Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Margaret Greenwood and Justin Madders

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Today, we consider a number of Lords amendments that will go some way towards making the Bill slightly less draconian than it currently is, but will not make it a Bill that we can ultimately support. I start by paying tribute to Members in the other place who have done their best to ameliorate the Bill with the sensible amendments that we are considering, and which we will be supporting. What those Members understand is that the Bill is the act of a weak Government who have lost the authority and the will to govern for everyone; a Government who prefer legislation to negotiation, diversion to resolution, and confrontation to consultation. How Ministers have the gall to come to the Dispatch Box and talk about the importance of minimum service levels when we have seen the decimation of our public services under this Government—with a record 7.4 million patients left on waiting lists, record teacher vacancies, and ever-increasing response times to calls to the police—is beyond me.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making excellent points. I have heard from doctors in Wirral West who firmly believe that the Bill represents an intrusion on legitimate trade union activities, undermines workers’ rights to representation, and would leave unions unable to effectively represent their members. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I do agree with those doctors. I will go on to explain why the Bill is an attack on basic freedoms and liberties that I thought this country held dear.

Turning first to Lords amendment 2B, as we know, the Bill presents the Secretary of State with huge, unchecked powers, throwing scrutiny and democracy out of the window. We think it is entirely reasonable that if a Secretary of State wants the power to set, impose and police minimum service levels, they should be accountable for the impact of those powers and able to demonstrate what their impact will be. Requiring them to conduct a proper impact assessment on the use of those powers and hold a consultation on any specific proposals they have could be helpful to a Secretary of State, because they cannot possibly know how every nook and cranny of any particular sector operates and what is needed to deliver a minimum service level—assuming they can define what one is.

If the Government think that it is such a wonderful idea to introduce minimum service levels in the sectors covered by the Bill, they should not fear scrutiny of their proposals, consultation with those directly affected, or challenges to their assumptions. My fear is that the Government fear all of those things. When the Regulatory Policy Committee described the Bill as “not fit for purpose”, one would have hoped that any sensible and rational Government would put a little bit of effort into talking to people to make sure that their own Bill had even a remote chance of working, but I suspect that—like so many things that we hear from this Government—they do not look beyond the easy headline and do not think through the consequences of their actions.

I will turn briefly to Lords amendment 5B, which attempts to deal with what is essentially a full-blown attack on the independence of trade unions and their members. I know that the Government have been raising the bar ever higher on the number of members required to vote in favour of industrial action. However, even they must see that putting a requirement on a trade union to take action to stop some of its members from participating in industrial action once they have voted in favour of it—as proposed new section 234E of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 would do—undermines the very essence of what a trade union stands for.

We have never had an adequate explanation of what reasonable steps a union is expected to take in those circumstances. The Minister previously told us that it would be a matter for the courts to determine, but that represents an abject failure by the Government to do their job. Are they really saying to trade unions that they can face damages of up to £1 million if they fail to comply with the Bill, but that they will have to wait for a court to decide what they need to do to avoid that liability? That is ludicrous, dangerous, and a potentially disastrous situation for any trade union to be in. This amendment removes Government interference in lawfully and democratically made decisions by an independent non-governmental organisation, and removes the completely disproportionate risk that trade unions face if they fail to adhere to the undemocratic, unspecified and unconscionable requirements of this provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

That is really a question for the Minister, and one that I think the Government have failed to answer adequately. I think the point my hon. Friend makes is a good one. When Conservative Members traduce the union barons, they actually traduce every single member of the trade union who has voted in support of industrial action, and I am afraid that that is no way for any Government to operate.

I would ask Conservative Members, not that there are many here, to consider what the Bill actually means. Representatives of trade unions will be required to encourage, cajole, advise, pressurise or even demand that their members cross a picket line. They will be asking trade unions to actively go against the very thing they were set up to do. I would say that it is a bit like asking a Conservative MP to vote in support of higher taxes, but I guess that, with the highest tax burden in over half a century, we may have to drop that particular analogy.

