Employment Rights Bill

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

If the hon. Lady supported Lords amendment 1, the catering worker would have a right to request, and could get the certainty she requires. The amendment would very much offer that right, which she currently does not have, but it would also mean there was no requirement on the employer to maintain records, and the employer would not have the administrative burden of being forced to offer those hours to workers in the industry who did not require such flexibility. That is why we think the amendment strikes the right balance.

We strongly support the principle of enabling workers to obtain fixed-hours contracts, but we have concerns about the implementation method proposed in the Bill. Small businesses have highlighted that having to offer employees fixed-hours contracts on a rolling basis could impose significant administrative burdens. Many small employers lack human resource or legal departments, and the change could be a significant cost for those with limited resources. That would compound other challenges, such as the recent increase in employers’ national insurance contributions and the fallout from the previous Government’s damaging Brexit deal. In the retail and hospitality sector, part-time and entry-level roles are often taken up by young people looking for flexible hours, people with caring responsibilities, and others who may not want to make long-term work commitments. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) offered a compelling example of a zero-hours contract giving someone what they required from work. For all those groups, flexibility is key.

The amendment is in line with our long-standing manifesto commitment to give zero-hours and agency workers the right to request fixed-hours contracts—a right that employers could not refuse unreasonably. The measure would maintain a flexibility that benefits both parties, whereas an obligation to offer guaranteed hours imposes a significant burden, which does not benefit either party.

We are clear that employees should be supported to exercise this right—and all employment rights—without fear of any negative consequences in their workplace, and we are pleased that the Government have taken steps to set up a unified Fair Work Agency. We hope that the Government will look into our other proposals—for example, the proposal to give zero-hours workers a 20% higher minimum wage to compensate them for the uncertainty of fluctuating hours.

The amendment strikes a balance between security for workers and flexibility for employers. Much of the contention about the Bill relates to the lack of detail and clarity around key definitions, which makes it hard for businesses and employers to plan. That is why I also wish to speak in favour of Lords amendment 8, which would define a short-notice cancellation as a cancellation with 48 hours’ notice. That provides a workable balance. It gives employers clarity, while ensuring that workers are compensated when shifts are cancelled late.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that fair notice may be relative to the industry we are talking about? What is fair notice in, say, the retail sector may be completely different from what is fair notice for someone working on an offshore oil rig.

[Sarah Olney]

No, I do not think so. Forty-eight hours is a reasonable amount of notice in any sector. That is the kind of notice that enables, for example, parents to rearrange childcare, or other members of the family to rearrange their shifts. The 48 hours is a proper definition of reasonable notice, and 48 hours is 48 hours, whether you work on an oil rig or in a shop. I disagree that it is context-dependent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

I am grateful for being able to contribute to this debate. It is a privilege to follow so many powerful speeches, and the speech delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) was the most powerful I have heard in this place. Her words rose to the moment; mine are inadequate by comparison. I can only thank her for speaking so powerfully about an issue that affects so many of us.

I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place, and thank him for the way in which he opened this debate.

At the outset, I draw the House’s attention to my background as an officer of the GMB union and my current unpaid role as chair of the GMB parliamentary group. In that capacity, I thank the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law), as he leaves the Chamber, for what he said about Members’ staff in this place. GMB is the union that represents the majority of people who work in support of us as Members of this House. I am sad to say that they are perhaps uniquely vulnerable to some of the abusive practices that have shamed our democracy for too long, and I am at a loss to understand how the relevant Lords amendments were ever brought forward from the other place.

I wish to speak specifically against Lords amendments 121, 11 and 1, and in support of the Government amendments that seek to strike them out. Before doing so, I want to say a few words about my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who is not in his place at the moment. As a former shadow Minister and latterly as the sponsoring Minister for this Bill, he unfailingly and characteristically brought graft, industry and good humour to the brief. This will be a weaker and lesser Bill without him, and those of us who support the Bill and its principles owe him a debt of thanks. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), who brings a real depth of knowledge and understanding to the role of Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, is now guarding the Bill’s passage to Royal Assent. I know that she will be both pro-worker and pro-business in her approach.

