Trade Union Access to Workplaces

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) on securing this debate and on talking eloquently about this important issue. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of his private Member’s Bill that he talked about.

As we know, the right to join a trade union is a basic democratic right. Trade unions play an invaluable role in ensuring that justice is served, defending their members’ workplace rights, pay, and terms and conditions. As I have said many times in this place and will always say, the best thing anyone can do to protect themselves at work is to join a trade union. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of GMB and Unite.

As my hon. Friend said in his excellent speech, the European convention on human rights provides that everyone has the right to form or to join a trade union for the protection of his or her interests. Given that, we might think there would be no need to introduce his Bill to remove restrictions on trade unions conducting business in workplaces in the UK, but sadly both the law and the culture in this country place little emphasis on workplace protection and do little to support or respect it.

Far too many people experience insecurity, uncertainty and exploitation at work. As we have heard, in-work poverty is on the rise and zero-hours contracts are widespread. Anti-trade union legislation introduced by the Government has actively sought to clamp down on trade unions and to diminish the voice of ordinary working people. In my opinion, that is based on a ridiculous and outdated view of trade unions and their role in society.

As we heard, there are 6.5 million trade union members in the UK. Every hon. Member present today will have constituents who are members of trade unions. They are ordinary men and women who want to organise themselves collectively to strive for better working conditions, and who can argue with that as an aim? We should be supporting them in their efforts to improve working conditions, not attempting to thwart them. As my hon. Friend said, a happy workplace is a productive workplace; it is good for employers and good for the economy.

We should therefore be saddened to hear that research by the TUC has found that one in three workers do not feel comfortable approaching managers about a problem with work, that more than one third do not feel that they or their colleagues are treated fairly and that nearly half say that their line managers do not explain their rights at work. Trade unions were founded exactly for those reasons, to fight for the rights of every worker.

Union representatives in the workplace can inform workers of their rights, help to ensure those rights are enforced and provide workers with a collective voice in negotiations with employers. They provide the safety net we all need. That is why it is vital that trade unions should have a legal right of access to workplaces in the UK.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the fundamental problems now, with so many workers working for small and medium-sized companies, is the lack of a place to meet? Often, workers just need to discuss some of the issues, but they have no opportunity to do that, and that makes it difficult for them to join a trade union. Does he agree that that is something we could look at seriously?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I think there is more we can do to meet in the electronic sense, online; there can be more discussion forums that way. The old workplace messes are a thing of the past, but we can improve things in that way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South spoke about various examples around the country where employers have prevented unions such as the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, Unison, GMB and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers from accessing workplaces. We have heard about some of the largest employers in the country, including McDonald’s, Amazon and Bupa, actively seeking to prevent trade union activity through restricting access, banning visits or manipulating shift patterns to prevent opportunities for engagement. That is a shameless way to behave and is ultimately self-defeating.

In my area, trade union recognition in the construction industry has been a particularly hot issue recently. We have a lot of industrial construction, but for some reason some of those involved refuse to engage with trade unions on recognition issues, to their detriment. National agreements are important for pay, training and safety—all things we want to see in the construction industry.

[Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentions the construction industry. I have a constituent who found that she is blacklisted not only from a particular company but from the whole sector and is therefore unable to get employment in the field she is an expert in, all because of her trade union activity. Does he agree that that has to be wiped out? We cannot have people unable to get work because of trade union activity.

[Justin Madders]

I absolutely agree. We have had a number of debates on blacklisting, particularly in construction, but it applies in other areas. Whistleblowers often find that, once they have blown the whistle, they are unable to gain employment. It is a disgraceful activity that needs outlawing.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend was just coming on to health and safety. Our area has a lot of heavy industry manufacturing. Does he agree that all the evidence demonstrates that where there is an active trade union branch, there is a much better safety culture than where trade unions are not welcome or, in some cases, prevented from organising?

[Justin Madders]

Yes. We have a lot of potentially dangerous industries in our area. The ones I tend to deal with have been around for a long time. They all have long-standing recognition agreements with trade unions, and excellent safety records as a result. It is a learning process, not an adversarial process, particularly in health and safety.

Some companies ought to take a leaf out of those employers’ books and learn how to treat and to deal with employee representatives in a much more reasonable and engaging way. A number of employers behave despicably, adding to employees’ fears about victimisation, which leaves many individuals not wanting their employers to know that they belong to a trade union. How sad is that? How damning is it that some companies are so vindictive to their staff that their employees will not tell them that they belong to a trade union?

Only last week I met a constituent who told me what it was like in his workplace, where unions are not welcome, where arbitrary decisions are made about who is retained and who is let go, and where all the workers are too worried to put their head above the parapet. I hope to discuss my concerns with the company in due course, but does it really need a Member of Parliament to remind an employer of how to treat its staff? If a trade union official was allowed access to the site, they would be able to do that, and in the end everybody would benefit—the workers and the company. At the moment they are locked out, which is simply not good enough. It is shocking that these kinds of things still take place in the 21st century.

What is the point of someone having the right to join a trade union if they cannot exercise that right because an employer refuses to engage? What is the point of their being a trade union member if they cannot be represented? I have lost count of the number of times companies have lied to employees about their right to be accompanied by trade union reps at disciplinary or grievance hearings by saying that, because the company does not recognise a particular trade union, those unions do not have the right to attend the hearings. The Government should clamp down on that.

We have a culture of weak employment rights, greedy corporations and a Government that obstruct trade unions. We need to get away from that and towards a period of renewal and rebuilding of one of the pillars of a decent society: job security. Without job security, people have no security. How can they plan for their future, for a home or for their family if the labour market is so cut-throat, so insecure and so parasitic that they are always just one step away from disaster? The stabilising force of trade unions is a vital component of a decent society.

“Rights” is not a dirty word. Rights are not only about individual dignity and respect in the workplace; they give people a stake in society, when they know that if they do a good job and their employer runs the business well, they will be rewarded. We need an economy —and a country—where everyone has a stake in its prosperity, but to do that we must have a system that values the security and sustainability of a job itself as much as the principle of job creation. Good employers want to work with unions, and in an ideal world all employers would be able to do so without the need for the legislation that we have talked about.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentions insecure employment. Does he agree that while those on short-term or rolling contracts are among the least organised of the workforce in the United Kingdom, they actually need to be members of a trade union probably more than any other group of workers?

[Justin Madders]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have seen an explosion of insecure employment in this country in recent years. We wonder why people are so fed up with the way this country is run. People have no security and do not know what they are doing from one day to the next. Let us not forget that until someone has two years of continuous employment somewhere, they have no employment rights whatsoever. What kind of country is that? We do not really want to live in a place where people have no protection until they have been somewhere for two years. Their whole life could change in that period. We absolutely need more support at an earlier stage for people who live in these precarious times.

This is not only about improving workplace rights, but about sending a message to employers that we need to move to a much more stable system, and we need the Government to bring forward legislation to encourage that. A good example is New Zealand’s Employment Relations Amendment Act, which has already had a positive impact on the workforce, restoring protections and strengthening the rights of workers without causing disruption to business. Just as importantly, it has changed people’s attitudes towards their right to represent themselves. I think the people of this country deserve the same. It is a shame that there are absolutely zero Members on the Tory Back Benches. That tells us absolutely everything that we need to know about the priority that the Conservative party places on this issue. In these circumstances, the idea that it could rebrand itself as the party of the worker is a joke.

