Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Laura Farris Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald). I will pick up where he left off. The right to strike is neither absolute nor unlimited. He was correct to point the Committee to the 87th convention of the ILO on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise, and he will be aware that article 9 of that convention sets out the limited circumstances in which any member state has a margin for discretion to decide whether certain sectors can be banned from striking altogether. As a matter of fact, the United Kingdom exercises that qualification in restricting the right to strike for police officers, members of the armed forces and prison officers.

Despite the hon. Gentleman’s language about this country’s having very restricted union rights, Opposition Members must concede that there has been a high degree of consensus while in government. I gently remind him that when Labour was last in government, after the numerous changes to strike law in the 1980s, it published the “Fairness at Work” White Paper in 1998. Its foreword stated:

“There will be no going back. The days of strikes without ballots, mass picketing, closed shops and secondary action are over.”

Where I agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I present it from a different angle, is that the issue throughout debate on this Bill is whether the proposed restrictions are necessary and proportionate. Amendments 9 to 14 and 73 to 75, tabled by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who is no longer in her place, and other Labour Front Benchers, would hack out each of the sectors that have been designated as sufficiently important to warrant a minimum service level—education, transport, nuclear decommissioning, border security, fire and health.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough was a tiny bit disingenuous when he read from the ILO’s publication and said that the ILO allows a minimum service level only in

“services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population”.

He knows as well as I do that he could and should have read on, because the ILO allows minimum service levels in

“services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term, but in which strikes of a certain magnitude and duration could cause an acute crisis threatening the normal conditions of existence…or in public services of fundamental importance.”

Earlier today, every Member of this House received a House of Commons Library briefing on this Bill. It included an important 2012 report from the ILO, which I know many Members will have read, that provides some assistance:

“the right to strike is not absolute and may be restricted in exceptional circumstances, or even prohibited”.

The report gives three examples of where that might apply. The first is certain categories of public servants, and relevant to this debate is the reference to teachers:

“the Committee considers that public sector teachers are not included in the category of public servants ‘exercising authority in the name of the State’ and that they should therefore benefit from the right to strike…even though, under certain circumstances, the maintenance of a minimum service may be envisaged… This principle should also apply to postal workers and railway employees, as well as to civilian personnel in military institutions when they are not engaged in the provision of essential services in the strict sense of the term.”

In relation to the National Education Union, which is striking on Wednesday, and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which seems to be striking most of the time, the Opposition know, or at least ought to know, that the ILO thinks that minimum service levels should apply both in education and transport.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making a very interesting contribution. She and the Government are making out that the International Labour Organisation somehow supports this measure. However, its director general has said that he is “very worried” about this Bill. Given that, will the hon. Lady invite the Minister to withdraw his assertion that the ILO supports this measure?

[Laura Farris]

An experienced employment lawyer like the hon. Member for Middlesbrough will know the true mechanics very well. A union and probably the TUC and Professor Keith Ewing, because he did the last one, will put in a written submission to the ILO, and its committee of experts based at the ILO office in Geneva will respond in due course. It is not appropriate to say that something is the complete answer of the ILO because somebody has waggled a microphone under somebody’s nose at Davos. There is a procedure.

I hope my speech is not confusing the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), because I am not suggesting for a moment that what was sent to MPs this morning is a comment on the United Kingdom. It is the ILO’s statement of general principles on minimum service levels, and I will continue, if I may. The ILO says that the second acceptable restriction is where strikes take place in activities that may be considered essential services. It lists, at paragraph 135 of its 2012 report:

“air traffic control, telephone service…firefighting services, health and ambulance services, prison services, the security forces and water and electricity services.”

The report continues:

“In situations in which a…total prohibition of strike action would not appear to be justified…consideration might be given to ensuring that users’ basic needs are met or that facilities operate safely or without interruption, the introduction of a negotiated minimum service…could be appropriate.”

[Joanna Cherry]

What the hon. Lady is saying is very interesting, but does she accept that, as we are in Europe, any analysis of the legality of these proposals has to start with article 11 of the European convention on human rights? Can she point to any country in Europe with Government-enforced minimum standards that can lead to the sacking of workers on strike? [Interruption.] The Minister should listen to the question carefully, because the answer will be on the record. Can the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) point to any other country in Europe that has Government-enforced minimum standards, without negotiation and without arbitration—

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

Can the hon. Member for Newbury point to any country in Europe in which, as a result of Government-enforced minimum standards, without any negotiation and without any arbitration, a worker can lose his or her job, other than—wait for it—Hungary or Russia?

