Employment Rights (Amendment, Revocation and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023

Lord Leong Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2023 Grand Committee

Other than that, I echo the points made by both the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Davies, on concerns about the reduction of workers’ rights more generally, which I believe we need to be concerned about.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations, and all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. It is a pleasure to see my noble friend Lord Stansgate and welcome him to the chair.

As we have heard, this instrument does three main things. It reduces requirements under the working time directive, simplifies annual leave and holiday pay calculation and streamlines the regulations that apply when a business transfers to a new owner. This results from the retained EU law Act removing the interpretive effects of EU law on the UK statute book.

As my noble friend Lord Hendy mentioned, during its passage through the House, many of us on these Benches made it absolutely clear that the Act should never be a vehicle for the removal of important existing rights of British citizens. The Government seek to assure us that these changes do not amount to that, and that they simply remove extra bureaucracy. However, in my relatively short time in this place, I have learned to be wary of such assurances. It is said that the devil definitely lies in the detail. However, accurate records leading to accountability surely should not be seen as an evil in itself.

First, I turn to the change to the working time regulations. This represents the greatest risk to workers’ protection. It means that businesses will not have to keep records of their workers’ daily working hours if they can demonstrate compliance without doing so. Will the Minister accept that removing the requirement for accurate record-keeping, tilting the balance of power away from workers to the employer, in fact removes workers’ rights, not unnecessary bureaucracy?

The Explanatory Memorandum says that the instrument will “remove the uncertainty”, without quite explaining what this actually means. The Government argue that the obligations were disproportionate and could damage relationships between employers and workers. Can the Minister expand on how removing clarity could damage this relationship and do anything but actually increase uncertainty? Can he also explain how businesses will demonstrate compliance without records and how a lack of compliance could be evidenced or enforced? Can he expand on the implied relationship between recording working hours and reducing economic activity, or is he prepared to accept that such a correlation does not in fact exist?

Secondly, the instrument provides a simplification of annual leave and holiday pay calculations. In all my years of owning and managing businesses and employing thousands of employees, I have never seen such a complicated system—so much for reducing unnecessary bureaucracy. Can the Minister guarantee that, as a result of this regulation, no workers will lose out on the annual leave and holiday pay to which they are currently entitled?

Finally, I turn to rights under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations —TUPE. My noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton eloquently set out why this change is totally unnecessary. As TUPE transfers currently stand, employers must inform and consult with representatives from a trade union or, if there is none, other employee representatives. Employers can inform and consult directly with employees only if there are fewer than 10 employees in the organisation. This instrument will amend TUPE consultations so that they can take place directly with employees in the absence of existing representation, if either the company has fewer than 50 people or the transfer involves fewer than 10 employees. This clearly represents a reduction in the existing rights of workers in such organisations. Can the Minister confirm whether ACAS has been consulted on these changes? I look forward to his response.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

As always, I thank noble Lords for their valuable input in this crucial statutory instrument debate. I also join in the thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and welcome him to his position.

I will try to go through the various points raised, beginning with those of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy; by answering some of his questions, I will have a chance to answer others as well. The point about rolled-up holiday pay is important because, if you are an irregular-hours contractor and you work for an employer for a very short period of time, for example, it would be impractical for you to take a fraction of a day’s holiday paid in that way. It is much more reasonable, useful and suitable for the employee to have their holiday pay rolled up into the work they are doing.

This is important, and we consulted on whether we should bring it in for all employees in the UK. We decided that that was very much not the right thing to do, precisely for the reasons raised by the noble Lord: it is essential, in many respects—in order to have a good and functioning workforce—that holiday is taken at the right time and that people have the right level of rest, let alone in relation to the implications for health and safety. As a result, this only applies to part-year and irregular-hours workers. Whether the employees wish to receive their pay in that way is at the discretion of the employer, in consultation with them. From my point of view—I have been an employer—this strikes me as eminently reasonable. It does not necessarily change anything significant; it just clarifies the important point about how that can be rolled up. We also brought in important clarifications between part-year workers’ holiday entitlements and irregular hours workers’ holiday entitlements, which now bring them into line. Again, this is about fairness, which I know that the noble Lord is keen on.

