Employment Rights Bill (Eighteenth sitting)

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I have some good news to share. The Clerks reported on Tuesday that we needed to replace two bulbs so that the Hansard reporters could see more clearly. At least one of them has now been replaced. I think they are looking for a second pair of ladders for the second one. It is important to keep abreast of productivity in this place.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I am sure that the whole Committee is grateful for that illuminating update. I will keep my comments brief.

The words that we have talked about at great length—“appearing to the Secretary of State to represent” employees, workers or employers—are a standard form of language that has appeared in industrial relations legislation, and indeed non-industrial relations legislation, since the 1960s at least. Similarly, the wording about an “independent expert” unsurprisingly follows a Whitehall pro forma. Very similar language appears in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, so its inclusion should not be a matter of contention for the Committee.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. As always, I will start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Following the reference to illumination, I hope to shed light on the advantages of a fair work agency.

We have heard a fair amount of criticism from the Opposition Benches about the suggestion that we set up an advisory board. The shadow Minister asked whether a Member of Parliament could apply to be on it. I do not think that it is entirely clear whether they could. I do not know whether the prohibitions on second jobs for MPs have that scenario in mind, but I imagine that it could fall within the prohibition relating to advising on areas of policy. I also hope that all Members are fully engaged in their day-to-day work of representing their constituents and will not feel it necessary to apply. Indeed, we will play a role here in scrutinising the work of the fair work agency. Given the comments of the hon. Member for Bridgwater, he will not be making an application, in any event.

On the point that academics could also be members of a trade union and could therefore fit into more than one category, anyone in a free society is entitled to join a trade union should they wish to do so. We would not want to make it a condition for job applicants to have to state their trade union membership—that is a slightly McCarthyist road to go down—but members of the Low Pay Commission are already required to declare any interests, including membership of trade unions or political parties. There is an opportunity for transparency in that sense.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield says, the pro forma definitions in the Bill are not novel interpretations. They are tried and tested definitions—I would like to say “trusted” as well, but it is clear that the hon. Member for Bridgwater does not trust us to operate them in the way they have operated in the past—of how people are appointed to such bodies. As has been noted, they have worked successfully for the Low Pay Commission for a quarter of a century.

The shadow Minister was accused of over-egging the pudding, but the hon. Member for Bridgwater broke enough eggs in his criticisms to feed us all for the next month. I think he suggested that we did not need an advisory board at all, which suggests that he does not believe it important that the voice of business have input into the work of the fair work agency. He also said that we did not need more reports, which is one of the roles of the advisory board, and yet only a couple of hours ago he voted for a report into the application of the fair work agency. What he was getting at is that if we have to have this, we need to be assured that there is no jiggery-pokery about who will be appointed to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I will focus the majority of my comments on Government new clause 50. As the Minister has outlined, the new clause provides a defence to the offence in clause 103 of providing false information or documents in response to a requirement imposed by the Secretary of State under part 5 of the Bill. The defence would apply if the Secretary of State certified that the conduct in question was necessary in the interests of national security, or for those other reasons that the Minister outlined.

I think we can all categorically understand the defence of the conduct being necessary in the interests of national security—that is uncontroversial. Likewise, when it is for the purposes of preventing or detecting serious crime—that seems relatively uncontroversial. It is slightly more open to interpretation, but is clearly put forward with good will. Indeed, the prevention and detection of serious crime is something that we all wish to see.

On conduct that is

“in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”,

again, on the face of it, that is something we all want to see; we all want the economic wellbeing of our great country to be protected. So, on the face of it, these measures seem sensible. However, that third defence—the economic wellbeing defence—seems incredibly broad and ill-defined. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide a more detailed explanation of what exactly it means, and how the discretion of the Secretary of State would be circumscribed in deciding what matters genuinely relate to the interests of the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom and what do not.

If we put a bunch of lawyers in a room, they could come up with virtually any reason why something could fall within the interests of the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom. I do not think that anybody—including the Minister, from the perspective of ensuring that his Bill works once it is an Act, or indeed of the national interest of the United Kingdom—would want to see such an ill-defined phrase enabling a legal argument that virtually anything relates to the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom. For example, would a fraction-of-a-per-cent drop in growth be defined as relating to the UK’s economic wellbeing? I do not think that the new clause is sufficiently well defined to give the Minister the powers that I think he is looking for within the confines of this proposed legislation, or indeed to give the outside world the confidence that it needs to understand the full scope of what is going on here.

[Laurence Turner]

I understand the point that the shadow Minister is making, but this phrase seems to be well established in the relevant legislation. It appears in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and other legislation that establishes legal parameters around the security services, and appears to have first been used in this House by Douglas Hurd. I do not know whether the Minister will also respond to this, but does the hon. Member accept that these provisions appear to be carrying forward some well-established and understood legal concepts?

[Greg Smith]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a well-established form of wording, and I do not think there is anything between our positions on national security. However, even if it is well entrenched in previous legislation, leaving “economic wellbeing” so ill-defined presents an open goal to those who would wish to abuse that definition. Indeed, if we had proposed such a broad and ill-defined Opposition amendment, I am sure that Government Members would start to use terms such as “wrecking amendment”, and so on, and to talk about opening up the legislation far too widely.

Although we are not opposed to the spirit and the letter of the bulk of new clause 50, it would be helpful, before this legislation goes any further, if the Minister gave a serious, detailed and clear explanation of what he means by the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom, and a guarantee that this will not be used, potentially through misinterpretation, by those in the legal profession such that what the Minister wishes to achieve through this legislation could fall down and be found wanting.