we come to vote on amendment 288, and I hope that all right-minded people will join me there.

Eating Disorders Awareness Week

Debate between John McDonnell and Wera Hobhouse

Thursday 29th February 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) not just on securing this debate, but on her dogged pursuit of this issue over the years. The Minister should be aware that the all-party parliamentary group on eating disorders is one of the most active and effective in Parliament, as a result of her work. She has collected around her hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), who are extremely committed in representing their constituents.

We all come to this issue as a result of dealing with our constituents and the hardships that they have faced. I thank Hope Virgo for her work, her campaign and the book she has written. If it was not for her, I do not think we would have been on this agenda as effectively as we have been in recent years.

I thank the Government as well because, early on, they recognised that there was an issue and brought forward some resources. I am grateful for that, but this is one of those issues where things are moving so rapidly in terms of the scale of the problem. We will have to come back to the Government regularly to look at how we top up those resources.

Much has been said about the statistics. I heard the figure of 1.25 million people mentioned and others have said 1.6 million, but it seems like a bottomless pit. The health survey was really interesting. If I remember rightly, it looked at those who had the potential for an eating disorder, so it was trying to get ahead of the numbers, and it said that 16% of the population—19% of women and 13% of men—could be at risk. One of the issues that the APPG has been really good at breaking through on is that this is not just about women; a large number of men are also affected by this problem, and that needs to be addressed.

In all these debates, we try to get across the impact and, to a certain extent, highlight to our constituents that we understand how their lives are affected. Of course, the mental health issues are fundamental. There have been suicides and deaths, but there has also been an outbreak of self-harm among people suffering from this condition. People have reported that there has been an impact on their ability to work, meet socially and engage in a full life. What has worried me most is the huge increase in the numbers being admitted to hospital—I think there has been a fourfold increase in recent years.

As has been said, this is the mental health condition with the highest mortality rate. Part of that is because there is a mismatch between the scale of the problem and the resources available, and that includes the number of hospital beds. I understand that there are only 450 specialist beds, but the admission rate is about 20,000, so there is a startling difference between what is needed and what has been provided.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the biggest problem is that for too long, this condition has been seen as a lifestyle choice rather than an illness? We still need to make a breakthrough on that.

[John McDonnell]

Thanks to the work that the hon. Lady, the campaigners and others have done, the media reporting of this issue has, to a certain extent, changed dramatically, but that has taken years to achieve. I agree that this is still seen as a lifestyle choice. It is not seen as serious; people do not relate deaths to this condition, but we all know from dealing with our constituents that that is what happens.

The other issue about the access to hospitals and clinics is that we have all had to map out, across the country, where constituents can go. Often, what happens is that they are discharged from one unit and it is then almost impossible to get them into another, particularly if there are specialist concerns.

The issues that we are reiterating today include the fact that the funding needs reviewing again, because the situation has moved on since we last discussed funding with the Government. There is also a lack of clarity, so we need a concrete action plan for the coming period. One of the issues is how we bring people together. There is a real concern about the lack of monitoring. One of the proposals, which I think Hope Virgo first raised, is to have a discussion about how we are monitoring this situation, both in terms of incidents and the effectiveness of different treatments. A proposal from one of the discussions we had is that it is time to bring together again those with experience of the condition and the key clinicians in the field, so that we can stand back and objectively look at where we are at. When we have dealt with homicides and suicides in other fields, we have set up independent inquiries because of the seriousness of the matter. In some instances, I feel that we need some form of inquiry to see where we are at and what is needed in the future.

The hon. Member for Bath and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned the staff. The impression I get from the discussions I have is that, because of the increasing demand, staff are experiencing a level of exhaustion and a morale issue about simply being able to cope with the numbers and severity of the conditions they are dealing with. One thing we can do today, as others have, is to acknowledge the commitment and dedication of those staff, while recognising that they need greater support, in terms of both numbers and pay, to demonstrate just how valued they are.

The issue around the NICE guidelines has already been raised, and my experience is the same as others’, really. It is hit or miss; there is a postcode lottery in the provision of treatment under the guidelines. The Dump the Scales campaign by Hope Virgo and others has been effective at moving the debate on from just talking about BMI, so that a wider range of discussions are now taking place, which I really welcome. However, there is still no recognition across services that eating disorders are a mental health issue, and that therefore mental health practices that have been effective elsewhere need to be applied here. I argue very strongly for the need to fund cognitive behavioural therapy, which has a success rate of 70%, I think. It has also reduced readmission rates down to about 15%, so it is a huge money saver for the NHS. Again, we need to look at the levels of investment, both in training staff for that and in ensuring access.