On record-keeping, it is relevant to mention the court case that has been referred to: CCOO v Deutsche Bank—I will use the acronym “CCOO”, rather than try to pronounce the full name. It is important to note that we are not changing anything at all. I am not sure whether noble Lords realise that this was never implemented in the UK, so the point is that we will not implement it in the UK and it is currently not implemented. Tomorrow morning, or whenever the statutory instrument comes into effect, there will be no change in employment systems for any company—no one would see any difference—because we are not implementing this necessity to track every minute of every worker’s day. Instead, employers will have the rights that they have today, so if we are comfortable—which we are—with the obligations that employers have to confirm under the working time directive, we should be very comfortable with where we are.

We believe very firmly that bringing in this necessity would in many instances be unnecessary. This does not relate to making sure that irregular-hour workers, workers in part-time roles or those who work complex shifts, and so on, have worked the right amount of time. In most instances, this is for regular office-hours workers who work roughly nine to five; to have them clocking in and out, and having complex systems monitoring them, is entirely unnecessary. We do not do it now and do not see why we should do it. We think that the cost to industry in this country could be much as £1 billion in terms of new systems and familiarisation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned Ukraine. The consultation referred to the fact that in a cost of living crisis, and with other global headwinds and challenges, it would seem unnecessary and wrong to impose burdens on businesses that we are not already imposing on them. There is nothing to lose. It is important to be reassured that employers’ obligations have not been changed. There are no changes as a result of this instrument. It simply ensures that we do not have to conform to unnecessary and restrictive paperwork-oriented activities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also raised an important point about the use of AI and technology. I completely agree with her raising those points. I do not think it is in doubt that employers will want to use AI to ensure that they are conforming to their obligations and that their workforces are properly managed, but we should not forget that it is important that we respect small businesses in this country, which may not have the time or capital to invest in such systems. In most of these instances, we think it is unnecessary. I believe that, collectively, we are doing a sensible act in not implementing this judgment, by keeping things as they are and ensuring that workers are protected. Employers have obligations and we are allowing the system to function appropriately.

The third point covered by noble Lords was on TUPE. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, has been described as the barrister champion of the trade union movement, and it is a title of which he should be proud, but this relates to organisations with fewer than 50 employees—currently, it relates to organisations with fewer than 10 employees—who do not have a representative force in place. While he is indeed the barrister champion of the trade union movement, it may surprise him to know that some companies do not have trade union movements or representative organisations in them. We find ourselves in a bizarre situation where small companies with few employees are obliged to have elections for representative organisations that do not exist. Even in the world of the noble Lord, that would seem bizarre, unnecessary and indeed unkind to small businesses. It does not at any point derogate the rights of employers when it comes to TUPE transfers where there are representative organisations.

The noble Lord, Lord Leong—perhaps it was the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, or the noble Lord, Lord Davies—rightly raised whether this can be used as a way round, so that large companies transferring small units to other companies could do it piecemeal, say 10 employees at a time. I do not believe that that would be the case. The obligations of an employer under TUPE regulations—the liabilities accruing to them—have not changed in any material way whatever. Tribunals where they could be found at fault would clearly see through such a plan. I am sure noble Lords know that when you buy businesses that are relevant in terms of team transfers to other companies, it simply does not work in that way, so I do not believe there can be an abrogation of rights.

Let me give an example, which I am sure noble Lords will agree is common sense: if you are transferring a small unit of two people, I understand that you are currently obliged to have an election and a representative for two people who are not members of a union and do not have a representative organisation. That does not mean they cannot receive external advice; of course, we would always advise people to receive the advice they need. In this instance, we are clarifying the situation, simplifying it and making it completely reasonable. At no point are we rolling back on any of the workers’ rights that we hold so strongly in this country and which we are committed to, either through trade agreements with Europe or any agreements that we have undertaken.

