Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Mick Whitley

Thursday 30th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

3. What steps she is taking to prevent the use of fire and rehire practices.

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

17. What steps she is taking to prevent the use of fire and rehire practices.

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

The Government consulted on a draft statutory code of practice on fire and rehire earlier this year. The Government response and the final version of the code will be published in spring next year. The code sets out employers’ responsibilities when seeking to change contractual terms and conditions of employment, and is designed to ensure that dismissal and re-engagement is used only as the last resort.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree with the sentiment behind the hon. Lady’s question in terms of bringing legislation forward as quickly as possible. Of course, we have to get this right. I have to say that P&O was not a fire and rehire situation; it was a fire-only situation, which was strongly condemned by this Government and by many other stakeholders, and a civil investigation is ongoing into the matters surrounding that case. But yes, the hon. Lady is right, and we are keen to get the new statutory code of practice in place as soon as possible. We expect that to be in spring next year, and once it is in force, the employment tribunal can increase employees’ compensation by up to 25% when an employer fails unreasonably to comply with the code.

[Mick Whitley]

Last week, concerns were raised that the Carnival group was making provision to fire and rehire hundreds of staff working on P&O Cruises and Cunard Line, reviving memories of last year, when P&O Ferries sacked over 800 of its employees and replaced them with agency labour, while the Government sat back and let it happen. Does the Minister agree that the only way to provide workers with the security they deserve is by legislating to outlaw fire and rehire tactics once and for all? If not, it is time the Government came clean with the British public and admitted that they will always side with bad bosses.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is not the case at all. We take these matters very seriously, but we do not think that completely banning fire and rehire is the right thing to do because there are some situations in which companies need to restructure quickly. We think that employees’ proper consultation rights should be observed. Where they are not observed and where an employer does not follow the statutory code of practice, employment tribunals can impose a significant uplift on redundancy payments. We think that is the best way to deal with this, by striking a balance between companies and their workers.

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

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Mick Whitley

Monday 27th November 2023 General Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is that the legislation balances the rights of individuals to access vital public services with the rights of people to go on strike. That is the simple balance that we are trying to strike. At times the Government have to step in, and we should always use legislation as a last resort. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that that has been our political philosophy, but bearing in mind the hundreds of thousands of hospital appointments that have been cancelled and the billions of pounds in costs for the hospitality sector, particularly over last winter, it is right to have a better balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of workers in this area.

I will summarise the reasonable steps. First, a trade union should identify the workers who are its members in a work notice. That will enable the union to take reasonable steps regarding those workers. Secondly, trade unions should send an individual communication or notice, known as a compliance notice, to each member identified in a work notice to advise them not to strike during the periods in which they are required by the work notice to work, as well as to encourage them to comply with a work notice. Thirdly, trade unions should instruct picket supervisors to use reasonable endeavours to ensure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, picketers avoid trying to persuade members who are identified in a work notice not to cross the picket lines at times when they are required by the work notice to work.

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the requirement that a trade union, with perhaps as little as four days’ notice, identify its members that have been issued with work notices in disputes potentially involving hundreds of thousands of workers across hundreds of workplaces is entirely impracticable? It risks exposing even the trade unions that work 24/7 to fulfil their obligations under the code of practice to a disproportionate and unfair penalty.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, we do not agree. The provisions and the code of practice are workable. As I have said, we undertook a consultation to make sure that that was the case, so we believe the proposals are workable.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Mick Whitley

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 17th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

May I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?

The Lords have been set an unenviable task in attempting to amend a piece of legislation as ill-conceived as this one. As a lifelong opponent of the principle of an unelected second Chamber, I am surprised to find myself now commending the thoughtfulness and diligence that the other place has demonstrated in its many sittings concerning this legislation. It has been a breath of fresh air when compared with this Government’s recklessness in attempting to rush the Bill through Parliament.

I rise in support of Lords amendment 2D. Its purpose is simple: to ensure that perhaps the most significant piece of trade union legislation to be considered by this House in more than a century is subject to appropriate scrutiny before it is added to the statute book. I wish to repeat the comments that I made when we considered the Lords amendments on 22 May. I said that no number of amendments could ever salvage this Bill. It is rotten to the core. It targets a right that should be sacrosanct in any democracy—the right to withdraw our labour.

In sectors such as education and health, the provisions of the Bill will hobble the ability of working people to fight for the dignity and fairness that we all deserve in the workplace, and make the trade unions themselves unwilling accomplices in undermining the effectiveness of their own industrial action.

Worse still, in sectors such as air traffic control or nuclear decommissioning, minimum service regulations will, in effect, amount to a ban on taking any strike action at all. Ministers have repeatedly insisted that their policies towards the trade union movement conform with international standards and our treaty obligations. That was not the view taken by the High Court last week when it quashed the Government’s law allowing employers to bring in scab labour to break strikes. The court’s verdict was damning: that the Government’s approach was so unfair as to be “unlawful” and, indeed, “irrational”.

Despite the claims made by this Government that the International Labour Organisation supports minimum service standards, the director general of the ILO has made an unprecedented intervention in voicing his concern about the effects of the Bill on workers and of the Government’s strategy of imposing minimum service requirements on workers instead of encouraging them to be negotiated between unions and management.

Most embarrassingly of all for the Government, the Bill has been slammed by their own independent Regulatory Policy Committee as being not fit for purpose. The question that all of us should be asking is why the Bill was not withdrawn the moment the RPC slapped it with a red rating in February. Why are we still debating proposals that have been condemned by not only my friends in the trade union movement but a vast swathe of trade associations and the business community? Their verdict is astoundingly clear: they do not think the Bill will work. They are concerned, with good cause, that it will make industrial relations in this country worse. They simply do not want the Bill.

The answer is simple. The Government are aware of their impending electoral oblivion. They are intent on driving through reforms that will realise their decades-long dream of a world in which workers are stripped of all their rights and left helpless at the whims of their employers. It is about time for a little more candour from those on the Government Benches.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate. I think that it is time to agree to disagree with some of the points that have been made by Opposition Members. The Bill is compatible with our international obligations, which the Government will continue to uphold. We have announced a new code of practice, which will provide the clarity that Opposition Members have been asking for throughout the Bill’s passage. I encourage the other place to take note of the strong view of this House, and that its will should be respected.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2D.