Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Laurence Turner Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

rose—

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

rose—

[Andrew Griffith]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner).

[Laurence Turner]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and I hope he will also give way to my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench. Will he tell the House what possible motive he thinks a Labour Government would have for scrapping the pint?

[Andrew Griffith]

The Labour motive is all too plain to see. This is a Labour party that voted 48 times to reject the will of the British people, led by the Prime Minister, who sought a second referendum to overturn that will. I accept that the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield was not in the House at the time, but he might want to spend some time with his colleagues in the Tea Room and hear precisely what happened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

As has been said, on the face of it this is a short Bill, but when we look beneath the surface, it is even more exciting than the bare title of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill suggests. Most of us go through our days without giving much thought to the measurement of the units that govern our everyday lives—I confess that, until very recently, I was one of them—but so many of our scientific and medical advances have succeeded or failed on the most precise margins, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) so brilliantly set out. It was a real privilege to be in the Chamber to listen to his speech.

In the city of Birmingham, best known throughout much of its history as the workshop of the world, many millions of hours must have been sweated out to meet the finest of measurements and tolerances. I suspect my hon. Friend is capable of accurately estimating just how many hours that would have taken. However, I note in passing that one of just two remaining proof houses, which fell under the scope of the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868 and succeeding Acts—they attracted a lot of attention in the other place—is in Digbeth in the city of Birmingham.

At the start of my hon. Friend’s speech, he raised the question of when exactly the word “metrology” entered common parlance. I do not know what that date was, but I note that when the National Physical Laboratory was created in 1900, it was established with a metrology division. One of the early guiding forces, Mr J. E. Sears, later found a second career as a scales manufacturer, again in the good city of Birmingham. Today, when pharmaceutical manufacturing jobs are starting to return to my constituency, 20 years on from the collapse of MG Rover, I know some of the exacting standards that those manufacturers must meet.

We need only look at the number of Weights and Measures Acts passed by this House down the years to understand the importance of these questions for our role as legislators. I fear that I am about to commit an unwise act by referencing Magna Carta in this place, as that text has been the subject of one or two interesting emails that I suspect a number of hon. Members have also received, but it is telling that it stipulated:

“There is to be a single measure for wine throughout our realm, and a single measure for ale, and a single measure for Corn… And it shall be the same for weights as for measures.”

In the other place, and it is fair to say in this place as well, the arguments over the Bill have come down to a simple point: are delegated powers and statutory instruments the right processes for adapting to a rapidly changing landscape for product safety and international measurement standards? It is worth remembering two things. First, the theory that we could make sufficient updates through primary legislation can be tested against the history of legislation in this place. For example, some of the provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 have been overtaken by events, and it has proved hard in practice to bring forward the necessary changes to that legislation.

Secondly, as has been said, this work was initiated by the last Government, who at the time made the case for delegated powers persuasively. As the 2021 response to the 2019 call for evidence stated:

“Over time, the limited powers we retained in domestic legislation became less effective. Rather than update these, the UK relied on powers in the European Communities Act (ECA) 1972 to introduce new harmonised legislation to deal with product safety and metrology.”

Those powers have now expired. Governments of all colours must deal with

“A complex, forever changing landscape”

and current legislation does

“not allow for many of the changes necessary to keep pace with technological advances and modern hazards.”

A good example of the ever-changing metrological field can be drawn from the 2019 changes to the international system of quantities, which altered in subtle ways the definition of the kilogram, the amp, the kelvin and the mole, with implications across a very wide range of regulations. I think it is sensible to update those definitions swiftly by regulations. We have heard examples of some of the unsafe products that are on sale at the moment. It is worth noting that the Bill is not simply about definitions, but enforcement. Clause 3 will enable some of those stretched resources, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) referred, to go further. I also note that through the Transport Committee I received representations from Brompton Bicycle, a very good British manufacturing success story, which said that UK product safety regulations and enforcement have failed to keep pace with the development of e-bike technology. Unsafe, poor quality e-bike products are entering the hands of UK consumers with sometimes devastating consequences.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Many constituents around the country will appreciate the specific points he makes about the changing product environment, and the way that product design and development is moving very quickly. I have a large number of residents who are concerned about e-bikes being ridden irresponsibly, home-made kits attached to bicycles, and cyclists often speeding on pavements. That is an interesting example of how the Bill could be very effective, so I thank him for his work on that.

[Laurence Turner]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that was one of the areas to which he paid a lot of attention in the transport brief. I am sure that as the Committee continues to look into this area, it will build on that work. As he says, this is an issue that comes up time and again in my constituency. We might not ever be able to get every single one of those vehicles off the road, but we need the powers to bring more of them off our streets where they pose a threat to people’s safety.

To illustrate the seriousness of the challenges the Government face and the need sometimes for very swift progress, we need only to look to the scale of technological advancements in the field of hybrid warfare and the implications of those advancements for dual-use civilian technologies. I note that clause 1(4)(d) draws specific attention to products that can

“cause, or be susceptible to, electromagnetic disturbance.”

In Ukraine, the two adversaries are locked into a cycle of innovation and reaction in drone warfare and electronic countermeasures that are escalating at a blinding speed. Some of those developments have implications for the potential misuse of civilian drones in this country. To suggest that primary legislation is capable of keeping pace with that is not realistic.

Similarly, in respect of intangible products, again an issue on which the House of Lords spent a large amount of welcome scrutiny time, there is a case that primary legislation cannot cover enough eventualities in good time, especially in the age of artificially generated code. I think back to the Volkswagen emissions scandal 10 years ago, when so-called “defeat devices” were intangible in nature.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is making a brilliant speech and he has focused on some of the key issues in ways that not every speech has. He makes a powerful case, but why does he think that those arguments have not persuaded, in three different attempts in three different reports, the cross-party Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which provides expert insight into precisely such proposed legislation?

[Laurence Turner]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, although I do not agree with his characterisation of the speeches we have heard today. I think hon. Members have brought a wide range of perspectives, and that even though there has been some disagreement across the House—and, on occasion, on the same Benches—all Members have made their points sincerely.

I have read the reports the right hon. Gentleman references and the Minister’s evidence. My reading of that report is that the Committee held a very strong view on the principle of skeleton delegated legislation, but the point it made is that the case must be made for the use of such powers. My view is that the case has been made in this instance because of the seriousness of the matters we are discussing.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the conclusions of the fourth report by the expert Committee, which states:

“We remain of the view…that the Government have failed to provide a convincing justification for the inclusion of skeleton clauses in this Bill that give Ministers such wide powers to re-write in regulations the substance of the regulatory regimes for products and metrology.”

He is wrong in his assessment, is he not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

No. With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my point. The Committee has every right to express that view; we also have the right to express our view as legislators in this place as to whether the case has been made. As I say, I think the case has been made that primary legislation is not a sufficient vehicle in this instance. I will just say to the hon. Gentleman that there are numerous precedents under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, for example, for regulating dangerous products; the difference is that primary legislation does not cover all the eventualities for products of the kind we are discussing today.

I will finish by talking about the pint. I note, in passing, that the first legislation to clearly regulate the pint—the Act for the ascertaining the Measures for retailing Ale and Beer of 1698—did not see it as necessary to define the actual quantity; perhaps it was left to royal prerogative to define. The history books do clearly show that the pint is safe, so to speak, in Labour’s hands: in his memoir of his time at head of the No. 10 policy unit, the noble Lord Donoughue details how Harold Wilson intervened to save the pint; and it was a Labour Government in 2008 who secured the metric opt-out that preserved the inch, the troy ounce and, of course, the pint.

I know that hon. and right hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have spent a lot of time chasing away phantoms on this particular issue, and I hope that they feel that was a good use of their time and that we see more of it in this Parliament. For the Government Benches, however, I look forward to following the progress of this important Bill and to voting for it tonight, and perhaps also to raising a pint—or, as clause 5(5) has it, 0.56826125 cubic decimetres—to the Bill’s good health as it completes its remaining stages in this House.

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I do not want to insult this House by suggesting that there was any kind of deal on the table under the previous Government and that anything happened on steel other than a halving of production over the last decade—a halving. Lots of things shut down and closed during that period, not just in the steel industry but in many others. I look at my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) for proof of that.