Genuinely, I have looked very carefully at each aspect of this statutory instrument and think it is a welcome tidying-up of paperwork and bureaucracy, alleviating burdens on businesses while at the same time simplifying the rights of workers and ensuring that the economy can function effectively. I commend this instrument to the Committee.

Workers’ Rights

Lord Leong Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am delighted to be taking through the CPTPP Bill, of which one of the key tenets is ensuring that musicians receive a fair proportion of the money they earn from broadcast media. This is just one of the many areas that we are focusing on, and I will also mention the support allocated in the Autumn Statement yesterday to the creative industries in general. We make all the great films in the world here, including “Barbie”, and I hope that will continue, whether you are a self-employed musician or part of a larger organisation.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I will follow on from my noble friend’s supplementary question. On Tuesday this week, the Supreme Court ruled that Deliveroo drivers are not entitled to certain rights, including unionisation, because they are considered to be self-employed and not workers. Do the Government have any plans to protect the growing number of workers in the gig economy, rather than allowing multinationals to dodge basic employer obligations by pretending that some of these lowest-paid workers are able to exercise their freedom to turn down work?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

The Government have done a huge amount to ensure that principles such as zero-hours contracts can remain flexible, allowing millions of people to do the work they wish to do and allowing students to participate in the workforce, while ensuring that they have the right levels of protection for holidays and other crucial concepts in workers’ rights. It is important that we have a strong economy, which will enable people to have these jobs. I remind all noble Lords that we have increased the number of employed people by over 3 million since we came to power in 2010.

National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2023

Lord Leong Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the overview and explanation of the statutory instrument. We on this side very much welcome this instrument. I thank my noble friend Lady Donaghy for her contribution and for bringing us up to speed on what happened 25 years ago.

As many noble Lords know, the national minimum wage was introduced on 1 April 1999 by the last Labour Government. It creates an obligatory threshold pay level. At the time, the party opposite argued that it would cost millions of jobs, but, 25 years later, this has not happened. In fact, the national minimum wage has had negative effects on the overall UK labour market. Today, around 1.6 million workers—roughly about 5% of all UK workers—are paid at or below the minimum wage. When there is such high inflation and a sustained cost of living crisis, this is just not good enough. Employers should be encouraged to recognise that making work pay with a real living wage and strong workers’ rights is good for growth and for the economy.

This statutory instrument removes the option for a person who resides in a domestic family home, but who is not a member of the family, to be asked to do work in a household without remuneration. This means that a potential loophole by which the unscrupulous employer could require someone living with them and treated as a member of the family to unreasonably be expected to perform jobs in the home without being paid at all. From 1 April 2024, such tasks will now have to be paid at the relevant band of the national minimum wage.

Does the Minister have figures for how many employees —nannies, au pairs and other domestic workers—can expect their income to increase as a result of this change in legislation? Can he also indicate which channels or organisations the Government plan to utilise to alert affected workers to their new rights, especially as I imagine some may not be British citizens or have any union representation? Given the sensitivity of employee-employer relationships in a domestic situation, can the Minister inform your Lordships’ House what provisions are in place to support workers who might find themselves in vulnerable situations, or even potentially homeless, if their employer refuses to recognise their right to be fairly paid as a result of these changes, since their access to legal advice may be very limited? Finally, as well as making people aware of their rights and offering support when made aware, will there be any more proactive steps to ensure that as few people as possible slip through the cracks?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions during today’s short debate. These regulations will reward low-paid live-in domestic workers right across the country so that they are paid fairly for the work they do. It will give more clarity on wage regulations for the families that employ these workers, making sure they are paid the national minimum wage. It will also ensure that HMRC enforces the national living wage and national minimum wage for live-in domestic workers, in line with other sectors. The legislation will ensure that all work is treated fairly, and it will end the misuse of the exemption to exploit workers, particularly migrant women.