[Laura Farris]

The hon. and learned Lady is right that negotiation is required. I was shocked to find that, in France, the sanction for a person who refuses a requisitioning request is via the criminal courts. I did not know that, and I did not know it is the case in Canada, too. It may be that I have misread the legislation, and that it is a “life and limb” exemption—I am not familiar enough with French legislation.

[Andy McDonald]

I will help the hon. Lady. Is she aware that the ILO is saying that unions should participate in defining minimum service levels, and that any disputes should be dealt with not by a Government but by an independent body? Does she agree with that? It is not in the Bill.

[Laura Farris]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and it is a good point. Even though the ILO has set out, in black and white, the services in which it says the right to strike might lawfully be restricted, and even though its list includes every single service that the Government have included in the Bill—in fact, the ILO goes much further—the Opposition, for some reason, seem to wish to take out every one of those essential services. They would say no to a minimum service level when the schools are on strike, no to any key worker being able to put their kids in school and no to any vulnerable child being able to be looked after. They would say no to the trains running at all during the rush hour. The Opposition need to be clear with the British people about why their amendments deviate so far from international norms. It seems to be the case that, in their view, the country should grind to a standstill.

[Ian Lavery]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Laura Farris]

I will make a bit of progress, because I am conscious of time.

Let me just deal briefly with the issue of sanction, because it has come up. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough will know—he is an employment lawyer, but there may be others—that section 219 of the 1992 Act is uniquely convoluted in the way it confers a protection on the worker and on the union in terms of the right to strike. The statutory language is that there is immunity in suit from the tort of inducement to breach of contract—that is the right to strike as expressed in domestic law. What I think the law is doing here in terms of sanction is removing the immunity—that is what is happening; that is the logical consequence of anything that restricts the right to strike. I just want to say this: nobody in this Chamber envisages sacking nurses or any other category of emergency worker, but it must be right that, if the section 219 immunity is lost or in any way qualified, we bring into play disciplinary sanctions. That must be right and I accept that.

I have said in response to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) that both France and Canada seem to have a far more draconian system—[Interruption.] She can correct this when she makes her speech. Again, I looked at what the ILO said about this issue. I will finish with this Dame Rosie, because I can tell that I am being annoying. The ILO said that if the strike is determined to be unlawful by a competent judicial authority on the basis of provisions that are in conformity with the freedom of association principles, proportionate disciplinary sanctions may be imposed. I do have some improvements that I think can be made to the Bill, but I am going to take them offline and say them afterwards.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Laura Farris Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

I would like to accept the invitation of the shadow Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who encouraged us to be respectful in this debate. I wish to be so. We have heard a lot from the Labour party this evening about how the Bill is an act of political violence and an attack on the fundamental freedom of working people, but we have not heard an answer to the fundamental question that the legislation poses: do the British people have a right set out in statute to a basic safety and security guarantee during periods of strike?

Let us start with the law. The right to strike is embedded in international law, most notably in article 11 of the European convention on human rights.

[Joanna Cherry]

The hon. Lady asks whether any of us on the Opposition Benches care about fundamental safety levels, and yes we do. She asked whether we would support legislating, but legislation already exists. On article 11, she knows as well as I do that the measures have to be “necessary”. The Government’s own memo with the last legislation said that the measures were not necessary in relation to the health service, education and fire and rescue.

[Laura Farris]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her point, and I will assist her, because I was coming on to that point. The article 11 right may be restricted for two reasons—if the restriction is necessary, yes, and proportionate. The International Labour Organisation, of which the United Kingdom is a founding member, recognises that maintaining a minimum level of service provision can be both when it comes to essential services. Its committee on freedom of association has expressly set out the two circumstances in which it may be appropriate: where strike action would pose a risk to life, safety or health; or where the service is not essential in the strict sense of the word, but where repeated strikes would bring a very important sector to a standstill.

[Chris Stephens]

The ILO also says, does it not, that the minimum service level has to be agreed by an independent arbiter if there is a dispute, which is not in the Bill, and that there should not be a dismissal, which is in the Bill?

[Laura Farris]

I am grateful to both SNP Members for their interventions. I am coming on to those points, so I will make a tiny bit of progress, if I may.

On the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), we already know that transport and education meet the ILO’s test, because the ILO told the United Kingdom that in its response to the challenge to the Trade Union Act 2016 submitted by the TUC in 2015. In its response, the ILO committee of experts—Members can look it up; it is on the website—said that in relation to transport and education

“recourse might be had to negotiated minimum standards for these sectors as appropriate”.