Whether in steel, in shipbuilding or in the automative sector, the previous Government had neglected to take major decisions or had kicked the can down the road. All we inherited were a series of industrial crises that we are now trying to solve. We delivered a better deal with Port Talbot than had been negotiated under the previous Government. We are still in talks with British Steel and hoping that we can come to a resolution, and not just because of the very many very highly skilled workers in Scunthorpe who we respect, honour and want to make sure stay in their jobs. I have nothing more to say on that front.

On tariffs and the situation with the US, we are in a good position in this country in that the relationship that our Prime Minister has built with President Donald Trump and his team means that we are in active conversations about a potential trade deal. This is a good, positive thing, and we are carrying on having those conversations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been talking regularly with our American counterparts, as Members would expect. We will have cool heads in this space and navigate our way through. We—our officials—are talking daily with British Steel. We are talking with the trade unions and all the players to try to ensure that, in the difficult global landscape that we find ourselves in, we are doing right by the people of Scunthorpe.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my background as an official of the GMB steelworkers union, that union’s support for my constituency party and my membership of GMB and Unite.

The three steelworkers unions—GMB, Unite and Community—have put forward a multi-union plan for Scunthorpe. Will the Minister meet those unions urgently, including with cross-governmental officers, so that we can do everything possible to keep that multi-union plan on the table?

[Sarah Jones]

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the trade unions—GMB, Community and Unite—which we have been working with closely. We have been discussing their plan. As I say, our preference is that British Steel accepts the deal—the incredibly generous offer of public funding—we have given it. We hope we can find a way forward that involves keeping the blast furnaces open, but we are of course looking at every other option, and we certainly have been talking to the trade unions about their suggestions.

Shipyards: Economic Growth

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Richard Baker]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend who, as always, is a doughty campaigner for his constituents. He has also put forward very practical proposals that offer a real way forward to ensure that those vessels are built by Scottish shipyards. We should all be working together to fight for the future of Scotland’s shipyards, so it is a matter of regret, particularly after the announcement yesterday, that we have no Members from the Scottish National party in Westminster Hall for this debate.

The sad news yesterday was in stark contrast to the day of excitement and celebration when the Minister for Industry, who is here today, visited Methil to mark the formal handover of the yard to Navantia UK. Let us hope that in the future we will have joint working and effective collaboration between UK Ministers and Scottish Ministers, and that Scottish Ministers show some ambition for future investment in and contracts for shipyards in Scotland.

Let us be clear that saving the yards is not an act of charity to their workers or the communities they support. The reason it is so important to save these yards is that they have an essential strategic role in promoting economic growth in this country. In 2024, the economic output of our shipyards was £2.7 billion. Between 2019 and 2024, the economic output of the sector increased by 72%, at a time when the overall value of the manufacturing sector declined by 2.4%.

Today, there is so much potential for our shipyards to play an even greater role in growing our economy. The national shipbuilding strategy had already set out plans to deliver a pipeline of more than 150 new naval and civil vessels for the UK Government and the devolved Administrations over the next 30 years. Ports are now one of the five key sectors earmarked for £5.8 billion of investment through the National Wealth Fund. Those plans for investment are all the more important today, as the budget for defence spending increases to enable the UK to fulfil our responsibilities to Ukraine and in other arenas.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.

I thank my hon. Friend for his words about the workers at Arnish and I know that he has played a very important role in advocating for that yard. He talked about the national shipbuilding strategy and defence orders. Historically, all Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary orders were fulfilled by UK shipyards. That changed in 2012 when the MARS tanker order was awarded to Daewoo in South Korea. Subsequently, the 2017 national shipbuilding strategy made it an assumption that all such defence orders would be put out to international tender, bar some exclusions. Does he agree that that has been a source of real uncertainty in a sector that needs long-term planning, and that in future any industrial strategy should provide maximum assurance about the pipeline of orders for our domestic shipbuilding yards?

[Richard Baker]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important and very eloquently argued point. We need to have such security for our shipbuilders and our shipyards, and our procurement strategy must support that agenda. Later, I will say more about how the ambitions about the security of future work at our shipyards that he has just set out can be realised.

It is our shipyards and our shipyard workers who will be crucial in developing our new defence capabilities, including the more than 350 skilled workers from my constituency who work at Babcock in Rosyth, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie). It is not only in defence that our shipyards have a key role to play in economic growth, but in renewables as well. It is right that Labour’s green prosperity plan highlighted the role of ports in growing our renewable sector.

Navantia’s plan for Methil is that it will become the business’s centre of excellence for offshore wind manufacturing in the UK through Navantia Seanergies, its specialist renewable energy division. Navantia has announced plans to modernise both Methil and Arnish, with advanced fabrication and assembly capabilities, aligning with national commitments to secure domestic energy security while meeting our ambitious energy transition targets. I believe it would make great sense to extend the Forth green freeport area to include Methil and, in doing so, provide important incentives for that vital work.

In addition to yards being centres for renewables infrastructure, the transition towards low-emission ships and sustainable materials presents opportunities for innovation and leadership in environmentally friendly maritime technology. Green shipbuilding can be incentivised through Government procurement, and with the current scale of procurement in shipbuilding, there is also a role for the Government to encourage collaboration between naval shipbuilders, rather than running competitive tenders for each project. Most of all, the huge potential for growth in shipbuilding and fabrication in this country can only be achieved by investing in skills.

We have an ageing workforce in our shipyards, but the prospects today for young people joining the industry are bright. That makes it all the more important that we recruit and train young people in the skills our shipyards need. In Methil, there are plans for comprehensive training programmes, including on-site training at Navantia’s Spanish facilities—when I talked to apprentices on a cold day in Methil, they were right behind those plans—which demonstrate Navantia’s commitment to developing a highly skilled local workforce. It is important that the UK Government, devolved Governments and local skill agencies support that vital work.

One of the moments after the Methil yard was saved I found most rewarding was when Neil Cafferky, an apprentice draughtsman at Methil, had the opportunity to tell the Prime Minister what it meant for him that he would be able to continue his apprenticeship at Methil. Neil studied at Fife College and New College Lanarkshire before beginning his apprenticeship at the yard in 2021. That journey of skills and training has been amazing for Neil, because in 2022, Neil was a finalist in the Scottish Renewables young professionals green energy awards.

Neil is not alone in having a bright future at Methil. Of the 200 workers whose jobs at the yard were saved, 51 are apprentices. They are among thousands in the shipyards across our country. Investing in our shipyards means thousands of young people having the prospect of skilled, well-paid jobs throughout their career, with all the benefits that will bring to them, their communities and their country.

The actions taken by Ministers early in this Government show that they understand the importance of our shipyards in growing our economy. If we seize all the fantastic opportunities we have to grow our shipyards and boost the brilliant, highly skilled workforces that they employ, the story of shipyards in this country is not only one of a proud history, but of a vibrant future as well.

Employment Rights Bill

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will in a moment.

Here we have it: a clause of direct financial interest to Labour Members. We have so far had two speakers who have both received very significant sums from the unions, to which they did not directly refer. The first was the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), who has received £20,000 from the unions, according to his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The second is the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), who has received £14,000 directly from the unions. This is germane to this debate.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

As has been said already in this debate, trade union donations have been declared, but donations from employers who have a direct private interest in particular sectors that we have debated in this place have not been declared. If any of the hon. Member’s colleagues have not drawn attention to such an interest, will he encourage them to do so? Does he agree with us on the Labour Benches that they were wrong not to make such a declaration?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. There were two points of order on declarations earlier, and I think I made the situation quite clear. I just wish to let Mr Mayhew know that, if he is referring to Members directly with any form of criticism, he is meant to give them prior warning, so he should be mindful of that for what comes next in his speech.

--- Later in debate ---

Unless the Opposition have since developed a policy to repeal the national minimum wage—let’s face it, under their current leadership anything is possible—I must tell them that progress is coming. I am talking about work that pays, dignity and job security. I invite them to get on board with the upgrade to rights at work, rather than spending the coming decades pretending that they were on board in the first place.

[Laurence Turner]

My hon. Friend will remember that in 2017, when the Conservatives announced the employment Bill that was never produced, they said that it would represent the biggest upgrade of workers’ rights by any Conservative Government ever. Would she care to speculate on why they set their ambitions so low?