I will now take the opportunity to answer some of the specific questions asked by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, said that this is only one of the unfair anomalies in operation at the moment. The Government accept that and are working as hard as they can to ensure that this is dealt with. The question about different ages and rates is certainly something that I have always found quite difficult to come to terms with—I always paid everybody the same amount, regardless of their age. I can see the argument for bringing people up to a certain level as they leave education and start building up to a full-time job while living at home. Certainly, the Government have moved to narrow the gaps and, as I said, the full national living wage is a significant salary—that is good news. I will write to the noble Lord about the issue of less universal credit. I do not think that it is our policy to take away universal credit, but I will write to confirm that that is the case.

The noble Baroness asked about au pairs. I am advised that there are still 45,000 au pairs in this country, which is a surprisingly large figure. Although it is a small number in the total scheme of the 1.6 million workers, this is an important step to take—I suspect there are a lot of other people who are not covered by the au pair qualification. Clearly, it is the responsibility of HMRC to police this, and it has been given a substantial increase in the funds it can address towards this area. As I said, it follows up every single report it gets about this. Of course, there is a link to slavery and all sorts of things, which one worries about deeply. On the accommodation off-set, I rather like the idea of the monastery. That does reduce the national living wage but at a reasonable rate—I think it is about £1 per hour at the moment, or something like that.

The point of the noble Lord, Lord Leong, about the 1.6 million was well made. The Government have been absolutely committed to the national minimum wage and the national living wage, and they will continue to drive that through as far as possible. We will certainly encourage employers to ensure that this amendment is widely known; I will write with the detail on that. Equally, we will take seriously support for workers, particularly those who are homeless. I hope that covers the specific points raised.

I conclude by extending my thanks once again to the Low Pay Commission—it is wonderful to have an original member in our company. Thanks to its independent and expert advice on this national minimum wage exemption, we can ensure that the right balance is struck between the needs of workers, affordability for business and the wider impact on the economy and the families involved. Again, we look forward to receiving its recommendations for the 2024 rates, which will be published later this month. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (Revocation and Sunset Disapplication) Regulations 2023

Lord Leong Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations. I agree with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee when it said in its short report that these regulations are an “eclectic” list of items to be reinstated and revoked. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, just said, it includes all sorts of things, including alcohol regulations. It covers a variety of departments, including the Northern Ireland Office; as the Minister said, it is deeply to be regretted that the Northern Ireland Civil Service, rather than a functioning Executive, had to make the decision to reinstate the three pieces of legislation relevant to Northern Ireland.

I also agree with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that the Explanatory Memorandum is insufficiently detailed, stating merely, as it does, that the laws in question are either redundant or no longer effective. It is to be welcomed that, as the Minister said, there is now a direct link in the Explanatory Memorandum to the more detailed analysis, but it is important that these things are clear and easily accessible to the public, as well as to parliamentarians in this House and the other place.

The Government promised consultation and expert input on REUL reforms. Can the Minister update us on how departments are taking that commitment forward, including in the regulations we are looking at? The Minister will know that there are particular concerns regarding lack of consultation and progress on nutrient pollution and air quality. Can he update us on possible timescales and consultation processes for these two areas? Can he also say how the Government intend to approach assessing and mitigating the risks of changes to case law, which is so important for environmental protection?

My final comment is perhaps more for your Lordships’ House than for the Minister, but this secondary legislation from the original Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act is a very good example of where there should be post-legislative scrutiny within the usual framework for carrying out a PLS inquiry. There are important lessons to be learned for the future about the provision of effective parliamentary scrutiny and consultation with experts, which did not happen in the case of the original Act in the haste to get Brexit done and to get it on the statute book.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the overview and explanation of this statutory instrument. In this first use of the powers in the retained EU law Act, the tidying-up exercise involves the exercise of the Section 1 power to disapply the sunset and the Section 14 power to revoke 93 pieces of retained EU law that no longer have any legal effect for whatever reason.

