Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

Consideration of Commons amendments
Thursday 20th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, the House will be pleased to know that I can again be brief, as we have debated this Bill and the remaining issue at length on a number of occasions. The other place has again considered the Bill, as requested by this House. The House will be unsurprised to hear that it has come to the same conclusion as previously, again with a significant majority. This is now the third time that the other place has made its will clear, and I therefore hope that noble Lords will take that into account today.

Noble Lords last sent the Bill back to the other place with the justification that the International Labour Organization had issued new information. As my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business, noted in the debate there earlier this week, this is ground which has already been well covered by both Houses. I therefore hope that knowing that the other place has considered the issue again, and voted with that in mind, will give noble Lords the confidence that this issue has now been extensively scrutinised.

The Minister in the other place also explained that the Government will provide clarity in respect of the reasonable steps which a union must take to be compliant with the legislation. I know that this has been a concern for the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in our previous debates. I am therefore pleased to confirm that the Government will bring forward a statutory code of practice on the reasonable steps which a union must take. We will do that using existing powers under Section 203 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. That code will be subject to statutory consultation, including with ACAS, and will of course need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. This consultation will provide an opportunity for trade unions, employers and any other interested parties to contribute to providing practical guidance on the steps that a union must take to make the code as practicable, durable and effective as possible.

I hope these steps go some way to reassuring the House that the Government’s plans for minimum service levels are within our international obligations and that we will provide clarity where that is required. I hope therefore that this House will now feel able to allow this legislation to pass to Royal Assent. I beg to move.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, in form, this skeleton legislation with its Henry VIII powers defies every legislative principle, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Select Committee on the Constitution have reported. As to content, the less said the better. Although the Government’s impact assessment was held by the Regulatory Policy Committee to be not fit for purpose, it contains the revealing analysis that, far from obviating the disruption that strikes inevitably cause, the Bill

“could mean a general increase in tension between unions and employers. This may result in more adverse impacts in the long term, such as an increased frequency of strikes for each dispute”.

No doubt that is part of the reason why employers, as well as trade unions, have opposed the Bill.

This House tried to redeem the Bill with amendments to protect workers from unfair dismissal and unions from damages and injunctions, as required by international law, but the Government’s majority in the other place rejected them. This House, in its latest modest amendment, sought to mitigate the Bill’s excesses by requiring consultation before regulations were made, but even this was rejected by the other place on Monday.

The fact is that the Bill abridges the right to strike, a right established by many international treaties to which the UK adheres. A letter written by the general secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation to the Secretary of State the day before yesterday sums it up. She said:

“It is clear that the Bill introduces provisions which weaken or reduce existing law in relation to the protection of the fundamental right to strike and which do not respect or implement ILO Convention 87”.


The Joint Committee on Human Rights said the same thing. The letter points out the specific respects in which the Bill fails to meet ILO conditions for permissible MSL legislation. Among its list of non-compliances, the letter points to the absence in the Bill of: any requirement for trade union and employer dialogue in the setting of MSLs; any obligation on the employer to negotiate an agreement with the trade union about service levels; and any independent adjudication mechanism in the event of a failure to agree.

Your Lordships’ amendment would have gone a long way to rectify these non-compliances without such remedial action. As ETUC points out, the UK will not only be in breach of ILO Convention 87 and paragraph 4 of Article 6 of the European Social Charter, but it will also violate Articles 387 and 399 of the trade and co-operation agreement. However, the Government have a problem with consultation with the social partners. Just a week ago, the High Court held that the purpose of the statutory obligation to consult before making regulations under the Employment Agencies Act was that:

“Parliament can then proceed on the basis that the case for the measure has been tested with interested parties in the sector and that their views and interests have been taken into consideration in fashioning the draft regulations which are laid before it”.


The Government’s failure to consult was, the court held,

“so unfair as to be unlawful and, indeed, irrational”.

Less than a month ago, the relevant ILO committee told

“the Government to provide information to and facilitate the dialogue between and with the social partners with a view to … improve consultation of the social partners on legislation of relevance to them”.