In conclusion, it is only through improved access to workplaces that unions will be able to inform individuals of their rights and, critically, ensure that those rights are enforced—people’s rights are only as good as their ability to enforce them. Only then will we see real changes and improvements to people’s working lives. It is my belief that it is the duty of the Government to be an enabler in that process, not an accomplice to those who would deny people those basic rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point. He is not just a powerful advocate in the Council of Europe, but a powerful advocate in this place for the role it plays in helping to make positive change, not only in this country but across Europe.

Trade unions have played a long and positive role in our society; they have long represented their members and lobbied for wider changes in society. They have campaigned on equality issues for women and other groups, helped to tackle child poverty and fought against modern day slavery. They have shown how we can bring about change that benefits everybody in society.

Over the decades, unions have improved the working lives of their members, and this Government hope to see that continue. Throughout the country, trade union health and safety representatives have made our workplaces safer, which not only benefits workers but contributes to our economy, by reducing accidents.

Unions have also invested in people, working to develop the skills of their members. Unionlearn is an excellent example of that. It has helped to engage with more than 50 trade unions in more than 700 workplaces. Unionlearn has helped those with low literacy and numeracy and also helped to recruit and support thousands of apprentices. That is why the Government continue to support initiatives such as Unionlearn with over £8 million over the previous and coming years.

[Justin Madders]

In the spending review, which may or may not happen some time this year, will the Minister advocate for Unionlearn’s funding at least to continue at that level or perhaps to increase?

[Andrew Stephenson]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as a fellow north-west MP, I am a passionate advocate of the positive role that unions can play. I have stepped into this debate today because the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), who is the Minister with responsibility for small business, consumers and corporate responsibility, has to take an urgent question in the main Chamber. This is her policy remit, but I will certainly speak to her to see what we can do to ensure that we lobby for things such as Unionlearn in the spending review. I am passionate about trade unions. In 2015, I helped to re-establish the Conservative workers and trade union movement in my own party, so Members have a friend of the trade union movement stood before them today.

Let me turn to the points made in the debate. I think it would be helpful if I set out the legislative position. Workers in the UK have a right to join a trade union. That right is protected under our trade union law. It is automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee on the grounds of trade union membership or for being active in a trade union, and employers cannot subject their workers to detriment in attempting to deter union membership or participation in trade union activities.

All union members have the right to participate in union activities, which includes members who are union officials. They have the right, for example, to organise union meetings and consult their members. Furthermore, the right to be active in the affairs of a trade union is enhanced where the union is an independent union that is recognised by the employer for collective bargaining purposes. Officials of such unions may seek time off work with pay to discharge certain union duties. Members who are union learning representatives may also seek paid time off in order to carry out their functions. Individual workers can enforce these rights at an employment tribunal.

Environment and Climate Change

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I would like to know whether our desperation to seal trade deals with other countries, especially the United States, will inhibit our ability to talk candidly with them about the need for them to change tack on climate change, because I want the Government to embed in any future trade agreements legally binding commitments to reduce carbon emissions, as we can do everything humanly possible in this country to reduce our carbon footprint, but if we continue to trade with the rest of the world as we do now, our efforts will be for nothing.

Our economy is changing rapidly and it is now possible for people to order goods from almost anywhere in the world and for them to be on their doorstep within a matter of days. To the consumer, that is one click of a mouse with no climate impact at all, but if one counts the carbon footprint of original manufacture, transportation and packaging, it begins to look a lot less pain free. We have talked in here about some of the awful working conditions delivery drivers have to put up with in the gig economy, how they often have to pay for their own—outdated—transport and how they have to drive convoluted routes to get to their destinations. That business model is not sustainable for them as individuals and is not sustainable for the planet.

And what about the packaging? We are always talking about how we need to tax the online giants more, so let us tax those who do deliveries for the miles they send their products and for the ludicrous amounts of cardboard they use when doing so. I am sure it would not take long for them to develop more sustainable ways to deliver their products.

As we heard from the Leader of the Opposition earlier, WWF has said that humanity has wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970. Should that fact alone not cause us to reconsider what we are doing? We are the dominant species on this planet but that dominance should be used responsibly, not to drive everything else to extinction, not only because it is wrong but because, if we do that, our own extinction will surely follow.

We have to take responsibility for our actions—all of us. We have to declare a climate emergency and then we have to act on it. That is the most important thing: we have to take action, not just today but every day from now on in.

Leaving the EU: Protection for Workers

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

No, what the Prime Minister set out in that speech was to have the voice of workers represented in the boardroom. The action that we have taken in requiring businesses to establish a worker representative, or to have a non-executive director with the function of representing workers, or to have a works council with an influence on the board, was something that I was proud to set out in furtherance of the Prime Minister’s assurance.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State can see that there is a little bit of a credibility gap to close. He said in his statement that the Prime Minister has given a commitment that Brexit will not be allowed to erode workers’ rights, so can he explain why both he and the Prime Minister last week voted in favour of statutory instruments that do exactly that?

[Greg Clark]

I am very proud of the record of this country and this Government in advancing rights in the workplace. The “Good Work” report by Matthew Taylor established, way before many other countries, a means of ensuring changes to UK law around the platform economy and the gig economy to ensure that people are not disadvantaged by these new platforms. The Prime Minister and I have both given that commitment. In deference to some of the scepticism that the words of the Prime Minister should be sufficient, this parliamentary mechanism to enshrine a degree of scrutiny and give this House the ability to insist that that non-regression is abided by is the basis of the amendment that was proposed, and that we are accepting and acting on today.

Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018 Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 General Committees

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating an SI that will be enacted if we are in a no-deal situation on 29 March. As I have already outlined, whether we decide in a future no-deal situation to align our laws with the EU’s is a different matter, but I repeat: we have the “Good Work Plan” and we are going further. We are still a member of the European Union, so we still take part in those conversations happening in Europe.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I would like some clarity regarding the Minister’s answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West. Is it the Government’s policy to match future EU advancements in worker protection laws?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have been very clear that we will not roll back workers’ rights. In fact, we have made an express commitment to go further. As I outlined, we already go further than Europe in many ways. We have been feeding into the development of EU thinking on some of these policies, as some of the work we have been doing in the UK is particularly good. We are determined to continue on our path. Our ambition is that the UK continues to be a great place to work, with those protections continuing to be afforded to the people employed in this country.

Our domestic regime for employee engagement and consultation will remain in place, and we will encourage businesses to continue to allow UK workers to be represented on a voluntary basis in European works councils. We are retaining as many of the existing rules as we can to enable that. All existing protections for workers and for their representatives on European works councils—even those there voluntarily—will be maintained. Approving the draft regulations is the only way to ensure that workers involved in European works councils are protected if there is no deal. They deliver on our commitments.

Another area I am aware that Members may be concerned about is the changes being made to the TUPE regulations. In a dynamic economy such as the UK’s, there will inevitably be takeovers and mergers and contracts changing hands, which is good for the prosperity of our country; the best companies outdo the worst. We recognise that that must be combined with strong protection for the workers in those companies, for whom a change of employer may be a stressful and difficult experience. TUPE regulations are central to protecting workers from suffering as a result of being transferred.