[Margaret Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. I am a proud trade unionist, but I am also a former schoolteacher. I am concerned not only about the administrative burden that this requirement for employers to serve work notices on staff will create, but about the risk of damaging relationships within the workplace. He is talking about people being required to cross picket lines, and that would most definitely be a case in point. I am very concerned, because schools and hospitals in particular operate through staff collaborating with each other, and risking those relationships is a very dangerous thing to do.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why so many employer organisations are also against this Bill, because they understand what it will do for industrial relations: it will make them worse, not better. I would ask Conservative Members to think carefully about what they are asking trade unionists to do, which is to go against deeply held, genuine and sincere beliefs—

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Margaret Greenwood and Justin Madders

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

We are back once again, and maybe it will be third time lucky, although it does not sound like it will be. The House will no doubt be familiar with our position, that the Bill, as originally drafted, was reckless, unnecessary and undemocratic. The Government talked about a bonfire of regulations when the Bill first came before the House, but I would instead describe it as a scorched earth policy that made for a good headline but completely failed to grasp the scale and complexity of the task before us. That the approach has been at least partially reversed is of course welcome, but concerns remain. The Lords amendments before us will deal to some extent with some of the outstanding issues, and we therefore intend to support them.

I turn, first, to Lords amendment 15D. I pay tribute to Lord Krebs for showing maximum flexibility in trying to find something that will gain Government support. I fear that it sounds as though his efforts will be in vain, because although he has taken the approach that the Government’s problem with his previous amendment was its wording rather than its substance—on the basis of the Government’s claim not to want to water down environmental protections—I think he was hoping that reasoned argument and compromise might see a resolution to this endless game of ping-pong. The sad reality is that he has been looking for reason where none exists.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. A number of constituents have written to me in recent weeks to set out their concerns and point out that we are in a climate emergency. They believe it is essential that the current level of protection for the environment is not weakened. In addition, they are concerned as we have a responsibility to not just ourselves, but future generations. Does he agree on that?

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I agree with it, which is why we are continuing to support the Lords on this amendment.

The Minister has referred to the conditions of previous iterations of this amendment as both “burdensome” and “unnecessary”. It is of course complete nonsense that something can be both of those things at the same time. A burden would be an additional requirement, but the Government also consider such amendments unnecessary. That implies that these are things they intend to do in any case, yet in their eyes they somehow remain a burden. I am sorry to say that I have yet to alight on any rational explanation for that stance, and poor Lord Krebs has stripped away his amendment to the bare minimum now in the futile search for common ground. His new version of the amendment has just two elements, instead of the four in the previous version. The remaining ones are non-regression on environmental protections and consultation with relevant experts; he has dropped the requirements for compliance with international obligations and transparency in reporting on expert advice. I would have thought that the two dropped conditions ought not to have been considered too troublesome for a Government committed to maintaining environmental protections, but we are where we are.

The Lords amendment therefore simply puts in the Bill what the Government say they intend to do in any event, yet the objections remain. We should be mindful of what the Government’s own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, said in its evidence on this Bill, which was that it

“does not offer any safety net, there is no requirement to maintain existing levels of environmental protection.”

I find myself both bemused and alarmed by the Government’s intransigence on this issue. When they are not listening to their own watchdog and instead present arguments that disintegrate on the barest of examinations, it is right that we should continue to press for this amendment. If everything that was said at the Dispatch Box became law, we would not need legislation, but I am afraid the longer this goes on and the more unreasonable the objections become, the stronger the case becomes for putting in the Bill the protections the Government say they want to see.

The confidence that the public have in this place has been severely tested in recent years. If our democracy is to work, and if we want people to engage and participate in the democratic process, what a Government say has to be honoured and has to be seen through, otherwise we risk forever losing trust in the political process. Once that trust has died, it cannot be brought back to life by magic or by good intentions. So I say to Conservative Members: think very carefully about how you vote on this Lords amendment. If they trust the Government to keep their word and can find a way to reconcile that blind faith with the Government’s refusal to put those promises in law, they should vote down the amendment. But if that word is broken, they should not ever expect anyone to trust the Conservative party to stick to its promises on the environment or any other matter, ever again.

Lords Amendment 42D tackles one of the most controversial clauses in the Bill, clause 15, which the Hansard Society called the

“‘do anything we want’ powers for Ministers.”

I remind Members that the Hansard Society is a body whose opinion ought to mean something. It describes clause 15 as that because, as has been extensively covered previously, it empowers Ministers to revoke regulations and not replace them; replace them with another measure that they consider

“appropriate…to achieve the same or similar objectives”;

or to “make such alternative provision” as they consider “appropriate”. Those are extremely broad powers covering broad areas of policy.