Of course I accept that the undertaking by the noble Lord to introduce a code of practice imports a duty to consult, but such consultation is apparently limited solely to the issue of reasonable steps. It does not require the social dialogue that compliance with international law does. In truth, as was said by Mick Whitley MP in the other place,

“no number of amendments could ever salvage this Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/7/23; col. 721.]

That is why the Labour Party is committed to repealing it.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

Report stage
Wednesday 26th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, it would be churlish not to acknowledge that we appreciate what this amendment will do.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords have broadly welcomed this and clearly want to move on to another section, so I do not think I have any points to raise in response.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am happy to give the noble Baroness the commitment she seeks. There is no intention to create any criminal offence within this Bill; it does not do that, and it is absolutely not our intention.

On her follow-up question, the provisions in the TCA relevant to minimum service levels include commitment to ILO conventions, non-regression and rebalancing. Enforcement mechanisms vary, depending on the particular provisions. For the non-regression clauses, enforcement mechanisms include consultation and escalation, involving panels of experts and potential rebalancing measures, all of which would take place at an international level and cannot bring any claims in the domestic courts. I hope that gives the noble Baroness the reassurance she is looking for.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the clarity of his answer, and to all noble Baronesses and Lords who participated in the debate. I will not do them the disservice of attempting to summarise their speeches.

Let me deal with two points arising from what the Minister has said. First, he asked whether my intention is to kill the Bill. It would certainly be my desire, but that is not the effect of these amendments, for sure. He says Amendment 18A and the other amendments would prevent minimum service levels being set. That is simply wrong, as a matter of law. There is nothing to prohibit the minimum service levels being set. What the amendments propose is that the minimum service levels be set in such a way that, first, they cannot penalise workers for going on strike—individual workers who are requisitioned to provide service under a work notice should not be penalised, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights—and, secondly, they comply with the standards of the ILO and the European Social Charter.

That brings me to my second point, which is the importance of the ILO. I say this with the greatest respect, but I am not sure the Minister has quite understood the position of the ILO in the hierarchy of international law so far as the United Kingdom is concerned. Before I explain that, I will make one thing clear: the Minister read a passage from one of the supervisory bodies of the ILO—it was in fact the committee of experts—and suggested that I had not quoted it. I read that very passage on to the record earlier this afternoon; I think Homer might have nodded briefly and missed that. The Minister said that the decisions of the ILO are not binding. In one sense, of course, that is true. Britain was the first country in the world to ratify Convention 87, which is the most ratified of all the conventions of the ILO. It is an international treaty and we are bound by it, but I agree that it is not binding in domestic law.

Secondly, ILO conventions and their jurisprudence are taken into account by the European Court of Human Rights in interpreting the various articles of the European convention, particularly Article 11. If you want to know what Article 11 has to say about the right to strike, it is no good looking at the text of that article. What you have to look at are the decisions of the European court. Every one of them refers to the jurisprudence of the ILO and the European Social Charter in defining what permissible restrictions there may be on the right to strike.

The third reason the ILO is so crucial is because of the trade and co-operation agreement. This is the point I was endeavouring to communicate to the Minister, but I think I failed to do so. I read a few words from Article 399 of the trade and co-operation agreement, but let me read a sentence. Article 399(2) says that

“each Party commits to respecting, promoting and effectively implementing the internationally recognised core labour standards, as defined in the fundamental ILO Conventions”.

So we are bound by the fundamental ILO conventions. Article 399(5) makes specific reference to implementing the provisions of the ILO conventions ratified by the UK and the provisions of the European Social Charter ratified by the UK.