The draft regulations are an important part of EU-derived employment law, which we have committed to retain. In the UK, we have gone further than required under EU laws and we have extended these important protections to other groups of workers. Not only will we retain the elements from the EU, but we commit to retaining the gold-plating. Only by making the changes contained in the draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations can we make sure that workers remain entitled to these protections. The changes are necessary to ensure that the Government retain our current powers to extend the protection provided by TUPE to other groups of workers. These powers have been used to protect workers where there is a change of service provider that is not also a business transfer—a situation that would not be covered by EU rules. That crucial gap can include situations where a business outsources or contracts out a service. The changes are technical, but it is important that I set Members’ minds at ease.

The current powers are defined with reference to the EU directive, which applies to the UK as a member state. When the UK is no longer a member state, if there is no deal the reference will no longer make sense, so the reference must be changed so that it does not rely on EU law. Without that change, the Government could not use the power or use this tool for protecting workers in future.

I have highlighted these areas as the other changes in the SIs are purely technical, made to reflect the fact that the UK will no longer be a member of the EU. I assure the Committee that the amendments made through these SIs deliver on our workers’ rights commitments, thus providing clarity to employers, workers and businesses, and confidence that the Government are prepared for a no-deal scenario.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I am standing in for my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock), who has had a family bereavement. I am sure the Committee sends its condolences.

The Minister’s introduction presented the regulations as a necessary tidying-up exercise to remove unnecessary references to EU directives in important areas of workers’ rights, such as maternity leave, part-time work, fixed-term contracts and so on—I think she used the term “minor” to describe the effect of the legislation. On one level, that is understandable—we need our laws to be aligned with reality—but it seems at odds with the Prime Minister’s stated aim of protecting workers’ rights. From the removal of those powers, one can only conclude that the Government do not intend to match our EU counter- parts in terms of employment protection. The Committee will note that I asked the Minister about that and I do not think we had any confirmation that it is Government policy.

The regulations do not just remove our ability to keep pace with the EU but remove one area altogether. The Minister has already referred to it, so the Committee will not be surprised to hear that I am talking about European works councils, which are an important part of workplace democracy and a vital mechanism for giving a voice to the employees of multinational companies.

The Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999 set out the rules governing European works councils. They say that where a company is based in two or more member states and has more than 1,000 employees, a European works council can be set up if one is requested. The regulations provide for the procedure to set up the council and a series of rights for employee representatives. Many of the information and consultation rights and protections are stronger than those under national legislation—for example, in relation to time off for workers’ representatives and the right to use experts and to undergo training. Those rights will be lost in a no-deal scenario.

Article 1 of the EU’s recast directive on European works councils anticipates the possibility of works council agreements that include non-EU countries and encourages them to proceed on a voluntary basis to enable workers’ representatives to participate. For example, the European works councils of companies operating in Switzerland often include Switzerland in their scope and may include Swiss representatives as members. However, the regulations do not appear to make provision for works councils to continue to include the UK in their scope on a voluntary basis, even though some European works councils have already amended their agreements to enable them to continue to work with UK representatives after Brexit.

In the regulations, the Government seek to retain certain aspects of the European works council scheme for councils set up before exit day, whenever that turns out to be. We welcome the fact that the enforcement framework, various employee representative rights and protections, and the confidential information protections are preserved for existing European works councils. There are also provisions to ensure that existing European works councils can continue to operate.

The concern, however, which we have already referred to, is that no new councils will be set up and that the right to request information on employee numbers, the provisions governing the setting up of a negotiating body, and the process and content of works councils and information and consultation procedure agreements will be lost. That clearly constitutes a loss of valuable workers’ rights in contravention of the Prime Minister’s promise to maintain existing workers’ rights at current levels.

The opportunity for workers to participate in discussions with their European colleagues on company-wide issues is valued by businesses, employees and their representatives. It can include opportunities for the workforce to be included in strategic multinational decisions about jobs, investment and training. Employees and unions are concerned that if UK representatives lose their place at the table, there will be a risk to UK jobs and investment.

In the event of a no deal, we need a commitment to continue to support and facilitate future voluntary UK worker participation in European works councils, as anticipated by article 1 of the recast directive, by keeping in place existing rights and protections for UK representatives on European works councils after Brexit. This will ensure that, in future, UK worker reps joining new or existing councils will continue to have their current rights and protections, including the right to paid time off to attend such meetings, as currently set out in regulations 25 to 27, and a right to training, as set out in regulation 19B. In our view, the draft regulations need to be amended to cover at least those basic work- place protections. Failure to do so would mean not honouring the Prime Minister’s clear commitments in this area.

On a more technical point, as alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, the draft regulations are supposed to come into force on exit day, with the exception of certain provisions. The Minister needs to explain the need for that distinction.

I also have concerns about the lack of a Government statement on their timetable for revoking the regulations, in full or in part, should a withdrawal agreement with the EU be concluded. The draft regulations do not provide for the method by which they would be revoked. The unique circumstances that we currently face could involve considerable numbers of statutory instruments being repealed or revoked in a short space of time. The nature of the revocation is an important matter that we need clarity on from the Minister. I hope she agrees that, if a withdrawal agreement is secured, the draft regulations will not be needed subsequently, including in a transition period or in any backstop, if that is where we end up.

The second draft instrument proposes to alter the Secretary of State’s power under section 38 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 to provide TUPE protection to workers not ordinarily covered by those regulations, which typically include what are colourfully known in the directive as administrative reorganisations of public administrative authorities and the service provision changes that the Minister referred to.

I understand the need to remove the reference to the EU, but I do not understand why, as part of that process, the Government intend to water down TUPE protections, which it seems will be the inevitable consequence of using the phrase “TUPE-like” in the draft regulations. That is the nub of it. Why is “like” in there at all? Surely it is superfluous. The protections will be “the same or similar”. Why can they not just be the same? That is what the Opposition want, and I think it is what the Prime Minister intended.

This change will cover a potentially huge number of employees, as it will apply to contracting out of public sector services, market testing, private finance initiatives, any other outsourcing and contracting exercises, second and subsequent generation contracting where the contract was first awarded from the public sector, and reorganisations and staff transfers from one part of the public sector to another. We cannot simply nod through the draft regulation because it could affect thousands of employees.

The risk is that “TUPE-like” could mean that TUPE protections on changes to terms and conditions may no longer apply. Will the Minister confirm that the power could be used to prevent employees’ terms and conditions from being preserved after a transfer? Is it not the case that the draft regulations will mean that current rules regarding protection against a dismissal connected to a transfer could also be disapplied? Is it not also correct that existing laws regarding information and consultation on a transfer could be ignored as a result of the draft regulations? On the latter point, the Trades Union Congress points out that the draft regulations do not expressly refer to employee representatives, be they trade unions or elected representatives. Will the Minister explain why that has been omitted?

I would also be grateful if the Minister clarified what would happen in a no-deal Brexit where employees of a UK company were involved in a TUPE transfer post 29 March to a new employer based somewhere within the EU. Would any employee wishing to enforce their rights against their new employer have to do so subject to the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction? Normally, both employers in a TUPE litigation would be made parties to the case. Does that mean that UK companies could still be subject to ECJ jurisdiction post Brexit?