I believe that Lords amendment 121 contains significant drafting weaknesses and would fundamentally alter the nature of the proposed and restored school support staff negotiating body. First, the amendment states that employers may introduce new terms and conditions of employment that

“meet or exceed any minimum standards set by the SSSNB.”

In legal terms, however, the SSSNB will not set or determine those standards; it is a statutory forum for negotiation. The actual conditions of employment will be set through regulations drafted by the Secretary of State and approved by Parliament.

Secondly, the actual parameters of a future pay and grading structure will be negotiated by the relevant parties: the representatives of employers, and the representatives of employees. That was the spirit of the original 2008 Act and the actual operation of the SSSNB in its original incarnation. Given my experience as a former trade union officer representing school support staff, I know the contractual issues that need to be addressed are so complicated that they cannot be satisfactorily resolved on the Floor of the House. That complexity is a result of 14 years of drift, dither and political disinterest in the 800,000 support staff workers in England who keep our schools going, and it is a damning indictment of the decision to cancel the original SSSNB.

Finally, Lords amendment 121 risks creating confusion at a local level. The amendment states that employers must not be restricted from introducing “improved terms and conditions”, but changes to contracts are not merely introduced; they are consulted on and agreed, either individually or collectively, under existing statutes. The effect of the somewhat loose wording in the amendment may be to encourage local attempts to make unilateral variations to contracts and terms and conditions. Members who support this amendment might say that only improvements could be made under it, but both “improvement” and “detriment” are subjective terms. They are in the eye of the beholder, and I believe that if the amendment were to be carried through, the actual effect may be to increase the number of court cases concerning school support staff.

I urge the Opposition not to push a point, and to reconsider their wider opposition to the school support staff negotiating body. School support staff undertake essential roles, and they deserve the same professional standards and professional respect that is afforded to teachers. That is what the restoration of the school support staff negotiating body will achieve.

We have debated the official Opposition’s amendments many times at various stages, but I want to comment on some of the Lords amendments that stand in the names of Liberal Democrat peers, either in whole or in part. When I entered this Chamber at the start of the debate, I did not presume that those amendments necessarily enjoyed the support of the Liberal Democrat Front Benchers in the Commons, but I am afraid that impression was dispelled by the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney).

I am at a loss to understand how the radical change in approach has come about among the Liberal Democrats in this House between Committee stage, Report, Third Reading and the debate that we are holding today. In fact, listening to the hon. Lady, I felt an uncomfortable sense of déjà vu: it was like watching the Rose Garden press conference all over again. After all, her Front-Bench colleagues—the hon. Members for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) and for Torbay (Steve Darling)—were at all times appropriately critical in Committee, but they were essentially supportive of the principle of enhancing workers’ rights. Lords amendment 11, which was originally a Conservative amendment in the Commons but now stands in the name of a Liberal Democrat peer, was not supported by the Liberal Democrats in Committee.

Lords amendment 1, which stands in the names of both Liberal Democrat and Conservative peers, seeks to amend clause 1. However, the Liberal Democrats supported that clause in Committee and only voiced concern, which was reasonable, that timely guidance to employers must be issued to accompany it; indeed, they voted with Labour Members when it was put to a vote in Committee. I fear that this amendment, too, could have serious unintended consequences.

The clause that it seeks to amend puts a duty on employers to offer regular-hours contracts to “workers”—that is the language used in the legislation as it stands at the moment—but the amendment seeks to convert that duty into a right to request by employees. “Employees” is, of course, a more restrictive category than “workers”; indeed, clause 148 of the Bill as drafted makes it clear that for the purpose of the interpretation of this Bill, “workers” and “employees” mean two different things. Many of the people who are classed only as “workers” are precisely those who may benefit the most from these protections. Some 5 million people who are nominally casual workers in sectors such as social care, construction, hospitality, security and retail could be excluded from these protections if the amendment, which stands in the names of Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers, were to be carried. I hope it is not the intention of those on the Conservative Benches to exclude those 5 million people. At the start of this debate, I could not believe that that was the intention of the Liberal Democrats, but now I am not so sure.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

The Women and Equalities Committee heard compelling evidence earlier this year about misogyny in the music industry. That is exactly one of the areas where people who are classed as “workers” need protection, so I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising a very powerful and relevant point. She is absolutely right that those are the groups of workers who would enjoy greater protection as a result of this legislation being carried.