I want to mention another issue that has been raised before. We have found too many examples of the provision of palliative care to eating disorder sufferers, which we are hoping will end. Palliative care should be offered only if there is another life-threatening condition; it should not be offered just because of this condition. We hope that that has now been ended, but it needs monitoring again to ensure that the message is out there. Our overall view is that, with the right support and early enough intervention, people’s lives can be saved, and that their lives can be transformed as a result, but it does need adequate funding.

The hon. Member for Bath mentioned the ringfenced fund that is needed for research. At this stage, it is time to stand back, bring together sufferers and clinicians, and look at what the strategy should be. We need an adequately funded, concrete strategy that we can all sign up to. This is a cross-party issue; it is not party political. As I say, I welcome what the Government have done so far. We are now at the stage where we know so much more about the escalation of the problem and the need for therapeutic interventions, and about what works and what does not.

My final point is to pay tribute, as others have done, to all the campaigners who have put this issue on the agenda and provided support throughout. I pay tribute to all the clinicians, of course, and to one group in particular, which is the school nurses—Members may recall that we held a session with them. They brought forward their programme for how they would provide advice and assistance to pupils, which proved to be incredibly effective. Of course, I also pay tribute to all those who have supported the all-party parliamentary group of the hon. Member for Bath with such expert advice, as well as consistent nagging.

Public Order Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Wera Hobhouse

2nd reading
Monday 23rd May 2022 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

The problem is—and here I follow the advice of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services—that the measures will not be a deterrent. All they will do is incentivise many more people to come forward, because this will make them angry and it will cause undue suffering. I am just giving a concrete example of what the good people in my constituency are doing. If Members thought a road was going to be built through their local cemetery, and that their relatives would have to be dug up, I doubt any of them would not join the demonstration. A number of Conservative MPs and councillors did join us.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that these draconian measures are a sign of the weakness of a Government who are on the defensive?

[John McDonnell]

I will finish on the motivation in a minute or two.

On stop and search, in my constituency, we have come to terms with the orders that designate certain wards enabling access on the streets for stop and search on the basis of where there are serious drug problems or where there has been a knife attack and so on. People have come to terms with that. Not everyone is supportive of it, but they have come to terms with it. I do not think they would be able to come to terms with the designation of a whole area in my constituency just because there might be a demonstration at Heathrow. It would mean having to designate the whole of the Heathrow villages area. On the issue of suspicion of carrying materials, you would need a police squad outside every shop in the Heathrow villages, because every one of my constituents in those areas could be seen as suspicious when they go to purchase something.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between John McDonnell and Wera Hobhouse

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

In this House and across our families and communities, we would love this country to come together and unify. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the vagueness of the declaration on the future relationship is making that entirely impossible? Rather than healing the divisions, it will keep them rumbling on for years and years.

[John McDonnell]

I watched the hon. Lady’s contribution to the previous debate; it was interesting how her words coincided with those of Government Members. The use of the words “best endeavours”, “ambitions” and “sought for” gave such uncertainty that it was impossible for the general public and others to understand the direction in which the Government are going in the long term. I concur with the hon. Lady’s view.

I must press on. It is not just Labour Members who are pointing out issues with the finance sector; Members from all parties are doing so, including some on the Government Benches. That view is backed up by economists of many viewpoints in their assessment of the Prime Minister’s deal—including, it seems, the Government’s own. The official analysis produced last week was far short of what was promised, as we said at the time. It took as its starting point the Chequers proposals, which have long been discarded. In doing so, it failed to live up to the standards of transparency that we should expect when engaging in critical decisions such as this.

Even in what they did publish, the Government admitted last week—as the Chancellor has again today, I believe—that their deal would make Britain worse off. In the closest scenario to the possible deal, we could see GDP nearly 4% lower as a result of the Government’s approach to Brexit. To put that in context, this year that would be around £83 billion. In the long term, the damage is likely to be even greater. Worryingly, the Chancellor described £83 billion being wiped off our economy as a “very small economic impact”. Maybe there will be many “little extras” to follow in future.