[Becky Gittins]

Some comments from Opposition Members today have made it very clear to the public what the Opposition think about people’s rights at work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

In speaking in support of the Bill, I declare that I am a Unison member.

The Bill and the Government amendments to it will deliver real-life improvements for working people across my constituency and across Scotland. Key amendments will strengthen protections for the lowest-paid workers in my constituency, extend protections from exploitative zero-hours contracts, boost the voice of working people in the workplace, strengthen statutory sick pay to 80% from the first day of sickness, extend sick pay to 1.3 million of the lowest earners across the country, and provide greater protection from unfair dismissal, with 9 million people benefiting from day one protection. That is the real change that we promised to deliver for real people—public service workers in West Dunbartonshire, such as frontline staff in the service industry, essential utilities, social care, transport or health.

The days of exploitation are now over. The Labour party is doing what we do best and will always do: protecting working people, promoting decent pay and work, and delivering meaningful change for so many. We are putting power in the hands of working people. The Government’s commitment to growing the economy will be built on rebalancing rights at work and raising living standards in every part of this country; the two are interwoven. The Government’s amendments will ensure just that by boosting the enforcement of rights and giving the new Fair Work Agency the power to bring civil proceedings against non-compliant employers that seek to underpay staff. In 2023, one in five workers was paid less than the minimum wage. That will stop. Almost 1 million workers in this country did not receive holiday pay in 2023. That will stop.

The amendments will level the playing field. They include measures on digital access to employment agreements, allowing independent unions to apply for recognition and stopping the practice of employer lock-out, a 20-working-day window for employers and unions to negotiate access, and a new right for unions to access the workplace, which could be transformative as it gives workers a fair voice to improve their pay and conditions.

It is time to turn the page on the combative and unproductive approach adopted by the previous Government, and it is time to modernise the industrial relations framework. The Bill and the amendments support a much-needed reset of industrial relations across Great Britain. This Government have a clear mandate to deliver real change that working people in my constituency of West Dunbartonshire can see and feel. That change cannot come soon enough. The Employment Rights Bill is the crucial first step on that path. It is the biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation, and I am proud to vote for it and support it today.

[Laurence Turner]

I am grateful to be called twice on Report, and as is customary, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of Unite. I am also the chair of the GMB parliamentary group.

I start with comments that I had not planned to make at the beginning of this debate. Much has been heard about registers of interests. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who is in his place, said at the end of the Bill’s Committee, Labour Members have been assiduous in drawing attention to their membership of trade unions and their declarations in registers of interests, but I believe that the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) was the first Conservative Member to draw attention to his own donations without being challenged first. Much of the tone of this debate has focused not on the substance of the Bill, but on ascribed motivations, which I believe has been demeaning to the standards and courtesies expected in this House.

There is much to welcome in the Government amendment. I wish to concentrate my remarks on new clause 40 and new schedule 2. On political fund ballots, the 10-year requirement dates to the Trade Union Act 1984. The requirement does not apply to any political funds that may be maintained by employers’ associations; nor does a successful ballot in any way infringe on a trade union member’s right to withdraw payments from the political fund at any time, so I think we can be confident about that policy’s intention: it was to tie up trade union time and resources, and in that respect it was successful. These ballots are a massive abstraction of resources, which gets in the way of trade unions’ and trade union members’ core business of representing people at work. In 40 years, not one union member has voted to discontinue a political fund.

Trade unions are democratic organisations. If there is discontent in a union over political fund expenditure, any member is entitled to inspect the accounts, and that expenditure can be stopped in whole or in part through existing democratic structures. There is, I think, a contradiction when this House, a representative democratic institution, may seek to instruct other organisations to make decisions by referendum.

To those who have suggested that trade union political expenditure is somehow illegitimate, I would just like to remind Members that trade union political fund expenditure is not synonymous with party political donations. In fact, many important campaigns that have won cross-party support in this place were made possible only because of trade union political fund expenditure. I draw Members’ attention to one such campaign, which I was proud to be associated with. The Protect the Protectors campaign started with the campaigning work of GMB and Unison members in the ambulance service and resulted in the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. If the measures that have been put forward at different stages in this process were successful in restricting that political fund activity, it would be harder to deliver that legislative change in this place on behalf of working people.

Much has been said in the debate and I do not wish to duplicate it, but I wish to say a few words about the situation at Amazon in Coventry. Much trade union work in the private sector in recent years has been focused on the warehousing and logistics sector, where a focus of trade union activity has been the increasingly intensive workloads, workers’ employment being terminated on the basis of unclear and unaccountable target setting, and high rates of musculoskeletal injuries, which have contributed to a high rate of people being out of work in the wider economy. When the GMB, in response to approaches from its members, initially contacted Amazon to seek voluntary recognition at that site in December 2022, the company reported that there were 1,400 people working at the site. The company refused to engage meaningfully with the union or attend talks at ACAS to resolve the situation. As has been said, in the space of just a few months, the number of people at the site was increased dramatically by 93%. Some of them were temporary workers transferred from other sites. It has been reported that others were new workers on student visas who were worried about the potential implications for their studying and immigration status if union recognition was voted for. As a consequence of that increase, the union could still meet the 10% membership threshold, but could not meet the requirement of 40% of the bargaining group being likely to support recognition.

“Chapter 4A

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Lady almost makes the point for me. Earlier, I made the very point that we introduced that right. It was working well, yet the RPC says that the provisions in the Bill will do nothing for it and are not fit for purpose—I thank her for her intervention.

New clause 84 calls for consideration of

“the likelihood of the costs of flexible working measures being passed on to employees through lower wages”,

and of the likely effect that the right to request flexible working will have on productivity, wage growth, equality of opportunity, job security, economic activity and employment. Equally, it requires that a report setting out that those findings

“must be laid before each House of Parliament no sooner than 18 weeks after the consultation has been initiated.”

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman has just said that there may be areas where we could go further on flexible working. Can he explain why the previous Government’s flexible working taskforce met just once last year, and just once the year before? As with the long-awaited employment Bill that never materialised, is it the case that this Government are bringing forward real measures because the previous Government vacated that territory?

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman, with whom we debated these matters at length in Committee, clearly has not listened to what I said. I detailed how we did legislate in this area, yet this Government are bringing forward a Bill that the RPC, in this respect, has given a red rating and said is not fit for purpose. I gently urge him to look again at this issue, and at where we can agree on areas that could go further or be different from measures set out in either existing or proposed legislation. We must understand the impact that measures in the Bill will have on the real economy.

Amendment 284 would ensure that clause 7 could not come into force until Parliament had approved that report. To put it simply, the genesis of the amendment is that the Government have not done their homework, and they have no idea what they are doing or why. We know that these provisions will damage business, which in turn will hurt workers, and we want Labour Members to acknowledge that it will be ordinary people who pay the price.

Let me turn to new clause 85 and amendments 285, 288 and 289. Clause 18, which makes employers liable for harassment of their employees by third parties, is another example of the Government putting more regulation on business without knowing the problem they are trying to solve. The independent Regulatory Policy Committee has said that the Government have not managed sufficiently to demonstrate the need for the third-party harassment provisions in the Bill, and has once again rated this impact assessment as red.

It should go without saying that Conservative Members do not condone any form of harassment in the workplace. When we were in government, we legislated to put a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to anticipate and prevent sexual harassment, a horrible, evil crime that is covered by other legislation to protect everybody in the country. I double underline that we are not condoning sexual harassment—indeed, we legislated clearly to clamp down on that evil and heinous crime. However, I would be interested in any evidence the Minister has for the prevalence of third-party harassment in the workplace, and of how clause 18 might solve that, because the Government have not produced that evidence so far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I will get back to James Murray, the legal director of Doyle Clayton, who has pointed out that this clause could well cause difficulties for universities in offering those platforms to discuss issues where people have differing views. He said:

“If we think about a speaker that has been invited—say it’s a controversial gender critical speaker, like Julie Bindel or Kathleen Stock—someone might somewhat disingenuously say”

that they are an employee of the university and that they find what they say to be deeply harassing. He also said:

“The concern is that this will shift the balance away from free speech and universities will be more risk averse as they won’t want to be held liable for third-party harassment.”

Why do the Government want to run that risk?

There is then the burden on businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector.

[Laurence Turner]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman has had a go; he may come back later.