If this Bill has taught us anything, it is that the reach of EU regulations permeates every aspect of life and covers many important issues that most people would expect Parliament to have a say over: consumer rights; public health; the environment; and, of course, employment rights. These regulations cover many things that many people would want to see protected, and many more things that nobody said would be removed or watered down back in 2016.

I pay tribute to Lord Hope for trying to find a compromise that the Government can accept. I fear that, as with Lord Krebs, his efforts will be in vain. In short, this latest amendment would see a Committee of this place sift regulations made under the clause, following an explanation by the relevant Minister as to why that particular regulation is required or desirable. It should be noted that Lord Hope made it clear in the other place that this Committee would be a Commons one only; how ironic that an unelected Lord is the one pushing an amendment to give the elected Commons more say in how our laws are decided, and that the Commons is resisting this move. Perhaps he, at least, understands what taking back control was meant to be about.

The Lords amendment further provides that once the Committee has considered the Minister’s explanation, it can, if it wishes—it is not required to—draw special attention to the regulations in question, following which the Minister must arrange for them to be debated on the Floor of each House. The Minister must then have regard to any resolution of either House and may, but is not required to, amend their proposal in the light of what has been resolved. The Committee can also recommend that the proposal should not be proceeded with, but, in the true spirit of taking back control, this House will get the final say on that. Is this not what the true spirit of Brexit was really about: the democratically elected Members of this House asserting influence and passing our laws?

I am sure that we will hear, once again, the fallacious arguments that because these laws were passed in the first place without proper democratic involvement, that means, by some twisted logic, that it is fine now to hand all the power over these laws to Ministers, without any reference to Parliament. Those arguments do not wash because they come from a place that says that anything that originates from the EU is bad and we therefore do not need it. Tell that to the millions of people enjoying paid holidays for the first time, to the disabled passengers who were given priority on transport for the first time and to the millions of people who have kept their job because of TUPE protections. I do not believe anyone who voted to leave the EU voted to dispense with those rights. If it is the Government’s intention to change any of those protections, or the thousands of others that our citizens enjoy, it is only right that this place has a say in that.

I am afraid the lack of transparency that this Bill represents, and the sidelining of genuine scrutiny, show up all those arguments that were made back in 2016 about sovereignty for what they are: a fig leaf for a select few to shape and determine the future of this country without reference to Parliament, and certainly without reference to the people they are supposed to represent. Democracy in the 21st century does not die in one swift act, but erodes over time, bit by bit. This Bill is another example of that, and until this Government restore basic democratic principles, we will do all we can to oppose it.

Employment Tribunal Fees

Debate between Margaret Greenwood and Justin Madders

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s excellent contribution in the debate she referred to. She is, of course, right that there are significant issues of barriers to justice, and of employers not learning lessons about inequality; that needs to be put right. She makes a valid point about equal pay audits. Tribunals have additional powers beyond simply awarding compensation. We hear a lot of rhetoric from the Government about cutting down on the compensation culture, but tribunals have important powers that go beyond compensation. They also, for example, have the power to make a statement of an employee’s terms and conditions. That is absolutely basic, bread-and-butter stuff that we should expect to happen in an employment relationship, but occasionally it is necessary for an employee to go to a tribunal to get that basic statement of terms and conditions.

We can bandy the figures around in a number of ways, but the common thread is that there has been a 65% to 70% drop in the number of claims lodged. It is little wonder that, with such overwhelming evidence, Lord Justice Underhill stated the following when he considered in the High Court Unison’s judicial review of the fees regime:

“It is quite clear from the comparison between the number of claims brought in the ET before and after 29 July 2013 that the introduction of fees has had the effect of deterring a very large number of potential claimants.”

That is a very clear statement.

There has no doubt been a reduction in the number of claims made. Have employers suddenly started treating their employees better? [Laughter.] I do not think there is any suggestion among Opposition Members that that is the case. It is worth remembering that since the introduction of fees, the general trend has been an increase in the number of people in work, so the proportion of people in employment who are bringing tribunal claims is actually decreasing even more than is suggested by the raw data.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I would like to make reference to the TUC’s submission to the Select Committee on Justice inquiry on tribunal fees, which stated:

“The EHRC and BIS recently funded a large-scale survey of the experiences of new mothers in the workplace...The survey findings suggest that 54,000 women a year (one in nine new mothers) are dismissed, made redundant when no other employee is, or are treated so badly while pregnant or on maternity leave that they are forced to leave their jobs.”