I want to respond to a couple of points that have been made in this debate. It was a shame that the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who is not currently in his place, did not have the self-confidence in his arguments to take interventions on his points. He referred repeatedly to the validity of estimates of the number of workers employed on zero-hours contracts, but there are good reasons for not having confidence in these estimates. After all, they are derived from the Office for National Statistics labour force survey, which has had well-advertised and well-understood problems with response rates that have wider implications for both the current Government and the previous Government. It is well known that the number of people who identify as being on a zero-hours contract corresponds to changes in the wording of that particular question. In addition, the labour force survey has well-understood limitations when it comes to reaching people who are employed in what might be called the most marginalised parts of the economy. I therefore urge Conservative Members not to have too much confidence in those estimates, but to look instead at the surveys of workers undertaken by many organisations, such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and trade unions.

It was a shame to hear during the debate the number of references to trade union political funds only in the context of party funding. Of course, the great majority of trade union political funds are operated by trade unions that are not affiliated to any political party. Furthermore, the political funds even of Labour-affiliated unions in practice often support meaningful and consequential campaigns that are supported by Members across the House. One example to which I would draw Members’ attention is the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018—sometimes called the protect the protectors legislation—which began as a result of trade union campaigning that was not party political in its nature, and that legislation has since been broadened. I pay tribute to USDAW’s “Freedom From Fear” campaign and the work that has been done to extend the same protections to retail workers. These are exactly the sort of valuable campaigns that, sadly, Members from both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats are looking to restrict.

Finally on points raised, I had not intended at the start of the debate to talk about heritage railways. Indeed, it must be said that during those long years in opposition, when we were looking closely as trade union officials at the potential future issues that would be covered by trade union legislation, I think it is fair to say that that issue never once came up, but perhaps we were guilty of tunnel vision. [Interruption.] Sorry, I will not do that again. Throughout all the debates on this matter in the other place and here, it has been discussed purely in theoretical terms. The contention has been that the 1920 Act has had a chilling effect on the of operation heritage railways across the country. I do not think, but I would be glad to be corrected, that any actual examples have been brought forward of either court cases being taken or legal advice being received from those organisations, but it certainly feels like an issue that the Transport Committee may wish to consider.

I have tried to limit my comments only to the details of the Lords amendments, but if I may, I will make two general comments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough said, the Labour manifesto committed to

“implementing ‘Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay…’ in full…and introducing basic rights from day one to parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal.”

Yet in front of us are Lords amendments that would either obviate many of those commitments or reduce their potency to homeopathic levels. As he also rightly said, there can be no question of nodding through amendments that contradict the clear mandate we first received a year ago, and which commands broad support among voters of all parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth]

It will, absolutely. We should not have people working in those kinds of conditions and that sort of poverty in 2025.

[Laurence Turner]

My hon. Friend speaks about care workers. Does he agree that one issue so brutally exposed during the pandemic was the fact that many thousands of care workers were classed as workers, not employees? As a consequence, they could not get full access to sick pay. One consequence of that was that the fatality rates among both residents and workers were much higher in the care homes that did not make that provision available. If the provisions in the Bill were in place then, many thousands of lives could have been saved.

[Sam Rushworth]

My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. Another great provision in the Bill is that right to sick pay, which is so important and would have been so important for many care workers during the pandemic.

In my mind’s eye are those women sitting at that bus stop in the cold. Two other people I met who were also care workers—one lives in High Etherley and the other in Etherley Dene—told me similar stories. They did not vote for me. They did not vote for anybody, because they did not believe that anybody could fix their problems. They just told me that their lives were tough. They had to pay for their own uniforms. They were not really getting the minimum wage for their work. They felt disrespected by everybody. They felt vulnerable and left behind. But I made them a promise that if I came to this place, I would speak up for them. I am doing that today and I am voting for them today.