Kate Nicholls, the chief executive of UKHospitality, said that staff in restaurants, bars, pubs and hotels work in a “social environment” where

“there are jokes and people are boisterous”.

She said that while everyone wants to ensure that their staff are protected,

“we don’t want to be policing our customers”,

and she is concerned that this clause could add “undue restrictions”. If someone works in a pub or a comedy club, for example, there is a high risk that they might hear comments that they do not like, but it is wrong to restrict free speech just because somebody does not like something. The unintended consequence of this provision is likely to be a chilling effect on free speech and unclear responsibilities for employers about where they need to draw the line.

[Wera Hobhouse]

rose—

[Laurence Turner]

rose—

[Greg Smith]

I will make some progress. I have been on my feet for a long time, and I know that a lot of people wish to speak in this debate.

In other words, this clause could well function as a banter ban at best, and as a restriction on academic debate and inquiry. Due to our concern about how this clause will operate, especially in the higher education and hospitality sectors, we have tabled amendment 289, which would carve out the hospitality sector and sports venues from clause 18. We believe those are the sectors where the potential for unintended consequences from this clause will be the greatest.

It is because we believe that clause 18 will create problems, rather than solve them, that we have tabled new clause 85, which would require the Secretary of State to report on the clause. The report must include the extent to which the prevalence of third-party harassment makes the case for the measures in clause 18, including an assessment of the impact of the clause on free speech, an assessment of the likely costs of the clause to employers, an assessment of which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment through no fault of the employer, and proposals for mitigations that can be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations. We will require the Secretary of State to lay a report setting those out before each House of Parliament, and amendment 285 would prevent clause 18 from coming into force until that report is approved by Parliament.

The Government need to go away and think again, and that is what our amendments are designed to achieve. If the Government are not willing to do so, we have also tabled amendment 288, which would leave the clause out of the Bill entirely, so great is our concern about the unintended consequences it could have.

Employment Rights Bill

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

This change means that the law will finally catch up with society’s views on pregnancy loss. It is a giant leap forward in the recognition that miscarrying is a bereavement, not an illness, and workers will legally have the right to grieve.

[Laurence Turner]

It is a particular pleasure to follow a former colleague of mine, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). What she has said will have a special resonance with the many people who are following this debate in this Chamber and beyond. She has done a valuable public service, and we thank her for it.

As is customary, I draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.

Because time is limited, I will restrict my comments to Opposition amendment 290 on the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. This amendment seeks to disapply the SSSNB’s statutory remit from both academies and local authority maintained schools, which makes it substantially different from and more damaging than the similar amendment brought forward in Committee. If it was carried, it would reduce protection for many school support staff workers in employment.

The vast majority of school support staff are already covered by collective bargaining, almost 80% directly and the rest indirectly. However, the existing agreement, through the National Joint Council, does not serve support staff or employers well. Last year, teaching assistants were paid just £17,400 on average, and 90% of those workers are women. I have spoken to some who have relied on food banks and payday loans to make ends meet. There are 1,800 school support staff workers in my constituency of Birmingham Northfield, and they deserve better. Most schools struggle to recruit for those roles, according to research by the National Foundation for Educational Research, and at one point during the pandemic the role of teaching assistants was the second hardest to recruit for after that of HGV drivers.

This is not just about pay. As the Harpur v. Brazel case showed, substantial liabilities also exist for employers because of unclear and outdated terms and conditions. As the Confederation of School Trusts, representing academy employers, has said, the time has come to move school support staff out from under the local government negotiating umbrella. Indeed, the request from school employers was for the Bill to establish a floor, not a ceiling.

That point was addressed in Committee, so we might ask why this amendment has been brought forward. It is in contradiction to the amendment that the Opposition tabled in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee. After all, it was the Conservatives who put the School Teachers Review Body on a statutory footing back in the early 1990s, so why will they not support the same step for school support staff? Similarly, they are not seeking to amend the Bill in respect of the adult social care negotiating body, despite the similarities between the two occupations.

I fear that the answer is that school support staff—the majority of people who work in schools—are suffering from the soft prejudice of unequal knowledge and interests that divide the workforce into professionals and ancillaries. This outdated attitude should be confined to the dustbin of history, where it belongs. It was rejected in this place almost 20 years ago, when the process that led to the SSSNB began. This is not a measure whose time has come; it is long overdue.

I wish to say a little about the importance of the measure for special educational needs and disabilities. Classroom-based support staff spend the majority of their time supporting SEND learners. They are essential to schools’ models of inclusion.

[Chris Vince]

My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech and referring to a really important group of people. As a former teacher—I mention it quite often— I recognise the huge importance of what school support staff provide to the classroom. Does he agree that they support not just learners but teachers too, and have a wider influence on the school community?

[Laurence Turner]

I agree. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. When we look back at the national agreement in the early 2000s which led to the expansion of school support staff roles, the justification was that they would alleviate pressure on teachers and add to the quality of teaching in classrooms. That is exactly what school support staff workers in my constituency and his do every day.

School support staff roles are essential for SEND support, but the contracts those staff are employed under are so squeezed that no paid time is available for professional development or training. In other words, we cannot resolve the SEND crisis without contract reform, and we cannot achieve that contract reform if the drift and delay, which is the legacy of the 2010 decision to abolish the SSSNB, continues. I urge the Opposition, even now, to think again and not press their amendment to a vote.

In the time remaining, I wish to say a few words about the provisions on hospitality workers and their right not to be subject to third-party harassment. When the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who was formerly in her place, brought forward her private Member’s Bill in the last Parliament, it contained the same provisions that are being advanced now. At the start of the debates in the House of Lords, the extension of the protection to “all reasonable steps” was supported by the Government of the day. Baroness Scott, leading for the Conservative party, said that the measures would not infringe on freedom of speech; in fact, they would strengthen it. The Conservative Front Benchers were right then and they are wrong today.

The Bill is incredibly important. Employment law in the United Kingdom has tended to advance by increments; the Bill measures progress in strides. I am proud to have had some association with it through the Public Bill Committee. I thank the departmental team who were part of the process and the other members of the Committee. I will be proud to vote in favour of the extensions to rights in the Bill when they are brought forward to a vote tonight.

[Andy McDonald]

As a proud trade unionist, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Today marks a truly historic moment: the most significant expansion of employment rights in more than a generation. I extend my congratulations to the Secretary of State and the Deputy Prime Minister for their efforts, and express my enormous gratitude to the employment rights Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), for his time and engagement with me over recent months in discussing the measures in the Bill. I also wish to acknowledge the dedication of Bill Committee members, as well as the countless trade union officers, academics, Labour party members and staffers who have worked tirelessly for decades to bring us to this day. This is a milestone we have long strived for. On a personal note, I extend my sincere thanks to the Prime Minister for entrusting me, while in opposition, with the responsibility of delivering Labour’s Green Paper, “A New Deal for Working People”.

I speak in support of the Government’s amendments and will touch on my own tabled amendments selected for discussion. Specifically, I support Government new clause 32 and Government new schedule 1, which will extend guaranteed hours protections to nearly 1 million agency workers. This is a crucial step, aligning with my own amendment 264, and I am pleased to see the Government taking it forward. The TUC has rightly emphasised that for these rights to be effective, they must apply to all workers. Including agency workers is essential to prevent unscrupulous employers from circumventing new protections by shifting to agency staff. Exploitative tactics employed by a minority of employers, designed to avoid responsibilities and deny workers job security, remain a deep concern, which is precisely why I have consistently advocated for a single employment status.

I tabled new clause 61 because I believe that establishing a single status of worker is a necessary step to ending unfair employment practices. The Government’s “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document, published alongside the Bill, states their intent to consult on moving towards a single worker status. On Second Reading, I noted that we cannot truly eradicate insecure work until we establish a clear and unified employment status. Since then, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, Margaret Beels, has told the Business and Trade Committee that

“the whole business of employment status needs to be addressed”,

adding that

“you can probably consult until the cows come home on this issue…it is about time to do something about it”.

The TUC also urged a rapid review of employment status to prevent tactics such as bogus self-employment from proliferating as employers respond to new rights.

I welcome the Business and Trade Committee’s recommendation that the Government must prioritise their review of employment status and address false self-employment

“so that these reforms are rolled out alongside…the Employment Rights Bill.”