First, on the use of the Section 1 power, the Government have identified four pieces of legislation that never should have been included in the revocation schedule. This is extremely concerning. These instruments —two concerning the use of copper, one concerning merchant shipping regulations and one providing the legal vires to inform Northern Ireland and Gibraltar counterparts of the outcome of roadworthiness inspections —may not be the most significant pieces of legislation we have but they each play an important legal role.

Without the cross-party efforts of the House in improving the Act, these instruments would almost certainly have been lost at the end of the year, given that the further analysis required to spot these errors would have needed to take place on thousands, not hundreds, of instruments. Do the Government now accept that their initial unnecessarily reckless approach, borne out of internal party politics, was undoubtedly the wrong one?

Schedule 1 to the Act contained 587 instruments to be revoked at the end of 2023, to the extent specified there. I am sure the Government were 100% confident in this list when it was first drafted. We are now much closer to the end of the year and its looming deadline. Does the Minister seriously expect us to believe that now he really is confident that the revocation of the instruments on that list will not have any legal impact? Is the analysis that found the four errors I mentioned still ongoing or has it concluded?

The instrument also retains three pieces of legislation for Northern Ireland only relating to information provision and promotion measures concerning agricultural products. This again sounds somewhat minor, but their revocation would have represented a policy change, which would require agreement by Ministers in a non-functioning Executive. I am sure the whole House can see the constitutional risk, so is there any risk that proceeding as we are now will lead to such a situation? I assume that the Northern Ireland Civil Service will be examining this legislation continuously until and probably after it is revoked. If the Minister could share what he has been told by it on this matter, it would be very much appreciated.

Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Bill

Lord Leong Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 18th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all those involved in getting the Bill to this stage. I particularly thank Scott Benton MP for steering it through its various stages in the other House; the Bill team, which has been so supportive; and, of course, the Minister and my noble friend Lord Leong.

The successful passage of the Bill will create a new right for workers to request a more predictable working pattern. It will address the unfair imbalance of power that exists between some employers and workers in atypical work, such as workers on zero-hours contracts and temporary workers. Workers will be empowered and encouraged to talk to their employers about their working patterns, safe in the knowledge that starting this conversation will not result in any detriment to the worker. It will give workers additional predictability and security of both hours and income, at a time when many workers with unpredictable or varying levels of income—as well as many others—are struggling with the rising cost of living. Workers will be better able to secure employment that suits their individual circumstances, helping them to feel more satisfied at work.

The Bill does not mean that our work is done in securing employment rights for those who need it most, but it is a crucial step on that journey. I am grateful for all the support for the Bill from all sides of the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to support this Bill at its final stage. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Anderson for taking the Bill through the various stages of the process. Of course, I also thank the Conservative MP Scott Benton for his willingness to work collaboratively to achieve this laudable objective. The passage of the Bill is an excellent reminder that good outcomes can be achieved even in politically and economically turbulent times. I am sure that many of us in this House will agree that when workers are treated with dignity, higher levels of well-being can lead to a range of benefits to businesses, especially around productivity, which will frequently be of more benefit to the employers than can be measured in wage costs. We fully support the Bill, which brings us one step closer to the protection of workers, and I look forward to seeing it passed in this House.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, for bringing the Bill through this House and I am delighted to confirm the Government’s ongoing support for the Bill, which will fulfil our 2019 manifesto commitment to introduce a right for workers to request a more predictable working pattern. The Bill will allow workers to request more predictable working arrangements, addressing the issue of one-sided flexibility while ensuring that workers can continue working on a zero-hours contract, another form of non-guaranteed hours contract or, indeed, a temporary contract, if that is the type of contract that suits them. This will allow individuals and businesses to strike the right balance between flexibility and predictability.

This new right will function in a similar way to the existing right to request flexible working. An employer will be able to refuse a request for a more predictable working pattern based on one of six statutory grounds similar to those established for the right to request flexible working. These grounds build in vital flexibility for businesses, ensuring that they are not unfairly burdened by accepting requests that would, for example, generate burdensome additional costs.