Finally, the Employment Rights Bill is not just good for workers; it is also good for businesses. So many family businesses in Bishop Auckland, Shildon, Crook and Barnard Castle all tell me the same thing. They tell me how much they enjoy contributing to our local economy and how important it is to them that they are a responsible, decent employer. But they tell me how tough it is when there is a race to the bottom. They want employment rights strengthened. They do not want the watered-down version coming to us from the Lords. They want the full-fat version of this Bill, because they know it is good for their workers and good for their businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank]

I fully agree that the economic benefit of security in the workplace is evident. I have worked in some of the most insecure industries in hospitality, and people trying to rush themselves back into work was a severe issue, especially just after the pandemic, because they did not have another source of income. If they had to isolate, there was financial support, luckily, which was just about enough to cover wages for a period, administered by local authorities. However, there were still a lot more people who tried to drive themselves back into the workplace. I remember coming back after a 10-day isolation period after having covid, and I could tell that I was not prepared physically or mentally to re-enter the workplace. It did make me think that I wanted to call in sick. It is then substantially more difficult for someone to re-enter work, especially in high-intensity industries. We often forget how physically intensive hospitality and retail workplaces, where people are working on zero-hours contracts, can be.

[Laurence Turner]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. I rise merely to support what he is saying. About a decade ago, the University of Manchester published research that found that being in forms of insecure employment may be more damaging to health than being unemployed.

[Euan Stainbank]

That is substantially clear. I would add the concern that long-term sickness translates into long-term unemployment, which is often seen in the most insecure workplaces. We often think of people burning out in a very high-stress, high-income job, but it happens right through our labour market. In my experience, it has led to devastating consequences, but those are personal stories that I do not have the permission or time to go into.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues for conducting this debate so efficiently and effectively. I am grateful to Members from across the House for the contributions they have made to the debate today and throughout the development of this legislation. It has been exhaustively debated—in Committee and in both Chambers—and now it has come back again to be exhaustively voted on this evening.

The Employment Rights Bill will benefit millions of people across the country, raising the floor for workers and strengthening protections in the modern workplace. It will help unlock higher productivity, drive innovation and create the right conditions for long-term, sustainable and secure economic growth. This has been a constructive debate, and I thank Members from across the House for their varied and valuable views. I will now turn to individual contributions. Many Members spoke about their broad views on the Bill without asking specific questions, but I would like to unpick as many as I can, because it was a good, high-quality debate.

I start with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), whose contribution I enjoyed very much, particularly because we are both Sussex MPs. He referred to many places in his constituency and asked whether I had visited some of them. I grew up in Bognor Regis just down the road and at weekends would often walk to places that he now represents in Parliament. It is one of the most beautiful parts of the Sussex Downs.

The shadow Secretary of State said that the Bill was a bad day for democracy. He is not unknown for overstatement, but given that the Bill was in the manifesto that won the trust of the public, I would say that today is a good day for democracy. It is a day when the Government elected by the people deliver on a promise made to the people, when a Bill that was introduced in the House of Commons, debated here in Committee, and debated extensively in House of Lords, has come back. This is democracy at its very best. I hope he will reflect on that.

There are a lot of issues with voting percentage thresholds, which the shadow Secretary of State also raised. I point out that he was elected to this place on 28% of the vote of the community that he represents. If we apply his logic, he is advocating one rule for him and another for every other worker in the country. To the Labour party, that simply does not stand.