The other aspect of the second draft instrument is the proposed amendment to section 13 of the Working Families Act 2006, which will have the effect of removing the obligation to keep pace with EU law on annual leave entitlements. The enshrining in UK law of the working time directive was one of the finest achievements of the last Labour Government, bringing for the first time a legal entitlement to rest breaks and paid annual leave. I am not surprised that the Government are taking the opportunity to weaken the standing of the working time regulations, given that a number of current and former members of Government, including Cabinet members, have spoken at length about the supposed burdens of the regulations. The Opposition do not consider paid annual leave or daily and weekly rest breaks to be a burden. They are essential health and safety measures, as well as important parts of workplace protection.

It is clear from this instrument that the Government do not wish UK workers in future to enjoy parity with their European counterparts. This can be seen as the firing of the starting gun on the race to the bottom. Indeed, as the political declaration makes clear, employment standards are to be considered subordinate to open and fair competition. That is where we are heading.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just about the protection of employees but about those they serve? I refer to the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by our hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) in the Chamber today, which was prompted by the deaths of people in Coventry as a result of a bus driver having worked inordinately long hours that week and the two weeks beforehand. That is an example of the importance of adequate employment legislation, not only for workers but for those they serve and their customers.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the working time directive was initially presented as health and safety legislation. It is not just about the worker’s health and providing adequate rest breaks, but about protecting those enjoying the benefits of their labour.

The Prime Minister may talk a good game but the evidence is that the words do not match the reality. Hers is the party that introduced employment tribunal fees, doubled the qualifying period for unfair dismissal and commissioned the atrocious Beecroft report, which proposed removing workplace protections altogether. I hope I will be forgiven for taking the Prime Minister’s comments in the Chamber yesterday about matching EU developments in employment rights with a pinch of salt, given what is before us today. Her track record does not inspire confidence, and these regulations do not do what she claims she wants to do. In fact, they do the opposite.

I say to the Minister that if the Government are genuinely trying to find common ground with Members across the House, these regulations should be withdrawn, because they do not do what the Prime Minister claims she wants to see happen. They represent the erosion of workplace protection and they must be opposed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Let me be clear: the reality is that we are committed to going further on workers’ rights, as has been shown through our publication of the “Good Work Plan” and the laying of SIs. We are going further than any Conservative Government have, and I am very proud of that. I am extremely proud to be part of a Government who have put workers’ rights at the top of their agenda, particularly in my Department.

[Justin Madders]

Was the Minister proud when the High Court declared employment tribunal fees illegal?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I am proud that this Government look at and deal with the issues that arise, and then look for ways of resolving them, which is exactly what we are doing with our “Good Work Plan” and the SIs that have already been laid. I understand the concerns of Opposition Members, but I am pleased to be extremely clear in saying that we are committed to maintaining workers’ rights and to going as far as we can. We talked about European Union committees and the work currently going on. We are still involved in those negotiations, are feeding into those negotiations and are helping the EU to formulate recommendations. The legislation that we are bringing forward will ensure that they are protected and will continue to be protected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Thank you, Mr Evan; I am so very lucky to have you in the Chair this afternoon.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I reiterate that these regulations are for a no-deal situation. The Government are still determined to get a withdrawal deal. I hope that the Opposition will be willing and open-minded, and will want to work with the Prime Minister to ensure that happens, to get to a position where they will support a deal so that the regulations do not have to come into force in a no-deal situation.

I will try to answer the questions I have been asked, but I am more than happy to write to hon. Members if I do not respond to all of them. Hon. Members suggested that we are not retaining workers’ rights in these regulations. The regulations are mainly technical; they introduce technical changes to ensure that current rights are retained and that we operate from a clear statute book. As hon. Members know, there was no provision in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 for us to make changes in policy. There was an element of the Act that enabled us to bring forward legislation to retain EU law and make modifications so that we would have a clear statute book.

The hon. Members for Wallasey and for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised the question of enacting such legislation. It is true that those elements were intended to correct redundant EU references, which is why they would come into force earlier. They are not a consequence of the UK leaving the EU; they would change out-of-date references in the legislation. I hope that my explanation has answered the hon. Lady’s question on that—the instrument does not actually have any relation to the UK leaving the EU.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining why there are different dates, but can she explain why some of them are retrospective?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

As I have outlined, it is because of out-of-date references to EU regulations in the legislation, which will be changed. On European works councils, it is true that the European Union could allow us to have a reciprocal agreement even in a no-deal situation. That could happen, but obviously we cannot guarantee that the EU will allow it. As it stands, the current laws and protections afforded to representatives on those councils and to employees will be retained. It will affect new works councils, but that might be resolved in a deal situation. In a no-deal situation, it does not stop the fact that there might be cross-border co-operation and reciprocal agreement. I can give hon. Members some comfort that, as I have outlined, anything that would allow us to continue in the same way and ensure that workers’ rights are protected would be a good thing.

Unpaid Work Trials

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on securing the debate and on the way he introduced the subject.

As we have heard, unpaid work trials are becoming a widespread practice. I, too, have heard about many cases, predominantly from young people desperate to get a foot on the employment ladder, who have been given false hope of employment and been cheated—yes, cheated—out of a day or more’s pay. They are used to provide free labour, to cover staff shortages or to reduce costs, with the final insult of not being hired for the job they applied for in the first place.

Sadly, it does not surprise me that Unite the Union—I declare for the record that I am a member—has heard from many of its members in the hospitality sector, who believe that these trials are in fact a crude ruse that will allow companies to get away with not paying people a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. It is clear that some companies are offering shifts with no intention of giving somebody a job, and others, who may actually give a job to someone, want to see how many shifts they can squeeze out of them first for no pay at all, or at a lower rate. It is nothing short of scandalous and should concern us all that Unite says that the use of unpaid trial shifts has increased exponentially in recent years.

The sad reality is that we are having this debate today because both the law and culture in this country place little emphasis on workplace protection and do not support or respect it. We give far too little attention in this place to the reality of the world of work. Far too many people experience insecurity, uncertainty and exploitation, and until this place resolves to do something about that, the kind of injustices we have heard about today will continue.

The blunt truth is that unpaid work trials are a scam. They are a means for employers to increase their profits at the expense of the workers, and are part of a wider problem across society whereby workers, especially young people, are seen as a disposable commodity. In an ideal world, all employers would act like the majority of decent and responsible employers out there, who pay their trial workers, and we would not need legislation to tell them to pay people fairly for the work they do. We do not live in an ideal world, and some people need to be told what is unacceptable. We should all stand four-square behind the principle that if you work, you should be paid for it.

I welcome the publication of the new guidance from the Department, but the proof will be in the pudding. The guidance says that it will ultimately be up to enforcement officers, courts and tribunals to decide whether there has been a breach of minimum wage regulations, but how realistic will that approach be? How many people will resort to litigation, waiting many months with an uncertain outcome, possibly facing experienced lawyers, just for a day’s pay? How much enforcement will actually take place? The International Labour Organisation has a benchmark of one labour market inspector for every 10,000 workers, but in the UK we have only one for every 20,000 workers.