I acknowledge the new clause tabled by the Chair of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), which seeks to establish a deadline for this consultation. I urge the Government to accelerate progress on this front, but take reassurance from the fact that this issue is well understood at the highest levels.

I turn to collective redundancy and the unacceptable practice of fire and rehire. ACAS reported in 2021 that the use of fire and rehire tactics by employers was prevalent in the UK and had increased since the pandemic. Nearly a fifth of young people say their employer has tried to rehire them on inferior terms. Many will recall how P&O shamelessly broke the law, choosing to pay compensation rather than comply with its legal obligations because it calculated that replacing its workforce with cheaper labour would ultimately be more profitable.

I welcome the Government’s consultation on collective redundancy and their introduction of new clause 34, which doubles the maximum protective award for unfairly dismissed workers to 180 days’ pay. However, while this may deter some employers, I question whether it is a sufficient deterrent to prevent further abuses. The TUC has raised concerns that merely doubling the cap will still allow well-resourced employers to treat breaching their legal obligations as the cost of doing business. The TUC instead proposes a stronger deterrent: the introduction of interim injunctions to block fire and rehire attempts—an approach I have sought through new clause 62.

Mick Lynch, the outgoing general secretary of the RMT, told the Bill Committee that unions should have the power to seek injunctions against employers like P&O. He rightly pointed out:

“The power is all with the employers,”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 59, Q57]

and that unions currently lack the legal means to stop mass dismissals before they happen. My new clause offers a solution, giving employees immediate redress through an injunction if they can show that their dismissal is likely to be in breach of the new law, ensuring that they remain employed with full pay until a final ruling is made. I encourage the Minister to address this issue in his response and to indicate an openness to considering injunctive powers in this Parliament.

Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Justin Madders]

I wish to thank you, Sir Christopher, and the other Chairs who have presided over this lengthy Bill Committee. I also thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers and Hansard reporters. I thank all members of the Committee who have participated in what has been a healthy and engaging debate. No doubt there will be more discussions and debates to come as the Bill progresses. I also thank the officials Cal Stewart, Jack Masterman and Shelley Torey.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Christopher. All good things must come to an end, and sadly that includes this Committee. I echo the thanks given by the Minister to the workers—to everyone who has supported the Committee—and I thank our Front Benchers, who have done a sterling job and from time to time gently and appropriately warded us off our individual enthusiasms. Perhaps that was just me.

Work on what became this Bill began a long time ago. It is hard to believe that almost five years have passed since my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles and I first became involved in the discussions. To name contributors is to commit the sin of omission. That is the case too for the staff of the Labour party, due to the party’s professional code of modesty, but I would like to place a few names on the record. They include my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Kate Dearden) and for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), who previously ably represented the Community and Unison unions respectively, including through the Labour party’s national policy forum. That was in itself an exhaustive process. I just say to hon. Members that if they liked this Committee, they would have loved the NPF. I am sorry to disappoint Opposition Members, but there was no smoke in those rooms, and no beer. There were occasionally sandwiches.

I would be in error if I did not personally thank Jaden Wilkins in my office and the staff of the TUC for their consistently excellent research publications. I also thank some of the GMB figures who made critical contributions during that time, including the national political officers during that period—Tom Warnett, Caitlin Prowle and Gavin Sibthorpe, who put in more hours than anyone—the national legal officer, Barry Smith, and the staff of the research and policy department, Anna Barnes, Ross Holden and Cassie Farmer. Finally, I would like to mention the staff of the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation: Robbie Scott, Kieran Maxwell and Helen Pearce—the best political organiser in the labour movement, who herded cats and moved mountains.

[Greg Smith]

I echo the thanks that the Minister gave, particularly to the Clerks of the Committee, the wider Scrutiny Unit and everyone else who has worked so hard. These Bills are an enormous amount of hard work for the staff of the House, particularly the Clerks, and it is always appreciated by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Likewise, from the Doorkeepers and Hansard to everyone who prepares the room for us, it is an enormous job of work, and we thank them most sincerely. The Bill will shortly move on to Report, when the battle will recommence. In the meantime, Sir Christopher, I thank you and the other Chairs of the Committee for your chairmanship. We look forward to the next round.

Employment Rights Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

It is clear that there is support for the fair work agency across industry. I warmly welcome it. However, while rights for workers are incredibly important, rights are nothing without enforcement. Enforcement is incredibly important, but enforcement does not work without resources. That is to acknowledge that in setting up the fair work agency, which has broad support, we must ensure that it has adequate resources to do its job well and fulfil its function.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. As is customary, I draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles. I will make two brief complementary points.

First, the establishment of a single enforcement body was one of the core recommendations of the Taylor review. We were told over the last two Parliaments that an employment Bill was coming. Now that it is here, it is welcome that that recommendation is being acted on.

Secondly, in the Australian system of industrial relations, the Fair Work Commission is a long-standing and effective enforcement body that has survived multiple changes of governing party, so there are good international comparators to draw on, as well as the support we heard in the evidence sessions. The resourcing questions that have been raised are valid, and I am sure that those of us who come at this from a trade union background and point of view also take a close interest in the resourcing of the fair work agency. I make those two additional points in support of this measure.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I want to add my support in principle for the idea of a single labour market regulator. I have written about that in the past in different ways and can claim a small amount of credit for the commissioning of the Taylor review into the gig economy when I was working in 10 Downing Street. These issues are very important to me. Hopefully that will reassure the Minister and Labour Members of my cross-party credentials when that might be necessary.

We can all think of ways in which different kinds of labour market exploitation—non-payment of the national minimum wage or living wage; breaches of terms and conditions, health and safety or holiday rights; and illegal working, among many other examples—can be difficult to address if the laws are tough but the enforcement is poor. Those on both sides of the Committee can agree on that.

I want to add to the questions that have already been raised. I think the Minister said that the idea is that no additional powers will be granted and that this is just a consolidation. My understanding is that the fair work agency will not be a single monolithic agency; it is more about different strands of work being brought under a single leadership. If that is the case, presumably the different agencies that exist will do so until this legal change comes into effect. Presumably, the powers of the officers in each of those agencies differ in certain ways. Will that remain the case under the one body, or will there be interoperability and transfer of officers within the different sections under the single regulator? Or is the idea that the officers across those different entities will all assume the maximum powers that exist at the moment so that they can operate across all the different responsibilities of the new agency? I think that would still mean a net increase in powers across those people. What work has been done in the Department to give us an idea of the numbers we are talking about? If the Minister could answer that and then write to us with some more detail and statistics, I would be grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I hear what the Minister says about slowing things down, but it would be remiss of me not to comment that if the Government had perhaps taken their time a bit on the drafting of the Bill, we would not be spending so much time in this Committee considering the absolute deluge of Government amendments that tidy things up that should have been right in the first place. Sometimes it is best not to rush things. Sometimes it is better not to dive in head first and just go for the first thing available, but to be cautious, to review and to fully understand all the implications that new legislation such as this will have in the real world.

That is what new clause 23, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, seeks to double-check. It seeks to ensure that the Government are getting this right—not in our interests or those of anyone in the House of Commons, but in the interests of businesses and workers in the real world, trying to get on with their daily lives, get their jobs done and get their businesses growing and providing the growth and prosperity that we all want to see in the country.

As I have said previously, we do not have a problem in principle with the establishment of a new body to oversee the enforcement of labour market legislation. I have made that clear, and hon. Friends who have spoken have made it crystal clear. But we also made a challenge in the previous debate, and that is what new clause 23 is all about. It is about ensuring that we fully understand the scope, cost and effectiveness of this new body.

Any new body, be it a Government body or in the private sector—although the creation of new bodies in the public sector tends to be slower and often cost more than the private sector would manage—will take time and resources, and we would like to be reassured that this is a good use of time and resources. I repeat that our instinct is that it probably is. Our instinct is that it does seem to make sense, but we can never rely on instinct or on that which might look good on paper as the absolute cast-iron test. It is about the real evidence.

[Laurence Turner]

We heard from the hon. Gentleman earlier in the main Chamber about sustainable aviation fuel; I wonder whether he might share with us the shadow ministerial equivalent that he seems to have discovered, because we are covering a huge amount of ground. I just say this to him. We did have the Taylor review, which looked at these matters, including the functioning of the individual enforcement agencies, so I am just wondering: does he think that something has changed, in terms of their effectiveness, since then? We have already had an assessment of the nature that he is calling for.