In conclusion, I am delighted to see the Bill progress, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, for sponsoring the Bill as it moves through this House and my honourable friend Scott Benton MP for sponsoring it through the other place.

Employers: Fire and Rehire Tactics

Lord Leong Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My understanding is that the P&O case is still under consideration with the insolvency authorities, so I cannot comment further on it. Further consultation is going on, taking account of this case and specifically the difference between dismissal and redundancy. That will also be in the code of practice. P&O has received censure. It continues to operate within the laws of the United Kingdom and should be allowed to continue to do so.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, good business leaders recognise that without workers they have no business. Valuing workers, treating them with dignity and respect, and mutual trust build a dedicated, motivated workforce. Unfortunately, some employers still adopt fire and hire practices with relative impunity, disrespecting their employees’ livelihoods and well-being. In turn, that damages the reputation and profitability of their business. Do the Government think it just for workers to be treated in this manner? Why will they not stop it?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

As I indicated, only 3% of employers have ever used these tactics. The majority of good employers understand full well that the health of their company requires a happy and motivated workforce. This is a minority situation. The code of practice will give it greater clarity going forward.

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises: Interest Rates

Lord Leong Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. CDFIs have been extremely successful and, if one looks at the plethora of lending opportunities right now, it continues to broaden because of the new entrants into the market. We will certainly take it up with the major banks and see where we get.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, SMEs are now looking to move from survival to growth as they recover from the impact of the pandemic. However, many SMEs that relied on government-back pandemic loans are finding the cost of borrowing far higher now. What can the Minister offer the millions of SME owners and employees whose prospects are hampered by the 15-year peak in interest rates?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

The interest rate is a Bank of England matter. The reason why it has gone up, as we all know, is to battle inflation, which is incredibly important. Having said that, in business, financial rigour and accountability are paramount in managing a business, particularly through a growth phase. We saw insolvencies fall to quite a low level during the pandemic because of the Government’s support, and the noble Lord is right that we are starting to see the number creep up again. The Government will do all we can in providing both advice and teams to help businesses in trouble but, when it comes down to it, it depends very much on the financial viability of the business going forward.

Digital Economy Agreements

Lord Leong Excerpts

Monday 24th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

No, my Lords, I am not sure that they are in conflict. Technological advances in free trade agreements will ensure that this country, among others, will be able to trade freely with a very wide range of companies and countries.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, digital transformation could grow the UK economy by more than £413 billion by 2030, equivalent to around 19% of the entire UK economy. That is more than twice the annual output of the UK’s manufacturing sector. Surely we should be turbocharging DEAs with as many countries as possible. Why are we so slow, and what assessment have the Government made of the size and experience of negotiating teams as part of the recent machinery of government changes?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point: anything that improves the speed of these free trade agreements can only be for the benefit of the country. The ones we are looking at at the moment are with India, Switzerland, Israel, Canada, Mexico and the GCC, and digital economy agreements will be in every one. There are digital trade provisions in a further 30 to 40 free trade agreements: I am very happy to give him a list but I do not think it is appropriate to read it out now. The very heart of this is making trade easier, faster, more secure and of course cheaper.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

Lord Leong Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, while we will always welcome improved trade relationships, the political capital invested by the Government in this announcement seems disproportionate to the potential economic impact. The deal will increase the UK’s GDP by 0.08% after 15 years. Since the Government were not able to negotiate the terms of the UK’s membership, I will ask the Minister two questions. Will it lead to the lowering of food standards or of our intellectual property protection standards? China applied to join CPTPP in September 2021—what assurances on economics and security have Ministers asked for from existing CPTPP members in relation to China’s membership?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)]

Noble Lords, it is a momentous occasion to be able to talk in this House about the signing of the CPTPP. This is a tongue twister, but we are all going to have to get our mouths around it because we are going to hear a lot more about this in the future. This is a massive region of 11 countries in the Indo-Pacific, which account, together with the UK, for 15% of world trade GDP.