We also know that many comparable countries take a much tougher line than the Government are proposing. In the United States, to give one example, 38 out of 50 states ban public sector strikes altogether.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is presenting a reasoned case, but she knows, and she has just used the word, that these things should be negotiated. The measures in this Bill are by fiat of the Secretary of State.

[Laura Farris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. I am coming to all these things, so if he will give me a moment, I will continue.

In the United States, 38 out of 50 states have an outright ban on public sector strikes, including New York. Other states, such as Canada, Australia, Italy and Spain, all have embedded in statute minimum service levels that apply to important public services, and those services are often drawn much more widely than the Government are proposing. They include waste collection, postal services, broadcast services, the administration of justice, water distribution and energy supply.

I pick out those states not as random examples, but because every single one is a member of the International Labour Organisation. They are bound by exactly the same rules as us, and they are among our closest comparators around the world. Even more importantly, the International Labour Organisation has adjudicated all their statutory minimum service levels, and a 2019 publication from the ILO in Geneva commented:

“These examples illustrate the wide diversity of approach that ILO member states have adopted to address the challenges posed by industrial disputes in essential services”.

Minimum service levels

“supported by the ILO’s supervisory organs, exist to manage the balancing act between these necessary restrictions and the individual worker’s fundamental labour rights”.

I have not heard a single Member of Parliament tonight explain to me why the ILO is wrong or why the Government are striking the wrong balance when they have a mandate for what they are doing.

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

The disingenuousness comes from making comparisons with other nations under ILO regulations, which clearly have a completely different context. For example, the ILO imposes restraints on the circumstances in which such powers can be used, which is the antithesis of the Government’s blank cheque approach.

[Laura Farris]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I take the opposite position. The United States has an outright ban on public service strikes in 38 states. In December, President Biden made his most recent intervention in union rights when he signed legislation that imposed an outright ban on a national railroad strike. The United States is a founder member, as we are, of the International Labour Organisation. It goes much further, but the ILO has found its ban to be lawful. The Opposition will have to say why all those comparable states, which go much further than us, are somehow acting lawfully, yet we are not.

Industrial Action

Laura Farris Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I want to pick up the hon. Lady on those figures, because the NHS itself says that it does not recognise those numbers. When we have a strike such as the one on Wednesday by ambulance workers, there is no way that she or anyone else in this House can realistically argue that people will somehow be better off without a national minimum safe level of service. That is what we will focus on, and that is why she and Opposition Members should support this Bill.

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend was right to mention other European countries, but he could have added to that list South Africa, Argentina, Australia and Canada, all of which are members of the International Labour Organisation and have minimum service levels in essential services. In every single case, the ILO has reviewed the MSL and determined it to be a necessary and proportionate restriction of the article 11 right to strike. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British people are entitled to exactly the same lawful protection and to have their basic needs met at times of industrial action in essential services?

[Grant Shapps]

It is worth reminding the House that my hon. Friend is an acknowledged expert in employment law. I am grateful for her thoughts and clarification that the International Labour Organisation says that the legislation is compatible with article 11. I have been able to sign off the European Court of Human Rights compatibility on this measure. As she rightly points out, it is not just friends and neighbours in Europe but around the world where strikes are, in many cases, banned—not what we are proposing—and minimum safety levels are in place. There is nothing illegitimate about what we are doing. It fits with the ILO, and who signs up to the ILO? The TUC and many other unions besides.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Farris Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I thought that was a rather convoluted question, if you do not mind my saying so, Mr Speaker.

We in the UK Government are absolutely committed to getting a good deal for UK science, whether through association with Horizon Europe or through our plan B Horizon plan, which is also a fully funded approach to making sure that UK science does not lose out. Perhaps the hon. Lady might welcome the big boost in R&D spending in this country, with the most sustained uplift, from £15 billion today to £20 billion in two years’ time—a 33% increase in just two years.

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

5. What recent discussions his Department has had with the Competition and Markets Authority on its review of the fuel market.

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

On 11 June, my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary asked the Competition and Markets Authority to conduct an urgent review of the market for petrol and diesel. The CMA published its response on 8 July and has opened a market study into the fuel market, as my right hon. Friend requested.

[Laura Farris]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I know he has been working with the CMA on this issue, and I have read with interest its report on the discrepancy between the price of crude oil and wholesale prices. However, prices at the pumps in West Berkshire are still very high. My constituency is a rural one where people are completely reliant on their cars, so could my right hon. Friend provide an update as to when my constituents can expect to see better value at the petrol pumps?