[The Chair]

I think we will focus on the latter part of Mr Turner’s remarks.

Employment Rights Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I, too, wish you a very happy new year.

I will start with amendments 114 and 115, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends on the Committee. The amendments would prevent facility time from being provided for equality representatives unless—this is the important bit—the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory performance targets.

In workplaces in which a trade union is recognised, trade union workplace representatives have a right to paid time off for the purpose of carrying out their trade union duties or to take part in union training. That right currently applies to workplace representatives, health and safety representatives, union learning representatives, and information and consultation representatives. The Bill will extend that right to equality representatives, who will now be allowed paid time off to carry out

“activities for the purpose of promoting the value of equality in the workplace”;

to arrange

“learning or training on matters relating to equality in the workplace”;

to provide

“information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace”;

to consult

“the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace”;

and to obtain and analyse

“information relating to equality in the workplace.”

I make no criticism or comment about the value of those activities, but what I would say is that they are straightforwardly set out in the law already, and employers already have a duty to consider them. Creating a duty to allow more facility time for this purpose seems to be at cross-purposes with what employers are already, rightly, under an obligation to consider.

The amendments are an attempt to ensure that the taxpayer gets something out of this latest concession from the Labour Government to the trade unions. We would like to make sure that equalities representatives working for public sector employers are entitled to facility time only if that employer is meeting any statutory targets that it has. We suggest that if the employer is not meeting those targets, that is more important to taxpayers than facility time.

New clause 18 and amendment 113 also stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends on the Committee. As the Minister says, new clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to undertake a sectoral cost assessment of trade union facility time. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the cost, and prospective cost, by sector of that facility time. Amendment 113 would provide that clause 51, which will introduce facility time for trade union equalities representatives, could not come into force until after the completion of the review referred to in new clause 18.

That is an eminently sensible step. I cannot see how anyone could object to a cost analysis and assessment being done before provisions come into effect. People need to know what they are dealing with and how much it will cost them, whether that is in the public sector or the private sector, a Government Department or a Government quango, a council, an NHS trust or a private business. It is not reasonable for these things to be asked for without a true assessment and understanding of the cost.

The Opposition are concerned about the increased impetus that the Bill places behind facility time and about extending it to equalities representatives. We would therefore like to make sure that the Government have done their homework and understood the cost to business of these changes before they implement them.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of GMB and Unite.

The shadow Minister has set out a number of new restrictions that he is seeking to impose, but in 2014 he brought a motion to Hammersmith and Fulham council that said:

“Council staff will not be paid for any time they spend on trade union activity.”

Is that still what he believes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

This is another bumper grouping for us to debate. As the Minister said, new clause 32 would require the Secretary of State to consider whether sufficient measures are in place to prevent workplace intimidation before making any order to allow balloting to take place by any means other than a postal ballot. The Bill liberalises the law on balloting and industrial action, and I am normally very much in favour of deregulation and liberalisation, but on this occasion, there are considerable concerns, which is why the Opposition tabled this new clause.

The Bill lowers turnout and support thresholds and allows electronic balloting on industrial action. It is important that there are protections in place for workers in that. We want to make sure that, before allowing electronic balloting for industrial action, the Secretary of State is reassured that unions have sufficient measures in place to prevent workplace intimidation.

If balloting can take place electronically, it can take place in workplaces, where it is much easier for pressure to be put to bear on union members in terms of casting their ballot—that hand on the shoulder, that peering over to see what someone is doing, or the potential requirement from those up to no good to demand proof of the way that someone has cast their ballot, be that on their mobile phone, iPad, tablet, laptop or computer, or whatever it might be. These are practices that I am sure every Member of this House would condemn and say are totally unacceptable and inappropriate, but that I can see happening without robust measures in place to prevent them.

We want the Secretary of State to be able to reassure the House that sufficient protections are in place to ensure that ballots are free fr.om intimidation and coercion before they are allowed to take place electronically. I listened carefully to the Minister’s appeal to the Opposition not to move our new clauses, but I am yet to hear a compelling and reasoned argument why the Government cannot support new clause 32. Surely, we all wish to ensure that intimidation and coercion have no place in any part of our society, least of all in the workplace. I do not understand why the Government are so reticent to take what I would argue is a very moderate and reasonable step to strengthen the Bill and tackle intimidation and coercion.

New clause 33 would prevent voting in trade union ballots and elections from being done in the workplace. Many of the arguments I made on new clause 32 very much apply here; in a similar spirit, we have tabled new clause 33 to create a little more balance and protection in the Bill. It is important that all those exercising their right to vote on industrial action can do so free from pressure from colleagues or trade union members, and that is why the new clause would stipulate that voting in trade union ballots and elections should not happen in the workplace. We also do not believe that workers should spend time when they are being paid to do their jobs voting on trade union matters. Such voting should be done in members’ personal time outside the workplace, and employers should be protected from having to pay for it.

Before I move on to new clause 43, I want to emphasise that while that last point is important, it is a matter of principle that in this country, we believe in the secret ballot. If there was any suggestion that any of our elections, whether elections to this House, council elections or police and crime commissioner elections, could take place on someone’s phone in front of other people without the protections we all enjoy at the ballot box, there would be outcry—there would rightly be outrage. When it comes to something as significant as voting for or against industrial action in a trade union ballot, it is absolutely the same principle: the integrity of the secret ballot should be upheld, in the same way that we would expect in any other walk of life.

Indeed, we have protections in the 1922 Committee in this House. We have the occasional leadership election, and mobile phones are not permitted into the room in which we vote, to stamp out the very possibility of people looking over others’ shoulders and the secret ballot being compromised. I am not sure what the parliamentary Labour party does. The secret ballot is an important principle enshrined in our democracy that should apply equally to trade union ballots. This moderate, measured request to ensure that those ballots do not take place in the workplace is an important step to protect the secrecy of the ballot.

[Laurence Turner]

The shadow Minister talks about the 1922 Committee, which I think my predecessor as representative of Birmingham Northfield knows more about than me. A few years back, the Conservative party membership effectively elected the Prime Minister through an electronic ballot. That is a comment on the process and not the merits of the outcome. Why do the shadow Minister’s arguments against electronic balloting in industrial matters not apply to that situation too?

[Greg Smith]

I think we were still on paper ballot papers, for the large part, the last time there was a change of leader of the Conservative party while we were in government. The election of the current Leader of the Opposition did happen by electronic ballot, but that is not the point of new clause 33. It does not seek to prevent electronic balloting; it seeks to prevent it from taking place in the workplace—the very place where trade union organisers, or other colleagues or employees, could put pressure on those who have a vote. They might bully their way into seeing how someone has voted, or put pressure, either nakedly or slightly less visibly, on someone to vote in what they might consider to be the right way or otherwise. If ballots could only take place outside the workplace, while not a perfect solution, it would take away the pressure that might be brought to bear in the workplace on the way individuals vote. That could—I emphasise “could”—lead someone to vote in a way that they do not want to, for fear of the way that their vote might be perceived by others in the workplace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

rose—

[Greg Smith]

I will come up with another example when the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield is finished.

[Laurence Turner]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way; he has been characteristically generous in the number of interventions that he has taken. Can he name a single country that applies a limit of 21 days or more? Was it his intent to propose a limit higher than that which the International Labour Organisation Committee on Freedom of Association has found is consistent with freedom of association?

[Greg Smith]

My straightforward and simple reply is that I want to get this right in the United Kingdom’s interest. No, I cannot name another country that has 21 days’ notice, but that does not mean we should not do it ourselves. It would give all our constituents a fighting chance to find a way through the challenges that they face when there are train strikes, doctors’ strikes and industrial action in our schools. It would help them to find alternative provision to ensure that their children are looked after, so that they themselves can still go to work and meet their commitments. It would ensure that life can still go on around strikes, particularly in critical services such as healthcare and education, which I am sure no Member of the House wants their constituents to be denied; I certainly do not. I could easily propose a period longer than 21 days, but I have not done so in the interests of trying to reach a compromise and appealing to the Minister’s better instincts. I want to get on the table something that we can work with and that gives all our constituents a fighting chance.