I also point out that during the Conservatives’ period in government from 2010 onwards, employment tribunal delays increased by 60%. We therefore take no lectures from those who criticise some of the costs that may or may not be incurred as a result of the Bill, because they inflicted enormous measures and costs on businesses around the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) made a passionate, detailed and personal speech about the Bill. It is clear that the Bill is the culmination of his career before coming into politics and in politics, both in opposition and in government. I cannot thank him enough for his work and for how he has engaged with me since I was appointed to this job just over a week ago. I hope that he sees in the debate and the approach of this Front-Bench team the legacy he left being represented loud and clear.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) spoke passionately about the cause of seasonal workers. He spoke for the consultation that we have pledged to have to ensure that we get this right. Several hon. Members from across the House spoke about seasonal workers; it was good to see them represented. As a Member of Parliament for Sussex—my hon. Friend is a Member of Parliament for Kent—we care deeply about these issues, and we will strive to ensure that we get it right.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) raised an important point on non-disclosure arrangements, which she has campaigned so hard for. I thank her not only for speaking with passion but for standing on a record of delivery on this matter. She is an advocate for whom we should all be proud, because she has used her parliamentary prowess to deliver the real change needed on NDA reform. I thank Zelda Perkins —I believe she is not in the Gallery now, but she was here—who has shown extraordinary bravery through her advocacy for victims of harassment and discrimination. I have stood by in admiration of the work she has undertaken.

My right hon. Friend asked what the consultation will cover. We will consult on the regulations that expand the types of individuals and measures that apply beyond those who were within the definition of “employee” and “worker”, and on the conditions for excepted NDAs. To give an example, where a victim requests one and workers are covered by an excepted NDA, they can speak about the relevant harassment and discrimination to, for example, a lawyer or a medical professional.

My right hon. Friend also asked about the timings. Unfortunately, I cannot provide a timetable tonight, but I want to be clear that this is a personal priority for me. I reassure her that we will be moving as fast as possible to consult on the related secondary legislation and commence the measure. I will stay in touch with her so that she is fully informed along the way.

I am grateful to hon. Members across the House for their contributions today and for their hard work in getting the Bill where it is. It is of paramount importance that we get the Bill on to the statute book and start delivering for businesses and workers as soon as possible.

[Laurence Turner]

My right hon. Friend is rightly talking about the contributions made in the debate by hon. Members of various parties. I am always reluctant to criticise individual Members who may not attend a debate, because they often have good reasons, but there has now become a pattern: at no point in the Bill’s passage has any Reform Member spoken to justify their stance of scrapping thousands of laws, including employment laws. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a democratic deficit in not one Reform Member ever having spoken to defend their stance?

[Peter Kyle]

Yes, indeed. When we talk about seasonal workers, we do not mean Reform Members. Of course, Members have lots of duties elsewhere, but it is not surprising to me that a party led by somebody who goes to another country and invites that country to punish this country would be absent from a debate all about giving rights to workers right across the country. Reform wants to strip our workers of their rights, their dignity and, through its actions, the pay in their pockets. The absence of Reform Members today suggests nothing else.

I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider carefully the amendments I have proposed in lieu of those made in the other place. One of my predecessors as President of the Board of Trade once argued that workers need protection because, without it,

“the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst”.—[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. 4, c. 388.]

That predecessor was Winston Churchill. He knew that the best employers need protecting from unfair competition by companies who trade at the expense of rights at work. The Bill protects workers from exploitation and protects businesses from unfair competition. That is why the Bill is pro-worker and pro-business.

Government amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 22.

Government amendment (b) made to Lords amendment 22.

Lords amendment 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 1

Right to guaranteed hours

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.—(Peter Kyle.)