[Greg Hands]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and other colleagues for leading the campaign and for pointing out some of the discrepancies in the market. I am delighted that the CMA is now carrying out a study. It found that rural fuel prices were consistently higher than those in urban areas, which is definitely worth a further market probe, so I urge her as a campaign leader and other colleagues to submit views and evidence to the CMA as it carries out its market study. One thing that was clear is that in the view of the CMA the duty cut put forward by the Government earlier this year was passed on to retailers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Farris Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman]

The insect protein industry is becoming increasingly important, given the need to nearly double global food supply in the next 20 or 30 years. I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman. It is one of the sectors we are looking at, as part of our £25 billion three- year allocation, that needs development and support.

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

T8. In a rural constituency like Newbury, fuel prices are a key driver of spiralling living costs. As such, it is a source of frustration that petrol stations are still failing to pass on the Treasury fuel duty cut. I know my right hon. Friend and his team have been working closely with the Competition and Markets Authority, but could he tell me what progress has been made to ensure that consumers are getting a fair deal at the pumps?

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Farris Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

Our hospitality strategy, which includes fish and chip shops and other restaurants around the country, has a number of workstreams to co-create solutions with businesses rather than the Government having all the answers. The hon. Lady needs to consider the issue in the round, including the business rates relief and other support that we have given of £408 billion over the past two years.

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

Supporting businesses to manage their costs must not come at the expense of employment rights. The P&O ferry scandal is not about fire and rehire, but it puts the issue back in the spotlight because it exposes how vulnerable workers can be when faced with an exploitative employer who is willing to trample over their statutory rights to slash wages. At the Dispatch Box last week, my hon. Friend the Minister intimated that the Government would make further announcements on the issue. May I press him to tell the House today whether the Government are prepared to act definitively on fire and rehire?

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a doughty champion on the issue. The Government have always been clear that it is completely unacceptable for any sized business to use threats of fire and rehire simply as a negotiation tactic. We have already taken action. In November last year, we commissioned ACAS, which published guidance. I promised to take further steps, as she rightly said, and I am pleased to announce that we will bring forward a statutory code later this year under section 203 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. We will introduce that as soon as parliamentary time allows. The code will have legal teeth; it will be admissible in evidence before courts and employment tribunals in England, Scotland and Wales.

Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill

Laura Farris Excerpts

Friday 22nd October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris]

I was referring to what I consider to be the breadth of the proposed section 187B. I think, with respect, that it creates considerable scope for any employee who is faced with an instance of fire and rehire to challenge it through the employment tribunal. It creates, I think, an obvious and unsustainable tension with common law principles—the common law principles that underpin the entire law of redundancy.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Laura Farris]

I will just finish this point.

There could be circumstances in which an employer had made the decision to change the terms of employment, to reduce wages, and the employment tribunal, applying every single correct common law principle, would find the decision to have been fair, but if the employer had breached one element of the consultation requirements—had not put one document or one meeting note before the trade union representative—the dismissal would be found to be unfair.

[Clive Efford]

I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady, and I am very respectful of her knowledge of this particular issue, but nothing she has said today suggests to me that her arguments could not be better deployed in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) asked Conservative Members to work with him to improve the Bill in Committee. I wonder why the hon. Lady is not taking that approach.

[Laura Farris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will continue to develop this point.

[Clive Efford]

The hon. Lady did not give me an answer.

[Laura Farris]

I hope that what I am going to say will answer the hon. Gentleman’s criticism.

There is another point that I cannot ignore. I invite every Member to turn to proposed section 187F, which deals with the proposed “Award of compensation” to be made by any employer who fails to comply with the proposed new consultation requirements. It states:

“ The amount of compensation awarded shall, subject to the following provisions, be such as the employment tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances”.

That is exactly the same compensation measure that is used in whistleblowing and in discrimination law. It opens the door to uncapped compensation in the area of unfair dismissal, which has a cap, It therefore drives a coach and horses through the entire principle of compensation in unfair dismissal hearings. It would make fire and rehire the only form of unfair dismissal in which the employee could receive an uncapped compensatory award. If the employee had been dismissed for gross misconduct or for being bad at his or her job, the award would have been capped at 80 grand. That cannot be right.

What will all this do to the employer who is thinking about renegotiating terms of employment? The employer will be too nervous to do it, and will lay people off. Let us take the employer in the case of Garside & Laycock v. Booth 2011, who had proposed a 5% reduction in wages which every single balloted member of staff except one had accepted. Employers would not do that; they would lay off the whole workforce. Is it better or worse for people to take a less attractive variation in their terms of employment or to lose their jobs altogether?