It is not a question of the ILO interfering in the domestic jurisdiction of British courts or the British Parliament. We have chosen to be bound by the provisions of the ILO—a choice that we repeated in 2021 when we ratified the TCA. The fact of the matter is that we do not comply with the requirements of the ILO in relation to minimum service levels, particularly—I mentioned this earlier, but the Minister did not deal with it—because the ILO requires that minimum service levels are set with the intervention or input of the social parties, particularly the trade unions, and that there should be a specified mechanism for resolving any disagreements. That is not what the Bill provides, so we may well be in breach. Having said all that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

They lose their protection only if they do not comply with a work notice. The whole principle of this—as the noble Lord has studied industrial relations, he will understand—is that, for a strike to be lawful, effectively you are breaking the contract you have with your employer. If the strike is lawfully called, you are entitled for the purpose of industrial action to break that contract. This merely reinstates that contract between you and your employer. If a work notice is issued and you do not comply with it, it would be treated as an unauthorised absence. There is no intention to say that that will result in dismissal. I would have thought that that would be very much a last course. As I said at Second Reading, we do not believe it will result in people being dismissed. We believe people will comply with the regulations and the law, and that the Bill will have the effect that we intended.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I am sorry but I did not quite understand the Minister. I can see that dismissal for refusing to comply with a work notice might be a matter of last resort for the employer, but we are dealing here with the potential for bad employers to take the opportunity to sack somebody, and they might sack somebody without notice. If they do that, there is no possibility at all of the worker taking up a grievance. I do understand what other legal avenues there might be for such a worker—I can visualise none.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I was responding to the point I was asked about, and I made the point that, under the Bill, it is clear that an employer must not have regard to whether a worker is or is not a member of a union when issuing the work notice. I was outlining procedures that they could then follow if that was the case. Ultimately, they could challenge it in court, and that would be a matter for the courts.

I was going to go back to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, but I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, wants to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I do not accept the word “victimised”. A work notice effectively says that somebody has to fulfil their whole working contract as normal, whereby they come into work and get paid for it. That is not victimisation in any conventional sense of the word.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

The Minister raises Section 146 of the 1992 Act, which protects against detriment on union grounds, as he rightly says. But “union grounds” means either union membership or union activity, and Section 151 is the same protection against dismissal on grounds of union membership or union activity. Can the Minister explain why only union membership is protected in this Bill and not union activity?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

It is because, as we already said, Section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act already provides a remedy for workers who are discriminated against on union grounds. That section will remain applicable here, as I said earlier.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I apologise for intervening again. The point is that Sections 146 and 151 specify membership and activities, whereas this Bill protects against discrimination on the grounds of union membership alone. If the same protection against union activity is required in Sections 146 and 151, it should be required here as well. The obvious implication, if you were arguing a case in court, is that that protection is not given under this Bill, otherwise it would have been included.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I will seek further legal advice. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if the provision already exists in other applicable legislation, there is no need to duplicate that provision in another statute. I will certainly check that with the lawyers for the noble Lord.

Amendment 29 seeks to require the employers to be satisfied that the work notice does not identify more people than reasonably necessary before giving a work notice. However, as we set out in new Section 234C(5), the employer is already required to not identify more persons in the work notice than are reasonably necessary for the purposes of providing MSLs.

Amendment 30, meanwhile, seeks to require the employer to assess the equality implications of the work notice. Again, in our view, this is not necessary. The Bill does nothing to reduce the existing obligations of employers under the Equality Act 2010. As I said, there is an existing legal provision that continues to apply. There is no need to restate it.

Finally, Amendment 31 seeks to require the employer to assess the health and safety implications of the work notice and consult health and safety representatives. The Government’s view is that the current requirements in the Bill strike the right balance between the views and perspectives of employers and unions to enable a reasonable and fair work notice to be issued. As I have said, the Bill explicitly requires that employers must consult the relevant trade union and have regard to its views before issuing a work notice.

Adding any further steps or requirements to this process will result in disproportionate and costly burdens for employers and could result in delays to the issuing of a work notice by the employer and therefore delays to minimum service levels being applied. I fully accept that this may well be the purpose of the amendment, but I hope the Opposition understand why the Government cannot accept it. Additionally, when drawing up work notices, employers must still adhere to the relevant requirements set out in existing health and safety law. That is unchanged by this legislation.