Would it be easier to put a legal presumption in place? If you are working for a minimum wage it should apply, whether it is a trial shift or not. It is open to employers to have a robust interview process and seek references, and thanks to the weak employment laws in this country, they can sack workers with impunity anyway, if it does not work out in the early stages. If there is any need for trial shifts at all, there is certainly no justification for them without pay.

I am angry at this systematic, cynical and avaricious exploitation, but I am also sad that many young people think that unpaid work trials are just the way things are. Do they not deserve more respect than that and more protection? Can the Minister set out what more she can do to increase awareness among young people? In 20 years of the minimum wage, there have been only 14 prosecutions. Unless rights are enforced, they will never be truly worthwhile. The Government need to step up to the plate.

Nissan in Sunderland

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

There is no doubt that this is bad news. At Vauxhall in Ellesmere Port, we have had more than our share of bad news in recent times—we have lost over half the workforce in the last year. Now that we know what the Government are prepared to offer to encourage investment in car manufacturing, can the Secretary of State confirm that the same or very similar terms will be available to any other applicants?

[Greg Clark]

When I first made the statement to the House on 31 October 2016, I described the programme of support that has been operated for many years, in which investment in training the workforce, environmental improvements and R&D can be applied for, and those applications are subject to independent scrutiny. We have a good record of providing that. It is available to large, medium and small firms and is well known in the sector.

Public Holidays on Religious Occasions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on his extremely informative introduction to the debate on behalf of the about 60,000 people who have signed the two petitions that we are considering. He and other hon. Members made powerful cases for the changes that we are discussing. He articulated well, as other Members did, the broader point that we have far fewer public holidays than our counterparts in the European Union, and those of us who live in England and Wales have, sadly, even fewer than those who live in other parts of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the Government get many requests—perhaps the Minister will tell us exactly how many she gets—for holidays, for all manner of occasions; that probably happens very regularly. His observation that the dates of all the festivals that we are talking about change from year to year was important in terms of the challenges that that presents as regards additional planning. It is a practical reason why, if the Government were minded to accede to the request, it would probably take considerable consultation and discussion to facilitate it.

I was disturbed to hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments about how many people in surveys feel that we are becoming a less tolerant society. All hon. Members present will have been disturbed to hear that. I think that it is a much wider issue than the question of public holidays that we are considering today.

The hon. Gentleman was right to point out that some employers require people to work on bank holidays and to take time off on another occasion. In that regard, as other hon. Members have mentioned, we should pay tribute to those people in the public sector who keep the country going on such occasions—for example, those who work in the NHS, the police, the emergency services and the utilities, those who work as care workers, and those who work in many other organisations that provide a service that cannot simply shut down for public holidays. We should recognise that that is an important part of this discussion.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned, as did other hon. Members, that there is a lack of awareness among employers about the meaning and importance of some religious holidays. I hope the Minister will comment on how we can spread information and best practice, so that people do not feel inhibited from requesting particular days off.

The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) made a strong case—as he did in his contribution to the House in 2014, which I read in preparation for this debate—in terms of productivity. I found it quite interesting, and I will return to it later. He also discussed, as did a number of other Members, the fact that public holidays are not fixed in the way that we might assume they are. Easter, for example, moves from year to year, although it does fall on the weekends, which makes it slightly easier to plan for in advance, as there is an established pattern.

There is merit in the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that employers could have some flexibility to cater for different religious holidays. That is something that the Government could encourage public sector employers to look at, without the need for any legislative changes.

It was a pleasure, as always, to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas). He clearly stated his support for more public holidays. He was sceptical about the arguments about financial costs, which I will return to later. I agree that it should not be beyond the wit of most employers to grant holidays for staff to be able to observe religious festivals—after all, a full-time employee in this country is entitled to 28 days a year, which is over two days a month. That should be enough latitude for most employers to be able to deal with any requests.

I thank my hon. Friend for enlightening me on the background to some of these religious occasions and their significance. He spoke about personal days in the United States—an interesting example that I am not aware of, but I will look into it. However, we already have 28 days allocated to employees, which I think ought to be more than sufficient to cope with the kind of issues we are discussing.

This is the first debate I have responded to as the interim shadow Minister, and I welcome the opportunity it gives me to reflect on the huge contribution made to this country by people of the Hindu, Muslim and Sikh faiths, and also the many other religions that contribute to the diversity and economic wellbeing of our country. However, we cannot accept the contribution of these extremely important communities without recognising, as we do in this House, the festivals of Eid al-Fitr, Eid al-Adha, Diwali and Dussehra. We also recognise that they are an important and integral part of each of those communities’ faiths.

I have had the pleasure—as I am sure many hon. Members have—of joining Muslim friends at an Eid al-Fitr, which is also known as the feast of fast breaking. It is not only a spiritual time, but one of community and celebration. It brings people together in my own community in very important ways for cohesion and tolerance. Anyone who has had the pleasure of being involved in or invited to a Diwali celebration knows that it is a fantastic occasion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West said, it symbolises the victory over evil and the victory of light over darkness, which has parallels with many other religions.

While Muslims and Hindus represent the largest religious groupings in this country after Christians, there are many other faiths, some of which we have mentioned today—for example, Buddhism and Judaism. Those communities’ faiths are just as important to them as those of any other religious group are to its members, and it is important for those faiths to have the same opportunities to participate in ceremonies of significance for them. I appreciate that their numbers as a proportion of the population as a whole are smaller, but that does not make their faith any less important.

That raises the question of whether there should be any threshold for official recognition of public holidays for religious festivals. When one considers that one in four people does not subscribe to any faith at all—they are by far the biggest group in this country after Christians—arguments on the basis of numbers begin to look slightly less robust.

Therefore, a better approach is to ensure that all employers, including those who run business models that do not consider the people who work for them to be employees, recognise the importance of faith and religious festivals, and are as flexible as they can be, to accommodate the beliefs of their employees. Happy workers, respected workers and valued workers are, I hope, productive workers, so there is a clear benefit to the employers and the wider economy in recognising and respecting the importance of these festivals when decisions are made about annual leave.

It is not just about time off for religious holidays. There are also periods of fasting during daylight hours, or required prayers at certain times of day, which are just as important as annual festivals. That opens up a series of very complex issues, for which it is not practical to legislate in each and every instance. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the onus is on employers to do what they can to facilitate people observing their particular religions. It is useful to remind ourselves that discrimination against individuals on the grounds of religion or belief is unlawful. The official ACAS advice sums up the situation well:

“Many religions have specific days or periods throughout the year that involve additional religious observances for followers. The nature, duration and requirements vary depending upon the holy day or religious festival, and can also vary depending on the personal religious beliefs of an individual. It is useful for both employees and employers to give thought to any impact this may have in the workplace, as simple and well-planned arrangements can help manage everyone's expectations.”

It is about being considerate, communicating and, on occasion, compromising. Our workplaces should be places of tolerance. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk said that people have reported that they felt that it was risky to ask their employers for time off—a very sad state of affairs.

The main thrust of the e-petition is the case for public holidays for specific religious festivals and, although I am not persuaded—for reasons that I have given—that additional public holidays should be attached to particular religious occasions, I am convinced that, overall, there is a case for a greater number of public holidays than we currently enjoy. As we have heard, at present we have the lowest number of bank holidays in the EU, where the overall average is 12, while further afield, Japan has 16 days and India has 18. Even within the UK, England and Wales do slightly worse than Scotland and Northern Ireland.