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for engaging so closely with the Bill. I think she knows she is over-egging it, because any tribunal would look at the situation in the round. The Bill is drafted as it is because it chimes with the legislation on redundancy. Again, to be technically proficient, the Bill has to merge with the other Acts.

[Laura Farris]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is incorrect. This concern was raised by my head of chambers and it is shared across the employment Bar. We cannot have a just and equitable jurisdiction in the law of unfair dismissal as it does not work.

The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) raised a point about the aviation sector. The conduct of British Airways was poor, but there is an important issue at stake. If in primary legislation the risks of fire and rehire are so great that employers are more inclined to lay people off, think what that would mean for airline pilots, for example. Airline pilots must fly within a two-year period to retain their flying licence. If they are sacked by British Airways at a time when the entire travel sector is struggling badly, they would be very unlikely to get a job and it could easily be two years. It is not just the loss of a job; it is the loss of an entire career. We need to tread very carefully when we consider primary legislation in the area of fire and rehire.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and some important points. She talks about the risk of moving to layoffs or redundancies, is there not also a danger that businesses will not recruit people in the first place or will not scale up because of the fear that employment legislation is so complex and is increasingly one-sided on behalf of workers? That would deter employment, which is the exact opposite of the situation we all want to see.

[Laura Farris]

We all know there is always a risk that we make employment relations so onerous that there is a temptation to engage consultants. What we are primarily looking at is employers that have larger, unionised workforces. I am not sure how many employers it would engage, but the short point is that Conservative Members want a solution that does not make an existing problem worse, drive redundancies or lead to more business failures. Fire and rehire must be a genuine option of last resort when a negotiated settlement cannot be reached, when the business is on the brink of insolvency and when the alternative is layoffs.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the conversations we had when I proposed legislation on this issue last year. She says that, had fire and rehire been banned, British Airways might have just made people redundant, and she cites the example of pilots. This has happened already, and Ryanair negotiated temporary changes. Why would British Airways not have done the same, had it not been allowed to fire and rehire?

[Laura Farris]

I will return to that point when I address British Airways in a bit more detail.

As I have said to the Minister, we need more than ACAS guidance. I want to see the rules on dismissal and re-engagement set out in an ACAS code of practice, with financial sanctions to back them up. Parliament specifically envisaged the possibility of doing this when it passed the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 207 gives the Secretary of State the power to introduce a code of practice in respect of anything in that Act. Parliament also considered and welcomed the possibility that the Secretary of State would have the power to impose legal teeth. Section 207A addresses the possibility that any compensation can be increased by up to 25% if the employer does not comply with an ACAS code of practice.

We know that ACAS codes of practice can be effective. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) is an employment lawyer and will know that when we think about, for example, the ACAS codes of practice on disciplinaries or grievance procedures, it is vanishingly rare to get into an employment tribunal nowadays and find that the employer was oblivious to those codes of practice. Why do employers know about them? Because there is risk—financial risk. If they go down in the employment tribunal, there could be an uplift on compensation, and they want to avoid that, so we know that it is has the right effect.

What should the code of practice say? We have some of the answers already. The BEIS call for evidence, which was published through ACAS, gives us some clues. I think practitioners made such suggestions very well, including, in relation to paragraph 56 of that report, that employers should provide an analysis of whether changes are anticipated to last for more or less than five years with evidence to substantiate that answer, and, in relation to paragraph 76, that they should provide evidence of reasonable alternatives they have explored and evidence of their financial position.

Another point comes out of the excellent work of the Transport Committee, and I want to pay tribute to the very impressive session it had with Willie Walsh on 11 May 2020. Anyone who has read the transcript will recall that he was asked repeatedly by the Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), whether, if British Airways returned to full profitability, he would restore workers’ wages to their previous levels, and he declined to confirm that he would do so. That created huge exposure for British Airways, and I do not think it is any surprise that, when Alex Cruz appeared before the Select Committee six months later, he gave a rather different explanation.

BEIS would then have the opportunity to require employers to set the criteria that they would exercise in deciding when to restore workers’ pay. I think it would enable the Government to give guidance on this distinct category of dismissals, how they should be treated and what the employment tribunal should be looking for. My final point on this is that it would give the Government real teeth, and it would incentivise employers to do the right thing and give employees more power to enforce their existing rights.

The point has been made, but most of the employers we have cited in this House are considering fire and rehire in relation to large proportions of their workforce. With British Airways, 12,000 people were at risk. If every single one of those people could get an uplift in a compensatory award of 10% to 25%, then—let us be realistic—that might be £10,000 or £20,000 times 12,000. That creates a huge incentive for the employer to do the right thing, because there will be a very significant financial penalty if they fail. That will mean that consultations are entered into with legal advice, which is a good thing, as well as with an open mind and an open spirit.