For these reasons, the Government resist these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, at the risk of saying what I said earlier, if this amendment is not accepted by the Government, that presents a problem to the whole House as to what is to be done about Bills that do not conform to the elementary requirements of various committees, where detail is not published in the Bills but reserved to regulations. That problem will have to be confronted if the Government are not prepared to accept this very modest amendment, as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti put it.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. To start with the question from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about the Government’s response to the reports from the Delegated Powers Committee, the Constitution Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I am happy to confirm that I expect to be able to respond to those reports before Report.

This amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, requires indicative minimum service levels to be set out before regulations can be made for that service. The Government recognise the importance of relevant parties having sight of a minimum service level before it is applied. That is why Secretaries of State must consult on minimum service level regulations and why Parliament will have an opportunity to contribute to the consultation and scrutinise those regulations, which are subject to the affirmative procedure, as I have said before.

The effect of this amendment is superfluous, given that all parties will be able to know the proposed minimum service levels once regulations are laid in the usual way. This approach ensures that the implementation of MSL is not significantly delayed, thereby not extending the disproportionate impact that strikes can have on the public. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, will understand, if not agree, why the Government cannot accept the amendment.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry to trouble the noble Lord a moment further, but could I invite him to express a view on the report of the Delegated Powers Committee? It points out that there is no detail in the Bill and criticises it for that. Does the noble Lord accept that criticism?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We will be responding in due course to the report from the Delegated Powers Committee. I entirely accept that this is a wide secondary-legislation-making power for the Government, but we think that it is appropriate in these circumstances.

With that, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

Committee stage
Thursday 9th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am sorry if the noble Lord is disappointed. I answered the questions that were asked of me and most of them were about rail services. That is what we have issued the consultation on, which is why I was answering the questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked me about bus services so I answered that question. I do not know how the noble Lord computes that we are somehow uninterested in other sectors. This legislation will specify transport services as an appropriate power for the Secretary of State to designate minimum service levels for, but the only one that we have issued on transport services at the moment is on passenger rail. That does not mean we are not interested in other transport services.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I asked the Minister about the trade and co-operation agreement. He did not refer to that. I do not know if he wishes to do so or if he thinks it is completely irrelevant.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I do not think it is irrelevant. We stand completely by the trade and co-operation agreement, but I am not sure how the EU would have a problem with minimum service level agreements, given how many other European countries, including Italy, France and Spain, have minimum service level agreements in place in their legislation. I am not sure how it could accuse us of undermining the TCA.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I will not repeat what I said earlier today, but it is quite clear that the ILO in particular imposes conditions on minimum service levels that this Bill does not comply with. That is the difficulty for the Government.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I shall speak to Amendment 63, to which I added my name to those of the three noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly, Lady McIntosh and Lady Finlay. Amendment 63 would protect health and safety by requiring a health and safety assessment of each piece of legislation which will, or may be, repealed or revoked by the Bill. I shall confine my comments this evening to a subset of legislation which might have an impact on health and safety, and that is the law relating to health and safety at work. Obviously, I support the arguments so eloquently advanced by the noble Baronesses, but I should like to advance a different argument. It is a matter that has been raised in debates on the Bill a number of times, but in general terms: the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. I should like to deal with that specifically in relation to health and safety at work.

I shall read to the Committee the relevant words of the trade and co-operation agreement, beginning with Article 386. It is only a few sentences; no one need fear that I shall keep them here for hours. Article 386.1 states:

“For the purposes of this Chapter, ‘labour and social levels of protection’ means the levels of protection provided overall in a Party’s law and standards in each of the following areas”.


It sets out a number of areas, of which paragraph (b) is

“occupational health and safety standards”.

Article 387.2 states:

“A Party shall not weaken or reduce, in a manner affecting trade or investment between the Parties, its labour and social levels of protection below the levels in place at the end of the transition period, including by failing to effectively enforce its law and standards.”


So the United Kingdom has signed up in a treaty to not weakening or reducing its occupational health and safety standards in a manner which might affect trade or investment. Bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, said earlier this evening about the objective of the Bill being to reduce costs—one would add, in order to make British industry more competitive—it is clear that this article is engaged.