Jaguar Land Rover Cyber-attack

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I am tempted to say that it is too early to say, as the hon. Gentleman gave me that get-out clause at the end. The main thing I want to ensure is that all MPs have the information they need on a secure basis, so that they can provide reassurance to their constituents. I am sure that there will be all sorts of rumours spreading around, some of which may be very wide of the mark, and I want to ensure that JLR is able to provide information to everybody. We are going into recess next Tuesday; otherwise, I would have been more than happy to gather MPs to have these discussions in a private setting. It is probably best if we see how we go on Friday. I do not think that half an hour will suffice for a Zoom call with JLR; I will make that point to the chief executive.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) for securing this urgent question, and welcome the Minister to his new role. JLR employs hundreds of people directly in my constituency, and many more indirectly. This is an extremely concerning time for them, and I hope that the Department will consider providing information directly to local MPs, in addition to engaging with the company. As has been said, this attack follows attacks on Marks & Spencer, the NHS, the British Library and other public institutions. I understand why the Minister has set out that the Government’s focus is on ensuring that companies are better protected and report these kinds of incidents, but can he assure the House that all steps are being taken to identify areas of critical national vulnerability in both the public and private sectors, so that we can try to avoid these attacks in the first place?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that we do that. Of course, I fully understand that this issue comes on top of other issues for JLR this year, not least tariffs in the United States of America. As my hon. Friend knows, the Prime Minister was very personally engaged in making sure that we got a better deal with the United States, and was able to announce that in a JLR factory. I know that some voluntary redundancies are going through the normal business process at JLR at the moment; that has nothing to do with this cyber-attack. However, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he asks for.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This Bill will help to preserve the United Kingdom’s position as a global leader in product regulation, supporting businesses, protecting consumers and ensuring a fair and level playing field across our economy, whether on the high street or on online marketplaces. It is designed to future-proof our approach to product regulation and metrology, ensuring that we can respond effectively to emerging technologies, tackle modern-day safety challenges and create the conditions for safe innovation and sustainable economic growth. By strengthening the system that underpins confidence in our goods market, we are reinforcing one of the core pillars of a productive and competitive economy.

As hon. Members will know, the majority of the UK’s product safety and metrology laws have their roots in EU legislation developed over the past 40 years. That framework served us well in many respects, but, of course, we have left the European Union, so we have a responsibility and an opportunity to tailor our rules to the UK’s own needs, circumstances and ambitions.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

We have heard arguments today, as we did in Committee, that this measured Bill is some mysterious route back into the EU. Does the Minister agree that, far from discovering a Trojan horse, the Opposition are trying to flog a dead one and that their arguments have been made up on the hoof?

[Justin Madders]

I give my hon. Friend 10 out of 10 for ingenuity. I have heard so many references to horses during the passage of the Bill that at times I felt I was at the Aintree racecourse. We can be clear that the Bill will not lead to dynamic alignment by default.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting)

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Adam Thompson]

I disagree with the hon. Lady’s point. It is clear that, with this Bill, we are designing frameworks that allow the current system to thrive. I cannot accept the amendment which, like many of the Opposition amendments we have discussed today, serves no purpose.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to hear part 2 of the speech that my hon. Friend made on Second Reading. Does he agree that, contrary to what we have just heard, the clause broadly represents continuity with how legislation has worked in this area? One of the final acts of the last Government was to make the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024 under powers that have now expired. The Health and Safety Executive enforces standards based on regulations introduced relating to metrification between 1981 and 1992. For all the claims of change, what we are looking at here, broadly, is continuity.

[Adam Thompson]

My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge on this subject, and I completely agree with everything he says.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I am not sure whether I would say they are morally necessary. It is quite normal for there to be some Henry VIII powers in most legislation, and I will now explain why that is not something that we need to trouble ourselves with too much in relation to the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868, which I am sure all Members have familiarised themselves with. That is, as I have already demonstrated by reading its title, a very old and highly technical piece of legislation. It covers the parameters of the process of approving a firearm, including the archaic governance elements of the Birmingham proof house. It was passed in 1868, when there was a thriving Birmingham gun trade, which I presume no longer exists. To give Members some indication of—

[Laurence Turner]

rose—

[Justin Madders]

Do we have a guardian of the Birmingham proof house in our midst?

[Laurence Turner]

I rise merely to confirm that the trade does indeed continue, and that one of the two remaining proof houses is in the Digbeth area of Birmingham.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. Indeed, I understand that that is now the premier proof house in the country, but some of the provisions in the 1868 Act show why we think these Henry VIII powers are appropriate. For example, sections 56, 65 and 66 set out that the Birmingham proof house must meet on Thursdays and that its annual general meeting must be held on the last Tuesday of April. I really do not think that parliamentary time needs to be expended on updating those particular rules.

The last Gun Barrel Proof Act was passed in 1978, when I believe some members of the Committee were not even born. That shows that this is not something that is at the cutting edge of our thoughts, although it does need modernising. It will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will also be subject to consultation with relevant stakeholders.

Amendment 11 would remove the power in the Bill to make amendments to legislation in consequence of the amending or repealing of the Acts specified in clause 10. That is a limited power that enables us to tidy up the statute book by ensuring that any cross-references to those Acts are updated as needed.