As I am sure hon. Members know, Labour’s manifesto made clear that St George’s day, which is England’s national day as well as Shakespeare’s birthday, would be made a public holiday, along with St David’s day, St Andrew’s day and St Patrick’s day. We believe that those holidays will give workers a chance to spend time with their families and friends in their communities, as well as the opportunity to celebrate the national cultures of our proud nations.

As other hon. Members have mentioned, the counter-argument is that bank holidays cost the economy, but I think it is extremely difficult to pinpoint the exact economic impact. For example, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport estimated that the impact of the diamond jubilee on GDP would be somewhere between a gain of £1.1 billion and a loss of £3.6 billion. For just one day in the calendar to produce such a wide range in estimated economic impact shows how difficult it is to put a precise figure on this.

People are not economically inactive on such days. Certain sectors, such as hospitality, retail, leisure and tourism will undoubtedly benefit, and in addition, the Bank of England believes that economic activity is more likely to be delayed than lost. The logical conclusion of accepting the economic loss argument would be that we should have no public holidays at all, but that would ignore the wider benefits of a rested and balanced workforce and the inconvenient fact that we have a lower number of public holidays and lower productivity than most of our major competitors, as most hon. Members have mentioned.

Measured by output per hour, productivity in the UK is 13% below the G7 average, and since 2010 productivity growth in the UK has more or less stalled. As the excellent report by the Institute for Public Policy Research’s Commission on Social Justice made clear, the roots of our productivity crisis lie far deeper than the number of hours a person works in a particular week. As hon. Members have said, if predictions of significant job losses due to automation and artificial intelligence are correct, should we not begin to consider whether that shift in working patterns is an opportunity to enable everyone to have more leisure time?

When the Minister responds, I am sure she will not agree about the merits of increasing the number of bank holidays. Does she have any up-to-date information as to why? What recent and detailed assessment have the Government made of the number of bank holidays in Britain? What assessment has been made about whether holidays are spaced in the most effective way? What is the Government’s latest assessment of the benefits and costs to the UK of any additional bank holidays?

Bank holidays, like all our statutory annual leave, are beneficial only if workers are able to enjoy them. They are normally included as part of a full-time employee’s 28 days annual leave, as guaranteed by the Working Time Regulations 1998, but concern has rightly been raised in some quarters that our impending exit from the European Union could result in a weakening of workers’ rights, particularly given the number of prominent Conservative Members who argued during the referendum campaign that the laws emanating from Europe on annual leave should be scrapped. Even the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), said in 2011:

“Britain should secure a total opt-out from the Working Time Directive and scrap the UK Regulations, ensuring that this costly, anti-jobs legislation cannot cause further damage to the economy.”

When the Minister responds, I am sure that she will be keen to put on the record an absolute commitment that the Working Time Regulations 1998, as currently adhered to in this country, will not be scrapped, watered down or altered in any way when we leave the EU; that the full-time entitlement to 28 days paid leave as a minimum will continue; that entitlement to daily and weekly rest breaks will continue; and that holiday entitlement will continue to accrue during maternity, paternity and adoption leave and while a worker is off sick.

Holiday entitlement does not cover the whole UK workforce. People who are self-employed are in a different situation. In principle, they can take leave when they want—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman some latitude, but we are talking about a petition and not general working time directives or other things. He should confine his remarks to the need for the petition to be discussed.

[Justin Madders]

Thank you, Mrs Main.

I was merely explaining that some workers in the gig economy, who are perhaps falsely labelled as self-employed, may not be able to take advantage of holiday entitlements. Has the Minister made an assessment of the number of people denied the right to annual holidays as a result of being incorrectly labelled as self-employed?

In theory, flexibility should mean that there is no issue, but we have heard too many tales of one-sided flexibility. It is important that people of every religion have the right to exercise their religious observance, regardless of their employment status. What steps have been taken to ensure that those employed on zero-hours contracts or in agency work are not subsequently penalised for taking time off to observe religious festivals? With so much work in the gig economy dictated by algorithms on a phone, what steps can the Government take to ensure that no particular religion is disadvantaged by the way those apps operate? That is important, because those apps work only as well as the information that is submitted to them. I am not sure that it is clear that software programmers would think about religious observance when they are working on those apps.

The real problem is enforcement. Rights are only as strong as an individual’s ability to exercise them. To raise concerns about holiday entitlement requires cases to be taken up with an employment tribunal, which until recently attracted a fee imposed by the Government. Even without the fee structure, where cases are complex, like those in the gig economy, representation is often required. Even then, employers can choose not to comply with tribunal decisions. Tomorrow, Uber will go to the Appeal Court to fight a two-year-old ruling that its drivers should be entitled to holiday pay. In those two years, Uber has not paid a penny to the drivers. It is estimated that they are owed about £18,000 each in lost entitlement.

As the Minister knows, where the minimum wage has not been paid, the Department investigates—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I am struggling to see how that is relevant. The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting remarks, but if he could confine them to the need to have holidays for religious observance, as the petition outlines, I would be grateful. I would like to hear the Minister’s response to that part of the debate.

[Justin Madders]

I would suggest that it is important to look at all forms of workplace structure—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. And, I would suggest, so long as it is in line with the debate that is on the table.

[Justin Madders]

I am coming to a conclusion anyway.

Will the Minister look at occasions where holiday entitlement is not observed? Could the Department adopt a naming and shaming policy, as it has for minimum wage cases?

In conclusion, the debate has reminded us of the need to recognise the importance of respecting and facilitating the opportunity for people of all faiths to observe their religious festivals, but also to think more broadly about the importance of being able to access the right to paid leave.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

One is enough, but I thank my hon. Friend for his invitation. As he highlighted earlier, many parliamentarians throughout the country will celebrate that day with their constituents, as he will, and they will ensure that they are present at a lot of these events.

As Members will know, the current pattern of bank holidays is well established. There are eight permanent bank and public holidays in England and Wales. Scotland has nine and Northern Ireland has 10. The Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 allows for dates to be changed or other holidays to be declared. This allows for holidays to be declared to celebrate special occasions or one-off events.

The Government regularly receive requests for additional bank and public holidays to celebrate a wide variety of occasions. Recent requests have included public holidays to commemorate our armed forces, to mark particular royal events and to celebrate certain sporting successes. We carefully consider every request that we receive.

Although the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk has made a powerful case today, the Government do not believe that it is necessary for such extra bank holidays to be declared, for reasons that I will now outline. First, the costs to the economy of introducing new public holidays are considerable. The most recent assessment of an additional holiday for the diamond jubilee, which has been spoken about today, showed a total cost to employers of around £1.2 billion. Depending on the nature of the holiday that is being proposed, costs may be partially offset by increased revenues for businesses in the leisure and tourism sectors, and by a boost in retail spending. However, it is not expected that public holidays for Eid or Diwali would result in an increase in tourism.