There is just one more article to which I draw attention, Article 399.5, which says:

“Each Party commits to implementing all the ILO Conventions that the United Kingdom and the Member States have respectively ratified and the different provisions of the European Social Charter that, as members of the Council of Europe, the Member States and the United Kingdom have respectively accepted”.


There, the commitment of the United Kingdom is the implementation of ILO conventions and European Social Charter provisions ratified by the UK. I can assist on what those are in relation to occupational health and safety; there are only three passages that I need to share with your Lordships. First, there is ILO Convention No. 187, the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention 2006, which was ratified by the United Kingdom. Article 2 of it states:

“Each Member—


each member state, that is—

“which ratifies this Convention shall promote continuous improvement of occupational safety and health to prevent occupational injuries, diseases and deaths, by the development, in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers, of a national policy, national system and national programme.”

Article 3 says:

“Each Member shall promote a safe and healthy working environment by formulating a national policy … Each Member shall promote and advance, at all relevant levels, the right of workers to a safe and healthy working environment … In formulating its national policy, each Member, in light of national conditions and practice and in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers, shall promote basic principles such as assessing occupational risks or hazards; combating occupational risks or hazards at source; and developing a national preventative safety and health culture that includes information, consultation and training.”


Article 4 says:

“The national system for occupational safety and health shall include among others … laws and regulations, collective agreements where appropriate, and any other relevant instruments on occupational safety and health”.


The European Social Charter is even clearer. Article 3, which was specifically ratified by the United Kingdom, on

“The right to safe and healthy working conditions”,


states:

“With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to safe and healthy working conditions, the Contracting Parties undertake … to issue safety and health regulations … to provide for the enforcement of such regulations by measures of supervision … to consult, as appropriate, employers’ and workers’ organisations on measures intended to improve industrial safety and health.”


It is quite clear that, if the current raft of provisions on health and safety at work, some of which I listed at Second Reading, is revoked or diminished, we will be in breach of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The only way we can avoid that is by the Government exempting health and safety at work in the same way as they propose to exempt the financial sector through Amendment 45. Will the Minister give that assurance?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, we have had almost an hour on this topic.

Employment Policies

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am proud to say that the UK has one of the highest rates of employment practice in the world. We have one of the safest working environments in the world, and it is our full intention that that should continue.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister said that the UK is in compliance with ILO standards. The problem for him is that the supervisory bodies of the ILO have consistently said that the United Kingdom is in breach of numerous ILO conventions. Not only that but the Council of Europe has also found that the United Kingdom is in breach of various articles and provisions of the European Social Charter, which the UK has ratified.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The European Social Charter no longer applies to us, as we are not in the European Union any longer. The noble Lord may have noticed that we had a referendum on the subject.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords—

Employers: Fire and Rehire

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

As the noble Lord will be aware, the Government are bringing forward legislation to stop those kinds of practices and extend minimum wage provisions to seafarers. The DfT is progressing that.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, when will the long-promised employment Bill be presented to the House? On previous occasions the Minister has said “when parliamentary time allows”. We notice that parliamentary time has allowed legislation to further restrict the right to strike and proposals to create a bonfire of workers’ rights derived from EU directives. Could the Minister not find a little bit of time for the employment Bill promised in 2019?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord has answered his own question. The position remains that we will bring forward an employment rights Bill when parliamentary time allows. I point out that the Government are supporting numerous Private Member’s Bills which have been introduced, particularly in the other place, such as the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill, Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill, Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill and the Carer’s Leave Bill. Many of these provisions are being taken forward.

Workforce: Trades Union Congress

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Skills is an important part of the Government’s agenda; we are spending some £2.5 billion, directed through the Department for Education, on building up skills provision across the economy. We remain open to working with trade unions, employers and whoever has good proposals for the future.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, this is not just a question of being “open” to working with trade unions; it is a question of whether the representatives of 30 million workers in this country should have a seat at the table to discuss with employers and with government the answers to many of our problems—which cannot be in doubt. Will the Minister reconsider setting up something formal between the TUC, the CBI, representatives of small business and government to look at the problems this country is facing?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I said that we remain open to meeting trade unions. However, the noble Lord’s figures are wrong: trade unions do not represent 30 million workers in this country; only 23% of workers are members of trade unions, so more than three-quarters are not represented by them.