--- Later in debate ---

If any Government Member wishes to defend the practices I have just talked about or the position that I quoted from Unite the union, I would certainly be all ears. I would like to guess that all Members of this House would condemn that approach and would want to ensure it is fully stamped out, if not more firmly than that, from all workplaces. It is not in any way, shape or form the practice of good faith negotiation. The Opposition might have issues with widescale industrial action, such as the examples I gave earlier about the railways, hospitals or schools, but industrial action that has been properly balloted for and understood is something that the general public, although they are frustrated by it, can understand. The practice of leverage is clearly something wholly different and wholly unacceptable, and it does not deserve the protection that the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act gives it.

[Laurence Turner]

Even if I accepted the hon. Gentleman’s perspective, which I do not, does he accept that there are some issues with the amendment as drafted? For example, subsection (1)(b)(i) is about protests organised by trade unions in furtherance of a dispute at the premises of a company. I have been part of protests at the premises of a company that were not on land owned by the company but were immediately adjacent, on the public highway. If that were tested in court, that could conceivably fall under the definition of “at”.

Similarly, the amendment seeks to carve out an exemption to the protection of protests at the private residences of senior managers. Conceivably, protests could be organised outside the home of a middle manager or someone lower down the organisational structure. I am sure that is not what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve.

[Greg Smith]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s constructive approach. If he accepts the principle of what we are saying, we will work with the Government to polish it, and to ensure the amendment gives the maximum protection and protects junior managers as well as senior managers, and land adjacent to a premise that may not be owned or leased by the company. I will happily work with him and the Minister in a constructive tone to ensure the protections against leverage are as strong as possible. I will happily withdraw the amendment if the Minister commits the Government to working with us and coming up with a stronger amendment on Report that will stamp out the practices I have outlined. I dare say that we will see in a few moments whether he does so.

[Justin Madders]

I think it would be helpful if I set out why we are seeking to address the issue of detriment within the Bill. The reason is that new section 236A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is required because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in April 2024 that section 146 of the 1992 Act is incompatible with article 11 of the European convention on human rights, because it fails to provide any protection against detriments intended to deter or penalise trade union members from taking part in lawful strike action organised by their union. Hopefully, Members will accept as a starting proposition that we cannot continue to be in breach of our international obligations under the ECHR.

The intention is to rectify that situation by inserting new section 236A into part V of the 1992 Act. This will provide that a worker has the right not to be subject as an individual to detriment of a prescribed description by an act, or any deliberate failure to act, by their employer, if the act or failure to act takes place for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from taking protected industrial action, or penalising the worker for doing so. The prescribed detriments will be set out in secondary legislation following consultation, which will take place after the Bill gains Royal Assent.

The shadow Minister made some interesting points in his speech. However, his amendment seeks to prejudge the consultation on this issue. He made some valid points and I am sure that we will discuss this issue again in future, because there is a need for us to clarify what is considered a detriment, for the reasons that I have outlined.

Some of the examples that the shadow Minister gave are of things that are already catered for in the law. The protection from prescribed detriment only applies where the sole or main purpose of an act or a failure to act is to subject the worker to detriment, to prevent them from or penalise them for taking protective industrial action. For example, if a worker is subjected to detriment solely because, for example, they have damaged property, the protection would not apply. That is the existing position.

Of course the criminal law would still apply to pickets, just as it applies to everyone else, so no person involved in activities associated with pickets or organising pickets has any exemption from the provisions of the criminal law as it applies, for example, to prevent obstruction and preserve public order, or to regulate assemblies or demonstrations. There is already a relevant code of practice in place for that. Consequently, although I understand the points that the shadow Minister is making, I say to him that this issue will be dealt with in detail in a forthcoming consultation. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Laurence Turner]

The Minister raised the Fiona Mercer case, which was brought by Unison. As he said, the final judgment in that case found that new protections are needed to prevent the victimisation of workers who undertake lawful industrial action. Can he confirm that, as a result of the changes that we are making here today, the UK should now be compliant with international law?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is correct. That is indeed the purpose of the—well, we will get to the clause stand part debate shortly, when we will hopefully deal with that issue. However, this measure is about dealing with a particular ECHR judgment. Therefore, as I say, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.

Employment Rights Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

As the Minister says, the amendment ensures that the right of unions to access workplaces does not extend to dwellings. Of course the Opposition welcome that the Government have acknowledged that trade unions should not be able to access private dwellings. The fact that the Bill was introduced in such a manner that would have permitted trade unions to do so begs a number of worrying questions about the speed with which the Bill was drafted. The fact that we are debating whether a trade union should have access to someone’s private dwelling is deeply regrettable. I would have hoped that the Government, from first principles, would acknowledge that it was never an acceptable outcome for anyone to have their own home invaded by a trade union or otherwise.

The way people set up their homeworking arrangements within their own dwelling is very much a matter for them. Balancing what they do in their own home with their family life and perhaps their children’s needs or the needs of someone they are caring for, and the way they structure that should, of course, remain entirely private. This is just another example of the damage that can inadvertently be done when legislation that is not ready is introduced to this House. It makes us question what other mistakes, if I may call them that, are lurking in the Bill that are still yet to be spotted by the Bill Committee.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

rose—

[Greg Smith]

Ah, the first intervention of the new year! How could I say no to the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield?

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

What a dubious honour, but happy new year to everyone in the Committee. Will the shadow Minister acknowledge that there is a body of legislation on trade union right of access in comparable jurisdictions, particularly Australia, which goes back many decades and does not contain such provision? There have been mischief-making campaigns and wild warnings of trade unionists suddenly appearing at the foot of somebody’s bed to carry out a health and safety inspection. All that is being done here is that a step is being taken that has not been taken anywhere else in the world, to my knowledge, to make it clear that this set of circumstances, which exists only in theory, not in practice, will never actually arise.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I understand his fundamental point, but before the Government tabled the amendment a feasible interpretation of the rules would have allowed access to a private dwelling. We can all stand or sit here in Committee Room 10 of the House of Commons and think how preposterous that would be and how that it never actually happen, but there are plenty of examples in history where the preposterous has come to be—where someone’s interpretation of legislation or rules or regulations or whatever it may be has brought about perverse outcomes.

We would have been in a much more satisfactory position had the Government, from first principles and at the very start, laid out in the Bill that someone’s private dwelling is just that: private. Although there has been an explosion in working from home and a fundamental shift, particularly in the post-pandemic world, of people actively choosing to work from home, either all the time where they can, or in a hybrid arrangement where they work from home for a couple of days a week and in the office, factory, warehouse or wherever it might be for the other days, it should be an enshrined principle in this country—the free society the Minister spoke of—that a private dwelling should from absolute, unquestionable first principle remain private, and not be an area to which a trade union or otherwise can freely demand access. It is important that private dwellings remain accessible only by warrant, which has to be granted by a magistrate, for clear purposes, such as where criminality or some such activity is suspected.

The Opposition welcome the core text of the amendment, but we want it firmly on the record that such an amendment should never have been required in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

To me, the clause is all about resetting the culture within our employment world, and I welcome the proposals within it. It is about driving the partnership approach that we should have in the workplace. The more we can achieve that, the better for our economy.

[Laurence Turner]

In an earlier intervention, I failed to draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the GMB and Unite trade unions. There has clearly been some learning loss over the Christmas period.

I rise to make a couple of brief points. The shadow Minister said that 10% was not a high threshold. In one sitting before Christmas he encouraged us to listen to Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister; the debates that accompanied the Employment Relations Act 1999 make it very clear that 10% was put forward at that time precisely because it was a high bar for trade unions to meet. It has now been tested by time, and it is the case that for some high-turnover employers the 10% threshold is hard to meet in practice.

I take the point that there might be different views about whether employers’ approaches to trade unions tend to be genial and welcoming or hostile. As former trade union officials, we have had exposure to some of the most hostile employers. There is scope, where there is a limited number of employees who are known to the employer as individuals, to try to whittle down trade union membership to below the 10% threshold. I would also say that 2% is the threshold for the information consultation regulations, which I believe were introduced by the previous Government, so there is some precedent for that lower number.