Although bank holidays have become widely observed, workers do not have a legal right to take time off for specific bank holidays or to receive extra pay for them; that depends on the terms of their employment agreement and contract. In the UK, full-time workers receive a minimum annual leave entitlement of 28 days. That is a combination of eight days to represent bank holidays and the EU minimum annual leave of 20 days. The extra eight days of leave do not need to be taken on bank holidays themselves, giving workers flexibility. Many employers offer extra leave entitlement on top of the statutory minimum.

It is at the heart of the Government’s quality of work agenda to encourage employers to respond flexibly and sympathetically to any requests for leave, including for religious holidays. The relationship between the worker and the manager is a key aspect of good quality work. Part of a sound relationship is mutual respect and a willingness to accommodate a worker’s religious or cultural commitments.

I will now touch on a few points that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk made. Discrimination in the workplace is not tolerated and is completely unacceptable, so I was very sad to hear about some of the issues that he raised and about some of the feelings that individuals have expressed, which he referred to in his speech.

The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about swapping religious festivals, but, as I outlined earlier, people do not necessarily have to take bank holidays off, so there is flexibility with the annual leave entitlement for people to make use of that time on their own particular religious holidays.

However, the heart of the argument is around making sure that we do all we can, as a Government, to ensure that employers are sympathetic to the needs of their workers. As everyone who has spoken here today has outlined, the key to the success of companies and businesses is the happiness of their employees. As a Government, we will continue to encourage business to respect people’s views and meet their needs.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the issue of education, which is an important part of this debate. I can only speak about my own experience from when I was at school. Even then, in the ’70s—well, in the ’80s, I should say—[Interruption.] Yes, I was at school in the ’80s. Actually, I benefited at my comprehensive school from a really good religious education, which did not just focus on Christianity; it covered all the other major religions that are present in this country, too. So I found that, both at school and after I left school, I was in an environment that was very multicultural, even in the ’80s, and I believe that I left school with a good understanding of many of the religions that we have spoken about today. Nevertheless, that is something that we must keep abreast of, and I am sure that the Department for Education will welcome the questions that have been put to it today.

I will just mention a couple of points that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East made. He is a strong champion for his constituency and it was great to hear him also talking about Jewish holidays and his constituency. He mentioned the need for employers to understand and to be sympathetic to the needs of particular individuals, and we will continue to monitor that.

I thank the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), who is another strong champion for his constituency, for his contribution. However, even though he was very determined that he wants to increase the number of public holidays, I am yet to be convinced about the type of extension that he suggested. Nevertheless, it was great that he was able to make his point.

Finally, I will touch on the contribution by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. As I have outlined, we receive a lot of requests for different holidays. We have had requests for St George’s day and an “EU independence” day, and very recently there was a request regarding Harry and Meghan’s wedding. I am sure that the requests for new bank holidays will continue as time goes on, and I am also sure that all the constituents out there would always relish the thought of another day off work. The hon. Gentleman also talked about employers’ awareness of religion, and that is key to what I will come on to later.

I noticed that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that bank holidays could be directly relatable to the productivity of employees, and I think that is a theory that might be tested. However, he also mentioned that with our move to new technology, such as artificial intelligence and robots, there will definitely be job losses. The Government are committed to ensuring that we can provide an economy, a workplace and the skills and jobs that will keep people employed. I am not yet convinced that we need to establish more bank holidays on the back of that change, but he probably has a counterargument.

I will make two quick points to address some of the hon. Gentleman’s other comments. First, I understand that he has asked some questions around the assessment of the cost of bank holidays. Since I became the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, I have not done that assessment, but it would be an interesting area to consider. However, I would always argue that the costs that have been established could be, in reality, potentially higher, so it would be interesting to see who was right and who was wrong on that point.

Regarding our leaving Europe, we have been clear on workers’ rights. As we leave Europe, this Government have been clear that we will not make any concessions in relation to the workers’ rights that we already have, and that we want to ensure that our workers’ rights are protected and built upon. I think that the Prime Minister has been very clear on that.

On the hon. Gentleman’s comment about self-employment, and self-employed people not necessarily being able to benefit from bank holidays, the whole essence of being self-employed is around the flexibility of work; self-employed people are not subjected to the same restraints as full-time employees with regard to their holiday entitlement. So, although he makes a point around self-employment, self-employed individuals actually have a lot more flexibility than others do, particularly to enjoy the religious festivals that they may want to observe.

[Justin Madders]

The point about self-employment is that many people are genuinely self-employed, but a group of people, particularly in the gig economy, do not have the same flexibilities. It is the situation of those people that I wanted the Minister to address.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Flexibility is key for self-employment, but with regard to the group of people he mentions who are working on such contracts, there is a ban on exclusivity and those individuals are still given the opportunity to request the holiday that they are entitled to as flexible workers with accrued holidays.

In our industrial strategy, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy took responsibility for reporting on and improving the quality of work across the UK. That was a key recommendation of the Taylor review of modern employment practices. In his review, Matthew Taylor set out an overarching ambition that all work in the UK economy should be fair and decent, with realistic scope for development and fulfilment, and that is an ambition of this Government. Although being in employment is vital to people’s health and wellbeing, the quality of the work is also a major factor in helping them to remain healthy and fulfilled.

We know that working flexibly helps people to balance their work and personal lives. Certain approaches to flexible working can allow people to build up additional leave entitlements, to use however they choose. Such flexibility is vital in creating an inclusive economy. Employees with 26 weeks’ continuous service already have the right to request flexible working. That accounts for more than 90% of employees, which sends a clear signal that flexible working is a normal practice for anyone in the workplace and not limited to those with caring responsibilities. The Government would like to take that further. We announced earlier this month that we will consider a new duty on employers to advertise all jobs as flexible, turning the tables on flexible working from something an employee might consider requesting into something an employer will consider offering.

Britain is a great place to live. However, we cannot ignore the fact that in too many parts of our country, communities feel divided. The Government are fully committed to the principles of freedom of religion and belief. I am proud that this country has in place some of the strongest protections in the world to allow people to practise their faith or belief. More than that, we understand that faith communities make a valuable contribution to our society by creating strong social networks, supporting vulnerable people, undertaking charitable work and providing education. We continue to support interfaith work as a means of breaking down barriers between communities and building greater trust and understanding.

Since 2011, the Government have funded the Church Urban Fund’s near neighbours programme, which brings people from diverse faiths and backgrounds together to increase trust and understanding. More than 1,600 local community integration projects have been funded, across 40 local authority areas, and more than a million people have benefited. We also fund the work of the Inter Faith Network for the UK, to facilitate dialogue between faith communities and run the annual interfaith week.

Our industrial strategy commits us to doing more to address the under-representation of people from minority ethnic backgrounds in the labour market. That is good for society and good for business. The McGregor-Smith review estimated that equal employment and progression across ethnicities could be worth £24 billion to the UK economy per year. I encourage employers to look at the review. It provides concrete actions that can be taken to identify and tackle any workplace barriers. As an example, it sets out how staff networks can be a forum for the discussion of how a business can take account of holidays or festivals in an equitable way.

On 11 October, Business in the Community published a one-year-on report on progress against the review’s recommendations. Although there were areas of progress, and significant effort from the Government and employers, I was disappointed to see that that was not always reflected in employees’ lived experiences. One in four employees from a minority ethnic background had witnessed or experienced racial harassment or bullying from managers in the previous two years—an appalling statistic. Only 35% of people felt comfortable talking about their religion in their organisation, and only 38% felt comfortable talking about race. We must ensure that workplaces are comfortable places for the discussion of difference, so that everyone can contribute their perspectives and experiences.