Four-Day Working Week

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

Monday 5th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Well, we have no plans for a four-day week; we certainly do not have any plans for a three-day week.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, it is all very well to say that the negotiation of working time should be between individuals and businesses, and I understand the Minister’s logic in saying so, but the reality is that employers have overwhelming power in relation to individuals. Is it not necessary to allow trade unions to speak on their behalf, and should the ministry not be encouraging collective bargaining on these issues?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

In this country, we believe in freedom of choice. People are free to join a trade union if they wish and, as I have remarked before, only a minority have chosen to do so.

Strikes: Cover by Agency Workers

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We are always happy to work with organisations that want to work with us. The P&O situation is entirely different; it seems clear that P&O acted unlawfully, although that is being investigated at the moment. We have a commitment to bring in legislation for minimum wage protection for seafarers.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, prices have been rising at 9.1% per annum and wages are rising, on average, at 4%. This means that working people are looking at a cut in real wages of 5% per annum. Would not the Government be better off trying to cap prices, rather than undermining trade unions for defending the living standards of working people?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

If the view of the modern Labour Party is that capping prices is effective in a modern industrialised market economy then I truly despair.

Fire and Rehire

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I said that we are committed to bringing forward a code and we will consult on it shortly, but as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, it is a complicated area of industrial relations and employment law. I assume that even the Labour Party would accept that we cannot ban redundancy if a company is going bankrupt. Therefore, by banning fire and rehire we would end up banning the rehiring part of it, which I am sure nobody wants to see.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I take the point that banning fire and rehire would be extremely difficult, but what is the objection to regulating it by law?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for accepting the point that I am making: it is a complicated area and an outright ban would not be appropriate. Therefore, I assume that he will not support the Bill from his noble friend. However, we are prepared to regulate in this sector, which is why we are talking about introducing a code. That code will have a positive effect and will be able to be taken into account in any industrial tribunal proceedings, potentially resulting in an increase in compensation awarded.

Carers: Unpaid Leave

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I invite the Minister to consider, within his department, whether this change could not be brought about by a tweaking of the Working Time Regulations, which are secondary legislation?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

No, as I said in response to an earlier question, my understanding is that this needs primary legislation. I will certainly check that, but I do not think the noble Lord is correct.

Employment Bill

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

Wednesday 6th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, in the unavoidable absence overseas of my noble friend Lord Woodley, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to building a high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy that delivers on our ambition to make the UK the best place in the world to work. We will do that by continuing to champion a flexible and dynamic labour market. As we build back better, we will continue to make it easier for people to both enter and remain in work.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My noble friend Lord Woodley’s Question could not be more topical. Our employment laws failed utterly to protect the jobs, incomes and careers of 800 P&O seafarers, sacked without consultation or warning and marched off their ships by security guards. The Government’s proposals in response are set out in the all-Peers letter dated 31 March from the noble Baroness, Lady Vere. Not included is legislation to strengthen, and in particular enforce, employment rights to prevent repetition of such sacking by ambush. I ask the Minister: why not? Is it connected with the reports that the proposal for an employment Bill in the forthcoming Queen’s Speech was overruled last week by the Prime Minister?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The BEIS Secretary of State has formally commissioned the Insolvency Service to urgently undertake a thorough inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the recent redundancies made by P&O Ferries that the noble Lord referred to. We will not hesitate to take further action if we find evidence of wrongdoing. He will know that the Secretary of State for Transport has also committed to applying the national minimum wage to seafarers.

Status of Workers Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

3rd reading
Friday 28th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for moving his technical amendment in order to comply, as he said, with the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. While the Government are not convinced that the Bill is the right course of action, we agree with the importance of legislative scrutiny and consistency. The Government therefore welcome the amendment, which would ensure consistency under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Employment Rights Act 1996—although, as I said, we cannot support the Bill.