Let me get to the heart of why we put forward this proposal. The introduction of a statutory recognition regime was an important step forward—we talked before Christmas about some of the historical injustices that gave rise to the regime as it exists today—but there are flaws within it and, where there are flaws, they must be remedied. I draw particular attention to the case of the Amazon Coventry warehouse site, where the GMB union fought a particularly difficult recognition campaign. Having successfully applied for the recognition campaign to start, it suddenly found that the bargaining unit was flooded with a number of new starters, who were very hard to reach in that recognition campaign. Some of that would be covered by the Bill as it stands.

On a related point, the code of practice on access and unfair practices in relation to recognition disputes at the moment does not apply from day one of an application, and I think it is important that that should be changed. This clause clearly contains important changes, however, that respond to some of the adverse and unfair practices that can occur during a recognition dispute. Some Committee members might want the clause to go further in some areas, but as it stands, it should be very strongly welcomed.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my membership of Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.

I am pleased that the Bill will take significant steps to simplify the union recognition process by removing unnecessary barriers that unions currently face. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield mentioned, recent events at Amazon’s Coventry distribution site, where the unionisation effort was defeated by 28 votes, serve as a reminder of the challenges that workers encounter.

I particularly welcome the flexibility in the Bill to lower the membership threshold required to begin the recognition process from the current 10% to potentially as low as 2%. That will give workers the opportunity to organise effectively from the outset. Ensuring that unions need only a simple majority in favour of recognition will mean that the will of the workers is fairly and clearly reflected without being stifled by unnecessary procedural hurdles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

I think we have all followed with interest, and perhaps some entertainment, the shadow Minister’s embrace of red tape and pettifogging bureaucracy in as much as he wishes to apply that to trade unions. It is of course important to state that each trade union member has opted in to the political fund, has the right to opt out at any time and has a means of recourse, through the Certification Officer, if there is a complaint about any attempt to opt out that is not successful.

The comparison drawn by the shadow Minister was completely ill-founded. The amendment not only seeks to inform trade union members of their right to opt out of the political fund—that is already well understood—but requires them to continue to opt in annually. Throughout the history of the Conservative party’s relationship with trade unions, it has repeatedly sought to apply punitive legislation in respect of the political fund. That is what the amendment represents: it is nothing more than a transparent attack on the funding of the Labour party and on the wider political activities of trade unions.

Let us not forget that many trade union political funds are directed towards not only party political activity but welcome campaigns, including some taken up and implemented by the previous Conservative Government. I draw attention to one: the campaign to introduce the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. Had the amendment been in force, that Act would have been much harder to accomplish, and paramedics, prison officers and police officers assaulted in their line of duty would have had less recourse to legal protection.

I am sorry but, to return to the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles, this is a ridiculous amendment. Were it to be implemented, we would have to look closely to ensure that there was not a two-tier approach to donations made by other entities, such as publicly listed companies. Should there be a requirement for shareholders to be informed of, and be able to veto, any donation in furtherance of a political activity? What about other civil society organisations? That is an enormous can of worms that is not particularly pleasant to smell once opened up, and it is a naked and transparent political attack that should be given short shrift.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The amendment is designed to give trade union members the right not to contribute to the political funds. Why does the Labour party want to stop them having that right? It is pure self-interest. Labour wants a conscript army of trade union members to contribute to the funds. Furthermore, I dare say that a good proportion of the political funds end up supporting the campaigns of Labour Members, who one by one in Committee have declared their membership of individual trade unions.

Earlier, we heard the Minister say that, annually, he wanted employers to remind workers of their right to join a trade union, yet he does not want those same members to have the right to opt out, or to be reminded of their right to opt out, of the political fund. I therefore support the amendment, which will assist trade union members to know that they have the right to opt in or out of the political funds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Wheeler]

For once in this place I will give a direct answer. Yes, I would. As a paid-up member of a trade union I would know exactly how to do that. I do not need the measures in the amendment to do so. Conservative Members talk about trade union members in the hypothetical, trying to understand what they would like. Other than those of us in this place who are trade union members, I wonder how many they have ever met. As someone who worked for one in the background, I think I know the mind of a trade union member.

[Laurence Turner]

My hon. Friend and I have both helped to administer the internal democracies of trade unions. Does he agree that the caricature of trade unionists as conscripts who just do as they are told is not based on any kind of reality? There might have been times when he and I wished that was the case, but the reality is that unions are democratic organisations and no one within them takes a particular action because they are instructed to do so.

[Michael Wheeler]

It could be dangerous for me to admit that sometimes I might have wished to instruct a member, but I can reassure everyone here that the instructions flow the other way when someone is a trade union official acting at the behest of members at all times.

I was one sentence from the end before the interventions. I have been thoroughly derailed by people in this room, so I will wrap up and say that I do not agree with the amendment. I disagree with a lot of what was raised in the debate and the false analogy around subscription models versus membership of a democratic organisation. I will obviously not support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

The Opposition stand by our amendment 126. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that I made in my substantive speech. However, I listened very carefully to the Minister’s response and to the other contributions to this debate and I am still utterly lost as to how Labour Members can argue that all these rights should exist when it comes to consumers, but call them red tape, bureaucracy and getting in the way when it comes to trade unions, saying that they are somehow trying to undermine the Labour party.

It will come as no surprise to Labour Members that, generally speaking, Conservatives do want to beat Labour candidates in elections. However, in no way, shape or form would I take away or argue against their ability to go to trade unions and ask for donations or just to willingly receive donations from trade unions, if that is what those trade unions wish to spend their money on. Of course, the rub, the difficulty, is this: where do the trade unions get their money from in the first place? It is from their members; just as those on this side of the Committee willingly pay to be members of the Conservative party and those on the other side willingly pay, I am presuming, to be members of the Labour party—presumption is a dangerous thing.

As we have heard, the opt-outs exist. There are the reminders that come with the annual direct debit, monthly direct debit or however people pay. The position is clear, so why should not the same principle apply to the trade union political fund? It is beyond comprehension that something can be argued for in respect of one sector of society but not the other.

If the Labour party wishes to be funded by the trade unions, that is fine, democratic and clear. But there must be consent from those who put in the money in the first place, on a recurring basis; it must be clear that that is still where they wish their money to go. Those members may change their mind on their political allegiance. They may decide that they no longer wish to support Labour. They may decide that they wish to support another political party, whichever that may be. I think it is a matter of fairness that they are given not just the right to opt out, which I accept exists, but the regular reminder of how to opt out that every other section of society and every other subscription model, be it political, consumer or otherwise, has.

[Laurence Turner]

I welcome, for the purpose of the record, what was a brave and interesting admission from the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire: in his words, this amendment is motivated by a desire to beat Labour party candidates.

[Greg Smith]

indicated dissent.

[Laurence Turner]

If the hon. Member wants to correct the record, I will of course welcome that. He is talking about Labour-affiliated trade unions, but of course many trade unions are not affiliated or do not have a relationship with a political party. Many of them are studiously non-party political in their approach. Has he considered the impact on those unions of the approach that he proposes, and what consultation has he had with unions such as the National Association of Head Teachers?

[Greg Smith]

I do not think I need to correct the record, in that I made a statement of the obvious, which is that Conservatives wish to beat Labour in elections, but equally I went on to say that, with the right consent, it is perfectly fair, democratic and legitimate for the Labour party to receive funding from those trade unions that wish it to do so. I went even further by saying that that is perfectly fine; so long as it is done transparently and stated on the record—as Labour Members have assiduously done every time they have stood up to speak during this Bill Committee and, indeed, in other debates—there is nothing wrong with it.

This is about the process for members, whether they are contributing to political funds where the unions do donate to Labour, or to any other cause, be it party political or a campaign on this side or the other— the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield himself recognised and spoke earlier about the very good campaign in relation to attacks on emergency workers. That is a perfectly good, legitimate and worthwhile use of that money, to which I would anticipate—although presumption is a dangerous thing—that most, if not all, contributors to the political fund that supported the campaign would happily continue to contribute. However, there are circumstances and times when trade union members contributing to political funds may not see that money being spent as they would like it to be. It is the ease of being able to opt out, not just having the right to opt out, that the amendment gets to the heart of.

Before the Committee divides on amendment 126, I urge Committee members to reflect on whether they really want to say to the outside world that, while consumers have the right to be reminded on a monthly or annual basis of how to opt out of their mobile phone contract, magazine subscription or whatever else, such a reminder of how to opt out of political funds—not the right to opt out but how—should be denied to trade union members.