We know that this trade deal originally had the US in it, and Donald Trump took the US out. That created a gap. For those of us who play the game of rugby football, you always go for the gap. The UK has taken that gap and got into this deal, which, to come to the specifics of the question, will in no way impact on our food standards and regulatory standards.

On the matter of China, China is not a member of this group. China has expressed some interest, but there are other interested countries such as Costa Rica, Ecuador, Uruguay, the Philippines and Korea that are in line before China. So, as far as we are concerned, at the moment we are not commenting on China’s accession. China has expressed an interest but, on the exact question, there will be no reduction of food standards and general regulation through this deal.

Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Bill

Lord Leong Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 16th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo what my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent said about our friend Jo Cox. We remember her more so today than any other day. She was the best of us, and let us be the best of her.

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Anderson on bringing this proposal as a Private Member’s Bill and hope that it can swiftly pass through its remaining stages. I admit that I was more than a little shocked to discover that the provisions and protections of this Bill were needed. When it comes to zero-hour contracts, the default position has been to offer one-sided flexibility—an awful example of political double-speak, which attempts to disguise the unbalanced and exploitative relationships between employers and some of the most vulnerable people in our workforce.

In 2015, exclusivity clauses on zero-hour contracts were made unenforceable for many workers, but this right was not extended to those earning less than £123 per week until December of last year. Let us consider what this really means: workers in low-paid jobs, facing double-digit inflation and mostly impacted by food inflation in the high teens, have been entitled to non-exclusive zero-hour contracts only for the last six months. That is shameful. It pains me to think how many people may have been so desperate that they remained trapped into staying with an employer who could treat them as an afterthought, with little sense of the human being and their family depending on unpredictable wage packets, week after week.

My noble friend’s Bill improves their position a little further, supporting workers who have been employed in this way for some time, whether directly or through an agency, to request that it becomes formally recognised in their employment contract. This will add a much-needed layer of security for those teetering precariously on the very fringes of the world of work. It has been estimated that the net cost to businesses of this legislation will be only £16.9 million annually. As a businessperson and an investor in many SMEs, I recognise that some micro-businesses may find even the smallest additional costs challenging, especially with the current cost of living crisis. However, I was surprised that it was such a relatively low figure for the whole UK economy, given that it could make an enormous difference to thousands of our most vulnerable citizens. We should remember that many of the employers facing these costs will not be micro-businesses or SMEs—not at all. In a country where the average FTSE 100 CEO earns 103 times the average worker and more than 150 times a full-time worker on the minimum wage, this minimal cost that can be met.

We know that the cost of living crisis disproportionately impacts the lowest paid. Just last week, the publication of annual reports of some well-known British companies revealed that their CEOs received seven-figure bonuses, which more than doubled their enormous so-called basic salaries of around £1 million. I do not think it would break their business models to ensure that some of this money found its way to their lowest-paid employees, perhaps demonstrating some “other-sided” flexibility.

The potentially life-changing social and economic impact on the lives of the lowest-paid workers, who would be helped by the Bill, and the resultant benefits to the employer of a more engaged and stable workforce will, in my view, quickly repay the relatively small additional cost. I believe—indeed, the Labour Party was born out of this belief—that treating employees with dignity, providing them with the stability that comes with a regular wage, leads directly to improved self-esteem and loyalty, which in turn builds a more positive, productive and profitable business. Although investment in equipment and technology is important, investing in the workforce should always take account of the people behind the spreadsheets. People are the drivers of any business, and this will always be the case. As employers wrestle with artificial intelligence and the much discussed “rise of the machines”, we should be looking after our employees.

Although much more can still be done to improve workers’ employment rights, as my noble friend Lord Davies and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, I have enormous respect for my noble friend’s efforts in bringing the Bill before us. It is definitely a step in the right direction, and I urge noble Lords to support it.