I congratulate the noble Lord on bringing the Bill to the House and on enabling this debate on an important subject. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions during Second Reading, which allowed for what I thought was an insightful and important debate on this topic. I also thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its expert contribution and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for tabling his amendment.

As I said at the start, the Government are not convinced that the Bill is the right solution to give greater protection to those in insecure work. We will continue to take steps to protect vulnerable workers, delivering on our ambition to make the UK the best place in the world to work and grow a business.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his speech. I am grateful, too, for the other speeches made today and those which were made on Second Reading. I am particularly grateful that the Bill has enjoyed wide support across the House, on all sides. I of course understand the position of the Minister in being unable to support it, but he stands alone in this. If the Bill is passed it will, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, render great justice to hundreds of thousands of workers who are wrongly classified, and thereby deprived of the statutory rights which Parliament has bestowed on working people. It will also provide, in accordance with the Government’s policy, a levelling-up process by which all employers will stand on a level playing field in the engagement of their workforce.

Employment Rights

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

Thursday 10th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his comments. The legislation will be introduced shortly, and it is important that we balance flexibility with protections. My noble friend feels very strongly about this issue. It is a dynamic, flexible economy that makes the UK such a fantastic place to work and gives us such relatively low levels of unemployment compared to many other European countries. We are the envy of the world in terms of not only our protection for workers’ rights but our flexible economy. The steps that we are taking on enforcement will help the country to build back better by taking a smarter approach to the enforcement of employment law, and will make it easier for the vast majority of responsible businesses to comply with the rules.

[Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Minister in the other place said yesterday:

“It is unacceptable and, frankly, immoral to use the threat of fire and rehire as a negotiating tactic to force through changes to people’s employment contracts”,—[Official Report, Commons, 8/6/21; col. 841.]


yet in only seven months of last year just short of 3 million workers were subjected to it. There is nothing in the ACAS report to justify not legislating. Can the Minister not accept that these millions of workers merit legislation, not just guidance, to protect them?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

This is a complicated area of employment law. We want to give employers flexibility to manage their business without producing undue effects on workers. Sometimes, sadly, it is necessary for employers to introduce changes; the alternative is that they go bust and no one has a job at all. We want to get this right and we want to introduce proportionate responses, but it is a complex area and we will be looking closely at it.

Uber: Supreme Court Ruling

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

Monday 1st March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his support. In my view, it is all about choice in the market. Those who wish to use services such as black cabs are free to do so, as are those who wish to use Uber or other home-grown services. That to me is the essentially Conservative thing; it is about choice and competition, which produce better standards for all. In answer to the noble Lord’s question, we will be making an announcement shortly.

[Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is good to hear that the Government will introduce legislation to simplify this complex area of the law and end repeated litigation over workers’ status. Does the Minister agree that simplicity requires that worker status be limited to a simple binary choice between employees on the one hand and, on the other, those who are genuinely in business on their own account, with their own clients and customers?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

As I said, we are committed to considering options to improve clarity on employment status and how best to address that in a post-Covid scenario. However, it is important that we retain the flexible labour market that has served this country so well and has resulted in our unemployment rate being significantly better than that of the rest of Europe.

Workers’ Rights

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review workers’ rights.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, there is no government plan to reduce workers’ rights. The UK has one of the best employment rights records in the world, and it is well known that in many areas of worker protections the UK goes much further than the EU. Now that we have left the EU, our Government and Parliament can decide what rules should apply and make improvements where they are needed.

[Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]]

The Government took power in the Brexit deal to degrade workers’ rights. On 14 January, the FT reported that

“a package of deregulatory measures”

was being drawn up, particularly in relation to working time. Apparently,

“select business leaders have been sounded out on the plan.”