The Prime Minister launched the race in the workplace charter on 11 October, through which organisations sign up to five practical calls for action to ensure that they are tackling barriers faced by people from ethnic minorities in the workplace. The charter builds on a number of the recommendations of the McGregor-Smith review, and I encourage employers to sign up to it.

All this afternoon’s contributions have been informative and respectful. It has been a great debate and I thank all the constituency MPs who have spoken. I know that there will be disappointment that the Government have been unable to support the e-petitions for public holidays for Eid and Diwali, but I have welcomed the opportunity to set out our commitment to a fair and flexible workplace for all. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk for introducing the debate today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

I am aware of the ambitions in Torbay and I am encouraged to see the high-level commitment from the Torbay Together partnership. I encourage Torbay Together to continue its engagement with the Heart of the South West local enterprise partnership to ensure that the forthcoming local industrial strategy reflects the potential for the local area, and I commend its strategy.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

UK shipbuilding is vital to the industrial strategy and our long-term economic success. When he visited Cammell Laird last year, the northern powerhouse Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry)—said:

“The future of this yard is absolutely crucial to the future of Birkenhead and Liverpool and I will do all I can to support them.”

Since the decision was made last week to cut more than 290 high-skilled jobs—40% of the entire workforce—the silence from the Government has been deafening. What will the Government do to defend jobs in this vital industry?

[Mr Gyimah]

The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), met and spoke to Cammell Laird last night. It has finished one contract and a number of other contracts are on the way. It has also received £150 million for projects that it is engaging in and the Minister will be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to update him.

Economic Justice Commission

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) on securing the debate and on his excellent synopsis of the report, which I hope most Members have read. Mr Hollobone, you will pleased to hear that I will not take my full 10 minutes. I prepared for having rather less time, as I expected there to be an awful lot of interest in the debate, such is the importance of the report. It is sad that so few Members took the opportunity to attend, but I hope this is the start of a dialogue about how we change some of the fundamental injustices in our country.

Like my right hon. Friend, I congratulate the members of the Economic Justice Commission on their hard work in the past two years on a compelling report that deserves the attention of all Members. People in my constituency have experienced not just a stagnation but a marked deterioration in their living standards. Average earnings have fallen in real terms while the price of housing has continued to soar, leaving many in my constituency to see home ownership as an unachievable dream, despite the fact that many pay more in rent every month than they would in mortgage repayments.

Many people who live in insecure and expensive accommodation have equally insecure jobs. As we heard, there has been a significant increase in agency and zero-hours jobs, in under-employment and in bogus self-employment, which is a stain on our society that creates many problems down the line for individuals and, ultimately, the state. Even those in permanent employment do not feel secure, due to the erosion of employment rights. For example, workers can now be sacked without any reason during their first two years in a job.

The UK ranks eighth of 140 countries for labour market flexibility. The report states:

“It is now possible for an employer to take on a worker with almost no attached responsibilities on the employer’s part, or rights for the worker, at all…It is this flexibility that largely explains the simultaneous occurrence of high employment levels and largely stagnant wages.”

It also explains the shocking fact that more people in poverty now live in working households than in non-working households, after housing costs are taken into account. Does the Minister think that state of affairs is something to be proud of, or does she agree that it is unjust and unsustainable?

The workers we have discussed also face the brunt of the coming force of automation. My right hon. Friend mentioned a number of statistics that show how those who earn the least will be hit hardest by automation. I have another for him: workers in jobs paying less than £30,000 are five times more susceptible to having their posts automated than those earning more than £100,000.

The report also sets out clearly the geographic inequalities we face. London is the richest region in northern Europe, but the UK as a whole contains six of the 10 poorest regions in Europe. That shocking imbalance comes as no surprise to those of us who represent parts of the north. We have grown accustomed to infrastructure investment being used to entrench rather than tackle that divide.

Even in a time of economic growth, unemployment has not fallen universally. Since the Prime Minister promised two years ago to tackle the burning injustices in our economy, unemployment in my constituency has increased by almost 50%. If that happened during a time of economic growth, when the hard times come—and they will—we will be even further behind. Of course, that is before we consider the impact Brexit may have on large employers, such as Vauxhall in my constituency. We heard today about the potential impact on the car industry if the Government do not get the right Brexit deal.

It is clear that we cannot go on as we are and that the report’s proposals cannot be ignored, but I wonder whether the Government have the political will to respond positively. It is clear from the report that there is a direct correlation between the decline in collective bargaining and the deterioration in working conditions. The only way to reverse that decline is to strengthen trade unions.

[Liam Byrne]

I did not expect to intervene, but my hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The case he makes has been rehearsed by the Opposition for some time, but it has now been endorsed by the International Monetary Fund, which reported over the summer that the dismantling of labour protections accounts for a huge slice of the fall in labour’s share of national income. That is not just our view—it is now the IMF’s view.

[Justin Madders]

I did not think I would quote the IMF today, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the share of income that goes to labour. I found that statistic in the report staggering. It is clear that the direction of travel will only continue downwards. We must find a way of reversing that decline. We like to say in this place that economic growth is the answer to all society’s problems, but that growth has to be shared by everyone, and it clear that that is not happening. If we do not solve that puzzle, we will have failed our constituents.

We must also tackle the myth propagated from time to time that an empowered workforce are a barrier to growth when, in fact, as my right hon. Friend said, all the evidence shows that they are an enabler. Many of the countries that outperform us in productivity have better paid workers and stronger workplace rights. The report states clearly:

“If both productivity and pay are to be increased, power will need to be rebalanced in significant ways from employers to workers. This will require stronger labour market regulation and strengthened trade unions.”

Sadly, the Government seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time looking to stifle and inhibit trade union activity.

There has been a lot of soul searching in the past few years about why people voted as they did in the referendum. I think many of the answers are in this report. I always maintained that the arguments advanced during the campaign about the threats to our economic security from Brexit would never work with people who already did not feel economically secure. As the report makes clear, the issues that have created the rampant inequality that fuels division and discontent in this country can be solved only by a Government who are prepared to tackle the root causes of what is a very lopsided economy. The lessons of the past tell us that things will change only if there is a political will to make that change. We will fail this country if we do not take the lessons in the report seriously.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Lady, as always, makes a powerful point. We are taking action by prosecuting companies that are not paying the national minimum wage and we are ensuring that those basic rights are enforced. We want to get this right because this legislation will have to last not just for six months or a year, but for many years as our economy develops.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) all the best during her maternity leave. As we know, the Taylor review failed to offer much protection for those in the gig economy who are pregnant. The Government’s earlier Deane review on self-employment made recommendations on equalising maternity allowance, but that was two and a half years ago. Do the Government intend to implement those recommendations?

[Claire Perry]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position. I was around his constituency on Saturday helping to launch the RSS Sir David Attenborough—what a fine place he represents. He is absolutely right to focus on these basic maternity protections. This Government are continuing to improve paternity and maternity rights. We want to get that right and that will be part of our response.