Indeed, I know women who have suffered exactly that. That is happening at a time when, despite all the joy of adding a new member to their family, they are under a huge amount of pressure. In 2012-13, prior to the introduction of fees, there were 1,593 claims for pregnancy-related detriment or dismissal.

[Margaret Greenwood]

I am sorry, Mr Streeter. There was half the number in the following year—790 claims. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) agree that that is an unacceptable level for our society?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and I understand the passion that led her to speak for slightly longer than is the norm. She is absolutely right that pregnancy discrimination is still rife in the workplace. Figures that I have seen suggest that of the 54,000 women who are dismissed on the grounds of pregnancy each year, only 1.5% proceed with a tribunal claim. Is that not a damning indictment of the difficulty that people have in accessing justice?

We need to examine the supposed reasons that the Minister may put forward for why the number of claims has dropped. I am sure that the Government would like to claim that the success of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service early conciliation scheme is part of the explanation, but we should remember that the scheme was not in place for the period immediately after fees were introduced, so that cannot explain the number of claims dropping so dramatically immediately after fees were introduced. The figures that we have seen on early conciliation provide little comfort for those seeking to explain the reduction; indeed, as I will argue, the fee system can be seen as an impediment to effective early conciliation.

The figures on early conciliation tell us that of the 60,800 notifications made to ACAS in April to December 2014 as part of the early conciliation scheme, 15% were formally settled by ACAS and 22% progressed to an employment tribunal claim. That leaves a massive 63% that were not formally settled through ACAS but did not progress to an employment tribunal. Of course, it is not possible to identify how many of those claims had merits, but it is too large a figure to ignore, and the similarity between that figure of 63% and the figures that I have already referred to is too much of a coincidence for us to ignore.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood]

Somebody facing a situation in which they may want to go to an employment tribunal is stressful enough, and they may well be thinking that they might lose their job or have to leave their job because they are so unhappy. With that in mind, there was the figure from Citizens Advice that four out of five clients they dealt with felt that the current levels of fees would deter them from even bringing such a claim. Does my hon. Friend think that is an acceptable state of affairs?

[Justin Madders]

No, it is not an acceptable state of affairs. My hon. Friend makes a really pertinent point: if somebody is still working for an employer, the last thing that they want to do is take them to a tribunal. It does not help the employment relationship to improve, and it almost certainly leads to a parting of the ways one way or another. We should be there to help people if they have had a violation of their rights. There should be an easily accessible system to enable them to resolve things.

Let me go back to the startling statistic that those bringing type B claims would have to wait six months in order to afford the fee. Does that not tell us something? When the time limit for bringing such claims is three months, the fact that a person would have to wait six months in order to afford the fee is a complete exposé of how wrong-headed and unjust the system is, so if the Government are minded to make any changes, at the very least, they should look at the level at which fees are set.

I will say a few words on remission, because no doubt that will be used to justify the level of fees. However, do not forget that the comments that I just referred to have been made by people at a time when fee remission is available, so it obviously is not working for many. It is worth noting that when the Government first looked at the fee remission system, they estimated that about 63% of claimants were predicted to benefit from fee remission in whole or in part, but in reality, only about 21% have. The average monthly take-home salary in this country is just under £1,800. Remission is not available to people on that salary, but they are asked to stump up two thirds of that sum just to pursue a tribunal claim. Does that not highlight how unrealistic the fee remission system is?

We also have the completely indefensible situation in which an employer does not pay their staff, which is one breach of the law, but that is then compounded by the fact that the employer does not issue payslips and, because the individuals have not received payslips, they cannot access the remission system. How can that be a just situation?

If the objective of introducing fees was to weed out unmeritorious claims, the policy has been a failure. The success rate has not really changed, and I argue that the employment tribunal structure has plenty of well-developed measures to deal with unmeritorious claims, such as deposit orders, strike-outs and costs awards. Indeed, over the last decade or so, there has been a general ratcheting up of measures designed to deter and weed out frivolous, vexatious and misconceived claims. The rules are there, are clear and are perfectly capable of being applied, so I suggest that that is the route to go down if the concern is really about stopping people pursuing claims unreasonably or vexatiously.