The review was confirmed in the other place on 19 January. Yesterday and today, any intention to reduce workers’ rights was denied. What is the scope of the review, who is being consulted, why are the TUC and trade unions excluded, and what of the employment Bill?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I can only reiterate the Answer I just gave: there is no government plan to reduce workers’ rights. Our manifesto promised, among other things, to get Brexit done and to maintain the existing level of protection for workers provided by our laws and regulations.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

Wednesday 29th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

I understand the point my noble friend makes, but I think that the provisions are fairly well known and understood in the insolvency profession. There is a wide circle of people who know all about them and who specialise in this area, but I am happy to consider my noble friend’s suggestion.

[Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, in view of the fact that I have just learned that only one company has availed itself of the moratorium process, the answer to my question is now obvious. However, my question is this: has the Minister been able to make any assessment of the effect of the provision that workers be involved in moratoria by being informed? In the light of any such assessment, might it not be better to involve the workforce by consultation in advance?

[Lord Callanan]

I know the noble Lord feels strongly about these matters, and we discussed this during the passage of the legislation. We strengthened the monitor’s role to include a requirement in guidance that the monitor should ensure that the directors of a company have informed all employees that a moratorium has come into force. However, it is too early to see how this will work in practice.

Covid-19: Business

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

Wednesday 13th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

My Lords, as the virus of course does not respect borders or boundaries, we will continue to work very closely with all the devolved Administrations, including the Northern Ireland Executive, to support consistency for employers and a four-nation approach to kick-starting the UK economy. As I set out in previous answers, we have announced a range of unprecedented measures to support the UK economy.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, each of the eight guidance notes published on Monday advises:

“Workplaces should not encourage the precautionary use of … PPE to protect against COVID-19 outside clinical settings”.


That advice is surely contrary to the clear statutory duty set out in the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 to provide PPE to any employee in respect of whom risk has not been eliminated by other measures. The importance of this duty is magnified in the light of the Office for National Statistics report to which my noble friend Lord Stevenson referred, which identifies various occupations at an increased risk of death from Covid-19. Will the Minister indicate whether the guidance might be reconsidered in each of these eight notes?

[Lord Callanan]

Where workers already wear PPE for protection against non-Covid risks such as dust, they should of course continue to wear this. In relation to Covid-19 specifically, we have worked very closely with the medical community to develop this guidance and we will of course be guided by the science so that we do not put lives at risk in future.

Covid-19: Employment Support

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Hendy

Thursday 19th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

I think, again, the noble Lord makes a very good point. We have of course already announced extensions to statutory sick pay and the qualifying period. His points are well made and echo the points made earlier about freelancers. All the different sectors of the economy need to be looked at. We will do whatever it takes. We will put in place a comprehensive package and will announce details of that as soon as we are able to.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, all legal categories of worker will need income protection in this crisis, but can the Minister say whether the income protection proposals will cover, in the mind of the Government, five particular situations? First, there are those who will be off sick with coronavirus: clearly, they will be entitled to statutory sick pay, even though it is a pittance at £94.25 a week—a figure that will have to be increased. Secondly, there are those who are self-isolating and are not sick—at least not yet—and will not be entitled to statutory sick pay because they are not sick. Thirdly, there will be those who are off work to care for others, including children shut out of school, who will never be entitled to statutory sick pay but who do need income protection. Fourthly, there will be those who lose their jobs because of the loss of trade by reason of Covid-19 or following advice from Public Health England or the Government. I remind the Minister that the Financial Times this morning said that over 200,000 people in restaurants and catering have already lost their jobs—have been laid off—since mid-February. I noted that the figure did not include air transport or the holiday trade; I saw in the newspaper yesterday that British Airways had served an HR1, and it has 30,000 employees. Income protection must cover those who have lost or may yet lose their jobs. Fifthly, will it cover those who are redeployed from existing work to do emergency work, social care work or other work, not just volunteers?

[Lord Callanan]

I thank the noble Lord for his question, which illustrates the complexity of the problem, all the different factors that need to be taken into consideration, and how there needs to be a cross-government response, across a number of departments and obviously backed by the Treasury with comprehensive financing. The answer to his question is: yes, all these matters are being looked at. We are looking at various international options and proposals and we will hopefully have something to announce very soon.