By the way, consultation is not a meaningless word, as all hon. Members will know. When it is approached in the right spirit, it can often lead to alternatives to the thing that is most feared by the employee. That is the suggestion that I have made to Ministers.

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I was one of the members of that Select Committee, and I remember there was very much cross-party agreement that it was such a disgrace for that to happen that the company should not carry the British flag. The point is that the parent company, IAG, had profits in the region of £3.5 billion-plus, there in stages, that it could have used. IAG’s agenda—and this is why I am concerned that what the hon. Member is suggesting may not go very far in discouraging companies—was about driving profits, not about saving the jobs and livelihoods of people, particularly women in their 50s and those towards the end of their careers. It was a restructuring brought in under the guise of fire and rehire.

[Laura Farris]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point, and I just want to pick up on what he said. He points to the fact that the parent company had substantive profits, and that point was made by the Unite representatives who contacted me. I do not think that that case would have survived the employment tribunal in its early stages, as I do not think that it would have crossed the threshold of a sound, genuine business reason. I think the reason why Alex Cruz appeared before your Committee five or six months later and spoke very differently about his plans for pilots, cabin crew and everybody else was because the company was on thin ice, and I think some damaging concessions were made in that session. I think you are right, but I do not think that my solution fails to capture it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I remind the hon. Lady not to use the word “you”.

[Laura Farris]

I do not think that my proposal is at odds with what the hon. Member suggests.

Just briefly, because I am coming to the end—[Hon. Members: “No.”] I would like to focus the remainder of my remarks on the detailed work that has gone into clause 1 and the extended duty to consult, which is proposed to go into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act as new section 187A. One of the things I think is most surprising about this, despite the fact that it is obviously very persuasive at first blush, is that it immediately takes the trade union, the employee and the employer into their very first meeting talking about fire and rehire. When I spoke to my constituents and the Unite representatives who were looking after them, the thing that had been the most stressful was that they had gone into these meetings and found that from the very start, dismissal was already being mentioned as an option. It was, “You will take this pay cut, otherwise we will sack you and get you back.” That seems to exacerbate the problem, rather than improve it.

The law in this area is not working. When I speak to employers about why they have been raising fire and rehire so early, they always cite section 188 consultation obligations, the “in good time” requirement under that, and the genuine fear that they will be hit with a punitive protective award if they have not put all their cards on the table at the start. A much more sensible route would be to take the heat out of these negotiations and make fire and rehire a last resort that only comes in when all other options have been explored.

That is why we should have specific language in a code of practice. It could say something like, “An employer who begins a section 188 consultation only after it has attempted to negotiate a change in terms and conditions consensually will be regarded as beginning that consultation in good time.” Alternatively, it could say, “Where an employer is attempting to negotiate new terms and conditions before any fire and rehire process, that amounts to special circumstances that rendered it reasonably practicable not to comply with section 188.”

[Geraint Davies]

The hon. Member is making some very interesting points. Given that she agrees with the spirit of the Bill, does she agree that fire and rehire should be a last resort? She is looking at this matter in detail. Does she agree that it would be better looked at in Committee? We appreciate that this area is complicated and she is a great expert in it, but would it not be better for her to be forensically evaluating this Bill with good time with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and others in Committee?

[Laura Farris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) wanted to intervene.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making some excellent points and, like the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), I feel they might be better made in Committee. Does the hon. Lady agree that part of the motivation for the Bill is not to do away with the practice completely? It says that fire and rehire or change of contracts in exceptional circumstances can be done with negotiation, consultations and so on. The motivation was that several major companies appeared to be using the current crisis as something to hide behind and institute unfair fire and rehire practices at a time of already mounting stress and emotional trauma for a lot of people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Farris]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will take those first two points in succession. The first was about whether these issues are not better raised in Committee. The answer, respectfully, is no, because I do not think an area as technically difficult as this belongs in primary legislation, and I have explained why the Bill is at odds with the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the intentions of Parliament when that Act was passed and the existing web of laws at section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 dealing with unfair dismissal. The issues covered in the Bill belong in a code of practice backed up with financial penalties, rather than in primary legislation.

To take the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), I of course accept the stress that people were subjected to, and all the work that Members on the Government side of the House are doing is directed at minimising that, but the solution we are considering and discussing must not give employers leeway to abuse employment rights. We have been thinking about that just as much.