Amendment 12 would prevent any regulations made under the Bill from amending any primary or secondary legislation passed under other Acts. That goes to the core purpose of the Bill: to enable us to keep our product and metrology legal framework up to date and effectively protect consumers and support businesses. The power to make consequential amendments is a standard approach to legislation. We need to ensure that new regulations do not duplicate or overlap with existing legislation in a confusing way. That is vital for providing consumers and businesses with clarity.

Amendment 13 would make all regulations under the Bill that amend primary legislation subject to the affirmative procedure. It would also impose a mandatory six-week consultation period and require the Secretary of State to publish a detailed statement in advance of regulating. As I have stated, the Bill already requires the affirmative procedure for regulations amending primary legislation, as set out in clause 12(4)(g). In any such debate, the Government would of course set out why they are regulating, and in the other place we introduced an appropriate consultation requirement and additional triggers for the affirmative procedure.

Some of the provisions currently in primary legislation, such as the detailed requirements relating to gun-barrel proofing or the margin tolerances for packaged goods, are very technical. Our approach has therefore been to apply the affirmative procedure to regulations likely to be of particular interest to Parliament, such as the creation or widening of criminal offences or new powers of entry.

The powers in the Bill are crucial to ensuring that our product regulation framework is agile, up to date and able to effectively protect consumers and businesses. We have taken great care and have listened to concerns, and we now have the right balance between taking powers to enabling us to meet the objectives of the Bill and ensuring parliamentary scrutiny for the exercise of those powers. I appreciate that Opposition Members may not agree, but that is the nature of debate. I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Laurence Turner Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I am glad to be called in this debate. I declare an interest: the GMB—one of the steelworkers’ unions, whose parliamentary group I chair—has donated to my constituency party.

Twenty years ago, the MG Rover car plant in my constituency collapsed, with devastating consequences that are felt to this day. Today, all our thoughts are with the steelworkers and their families at Scunthorpe and Teesside, and I hope that we can do something to avoid such a future for them.

I do not want to speak for too long, but I would like to make a few points. First, today’s decisive action is welcome. I think all our constituents would rather have a Government who acted at great speed than a Government who acted too late. Secondly, I echo the point raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) about the importance of steelworkers’ participation in the days ahead. If the Government could also clarify any changes in plans for the UK Steel Council, that would be appreciated. Thirdly, what role will Jingye now have in the running of British Steel on a day-to-day basis? It is clear that workers have lost confidence in the management—as shown by reports this morning that management from Jingye were refused entry to the plant—and that a change in that day-to-day management is needed.

I would like to respond to a couple of points made in the debate. The last time that this House carried legislation that had the effect of nationalising steel, that legislation was 108 pages long. Nationalisation is clearly outside the scope of the urgent emergency legislation that we are debating today. We have also heard much about costs, including energy costs. I do not wish to add to the informed comments made earlier, but the OECD has also said that the root cause of the industry’s current problems is “global excess capacity”. In other words, the UK has been left at the mercy of over-production and the dumping of artificially subsidised goods. The Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance has long called for our trade defences to be strengthened, and I hope that those calls will be listened to in a way that they were not under the last Government.

I would like to end on a personal note, because I have thought about one person in particular today: a family member, my aunt’s father, who began his career at the Ravenscraig steelworks in Motherwell. He rose to become a branch officer, national executive member and later a salaried official of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, the forerunner of today’s Community union. In the peripatetic life of a trade union official, he later worked in the west midlands, Corby and Scunthorpe. He was fierce in the defence of his members, and the gentlest and most modest of men in private. I understand that he is still remembered on the executive of Community, and if he could be here today to witness this most difficult chapter in the steel industry’s history, I am sure that he would offer valuable perspective and wise counsel. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to enter his name in the record of this place: Dick Knox.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank all Members for their help in being brief for the last few contributions, but unfortunately we have time only for a final Back-Bench contribution. I call Sir Jeremy Wright.

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.

Employment Rights Bill

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Report stage
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.