It is precisely because I do not think employees should have a gun to their head at the start of consultations that I cannot support clause 1 of the Bill, which requires employers to lay all their cards on the table on the issue of fire and rehire from the start. Rather than demanding full disclosure from day one, we should be much more sensitive to the legitimate desires of businesses to remedy defects before they have to reveal they are on the verge of failure, given what that might mean for their business at a stage before they would wish to disclose it.

[Barry Gardiner]

I agree that it really important to take the heat out of the situation at the very beginning. The hon. Lady is absolutely right—I mentioned it myself—about the importance of not having section 188 on the table immediately. That is why, starting at line 20, the Bill says:

“The employer shall consult with a view to reaching an agreement to avoid decisions being taken to terminate contracts of employment, or to introduce changes in work organisation or in contractual relations.”

The precise point that the hon. Lady has made is there on the face of the Bill.

[Laura Farris]

The hon. Gentleman knows that proposed new section 187B(2) says:

“The information to be disclosed is all information relating to the employer's undertaking”.

It would be almost impossible for an employer to comply with that without its having to put on the table the fact that it is considering dismissal in the first instance.

I hope that, if my speech has strayed into technical issues of industrial relations law, that reveals how difficult this question is and how any attempt to impose primary legislation runs significant risks of unintended consequences that would be much worse for workers’ rights and job losses. We on the Conservative Benches depart from the Opposition in that we think there is strength and flexibility in existing employment law, but we also think that it could do with being robustly reinforced through potential financial penalties. I hope the hon. Member for Brent North is reassured that we take this issue as seriously as he does. We are also thinking hard about it, and I am confident that we will deliver for workers’ rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

For those who seek to minimise the scale of fire and rehire, let us remember—the point was made earlier—that one in 10 workers, around 3 million people across the country, of whom a worrying proportion are young or from an ethnic minority background, face having their pay cut or their rights stripped away, or losing their job. What is most alarming is that fire and rehire is being used not by smaller companies but by big national names such as British Airways, British Gas, Tesco, Clarks, Argos and Weetabix, to name a few. All of them are established companies. Many saw bumper sales during lockdown. Workers at these companies, whether in the warehouse, in the factory, on the shop floor or in HGV cabs are also the workers who kept us moving during the pandemic.

Some companies threatening their staff with fire and rehire, such as Tesco and British Airways, even received Government handouts during the pandemic, only to take the money and then show their staff the door. That is scandalous. Rather than helping working people, the Government have subsidised their dismissal during the worst health and economic crisis in a generation. This is a national disgrace.

[Laura Farris]

Is not it the reality that it is not that big employers are unscrupulous or evil, as opposed to small employers? The truth is that it is only larger employers who are bound by the obligations under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and it is only they who are consulting with larger numbers, so, inevitably, the focus will be on large employers.

[Imran Hussain]

I agree in part with the hon. Lady’s point. The issue here is this. She made her points earlier. I accept that there are good employers and there are those who perhaps are not behaving in the manner that they should. Referring to one of her previous points, the issue is this: those employers that are acting in a just, proper and proportionate manner are actually worse off because they are being undercut by unscrupulous employers that are not acting in the manner that they should. The size is perhaps for illustration purposes, but I do take some of her points.

Faced with such scandalous and disgraceful behaviour by employers, the Government should have stepped in as fire and rehire spread through our economy like wildfire, but they did not. Instead, it has only been the Labour movement, trade unions and staff coming together to organise in the workplace that stopped the use of fire and rehire at places such as British Airways, Go North West and Heathrow. It was not Ministers and it was not the Government.

Let me make this point clear. The campaigns and victories of our proud trade unions fighting against fire and rehire, fighting against bad bosses, and fighting for their members and working people right across the country—whether it be Unite, GMB, Unison, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, Community or others—shows that, despite this Government’s every effort to diminish and grind them down, there is still power in the union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady makes a good point, but all these matters are covered under employment law. Whether on wrongful dismissal, unfair dismissal—constructive dismissal—or redundancies, an employer has to follow due process.

[Laura Farris]

rose—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend may be able to enlighten us better than I can.

[Laura Farris]

To pick up on the point about redundancy payments and that being a suitable alternative, does my hon. Friend agree that of course a business in financial trouble could dismiss in any case for “some other substantial reason”, which would not lead to a redundancy payment? It is all there in section 98(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and it would leave an employee as badly off as somebody who is subject to fire and rehire.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I defer to my hon. Friend, who knows far more about this issue than I ever would. The principle behind our discussion is making sure that, where the question is a business’s survival, it can get through a very difficult time. There is no doubt that last year many businesses and many sectors were in a situation where there were question marks about their very existence, so in those times they must have the opportunity to sit down with their workforce and restructure, where that is the only way forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Farris Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

I think that every Member of this House shares concerns about the practice of fire and rehire, but does the Minister agree that taking a sledgehammer to the delicate ecosystem of redundancy laws contained in the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is fraught with danger and that there are levers that we can deploy instead that would strongly disincentivise such conduct? Will he meet me again to discuss the issue?

[Paul Scully]

I always thank my hon. Friend for her interventions in the matter, because with her experience as an employment barrister she has seen it from both angles. The Government do not currently plan to legislate, but because of its obvious importance we are keeping the matter under review. I recognise the wealth of expertise on employment law and related matters in this House; I have met MPs on both sides of the issue and am glad to continue these conversations with my hon. Friend.

Employment Rights: Government Plans

Laura Farris Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to talk about fire and rehire practices, which have been a source of enormous stress to many of my constituents. The Opposition asked the Government tonight to enact new law without any acknowledgment of what the common law currently says. When the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered the practice of fire and rehire in 1990, it said that

“you simply cannot hold a pistol to somebody’s head and say, ‘henceforth you are to be employed on wholly different terms’”

and remunerated at 50% of your contract. In those circumstances workers have a right to bring a claim for unfair dismissal, which the Court of Appeal later confirmed they have even if they take the new terms so long as they make it clear they are working under protest, and of course the tribunal can always order reinstatement at previous pay. The only way that an employer can get away with fire and rehire is by showing that there was a genuine business reason for their action. Here, I think, there is a vulnerability. We know that, after covid, many businesses will be able to show a fall in profitability as a way of justifying poor employment practice, but the answer, respectfully, is not to enact new laws, but to enhance the powers that already exist, for example, of employment tribunals to test the functionality of the business reason that is advanced.

The other elements in the motion on holiday pay, working time and rest breaks all have their provenance in the Employment Rights Act 1996, which, of course, is Conservative legislation. The Opposition argue that this Government threaten the right to include overtime in the calculation of holiday pay. That was only decided on in 2014 by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. It looked back at the working time regulations 1998 and found that workers should have had overtime in their holiday pay all along and, what is more, they had suffered an unlawful deduction from wages as a result of that. For 12 years of a Labour Government, British workers were short-changed in their holiday pay and that Government did nothing to close that loophole, so forgive me when I say that it is surprising to hear that it is we on this side who are threatening that particular right.

That is my overall concern about this debate. I am concerned that the Opposition are not really interested in confronting the real challenges facing the labour market because they are too busy fighting the battles of yesterday. What do the Opposition say, for example, about automation, which the ONS says threatens 1.5 million jobs in this country over the next few years? We on the Conservative Benches may not have all the answers, but at least we are doing the thinking and asking the right questions—for example, with strategies such as the lifetime skills guarantee to build dexterity and resilience in the labour market. We are coming up with creative, progressive solutions for the issues that lie ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Farris Excerpts

Monday 4th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My right hon. Friend is quite right: we want to focus on getting business back to work; but these lockdown measures were introduced to protect lives. Relaxing the measures too much would, we feel, risk damage to public health, our economy and all the sacrifices we have all made. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education said last week, it is incredibly important that we create environments that are safe in which to work and learn. We will adjust lockdown measures when the scientific advice indicates that it is safe to do so.

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to support businesses during the covid-19 outbreak.

[Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to support businesses during the covid-19 outbreak.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

My Department is supporting businesses through the coronavirus business interruption loan schemes. In addition to those programmes, we are providing grants for small businesses linked to their business rate status, and we are scrapping business rates this year for those in the hospitality, retail and leisure sectors. We have also set up a package of support that will offer £1.25 billion for high-growth firms, and today we are launching a scheme providing bounce-back loans of up to £50,000 to small businesses.

[Laura Farris [V]]

I represent a number of businesses in Newbury that specialise in renewable energy. A secondary effect of the pandemic has been a collapse in demand for fossil fuel. When the economy begins its recovery, what support will my right hon. Friend be able to give to clean energy suppliers, to ensure a greener and more resilient energy infrastructure?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend is quite right. We are absolutely committed to net zero and will continue to support the development of clean energy. The fourth round of allocations for contracts for difference will take place next year, bringing forward new renewable electricity projects and creating further demand for the many businesses across the UK that supply them. The unprecedented package of support for businesses, which was mentioned earlier, will help ensure that businesses in the clean energy sector can contribute to driving economic recovery after this pandemic.