Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Michael Wheeler Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

I welcome this essential and timely Bill, which upgrades our product safety, regulation and metrology—a word that I admit I had to look up, but it does not take much to understand it—framework, delivering a much-needed boost to protections for consumers and ensuring that every company in the UK, whether they operate online or on our high streets, upholds the high product safety and quality standards that working people in this country deserve and that have been absent for too long.

Whether it is faulty carbon monoxide alarms, dangerous children’s toys or the issue of spontaneously combusting e-bikes and scooters, which has been raised with me by my constituents in Worsley and Eccles, examples of hazardous products being on sale are far too common. Clearly, there is an urgent need to raise the bar on consumer product safety in this country. The Bill achieves that aim, establishing a modern safety regime that will enable companies to operate safely, while accounting for the post-Brexit regulatory landscape.

In an increasingly turbulent international trading environment, it is imperative that the Government update the UK’s product regulations. However, since our exit from the EU, the Government have not had the necessary powers to meet the challenges presented by the fast-moving global product safety standards environment. That has left British consumers vulnerable to falling behind with regard to protections.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s argument. I have been in this House for a little while; I have sat on both sides of the House, and I have been in government. I have never come across a Government who have failed to get regulation through when they feel it is necessary to do so, but it goes through with debate. We cannot just impose regulations because we think it is right. There has to be some measure of whether it is balanced and whether it works, and that is normally done by this House. Why give it to the Government alone?

[Michael Wheeler]

If the system we have in place was working, we would not be here debating this, and we would not see these shoddy products on sale or these fires. The only explanation is either that the system does not work or the last Government failed in their duty to the people of this country.

As I was saying, this has left British consumers vulnerable to falling behind with regard to protections in rapidly emerging areas of product safety that need reaction—for example, those related to new technologies such as AI and lithium-ion batteries. I therefore support the Bill’s provisions to enable the Government to meet the fast-moving challenges of the day in these areas.

[Graham Stringer]

I am interested that my hon. Friend mentions AI. There are three major systems around the world being proposed for artificial intelligence regulation: those in China, the EU and the United States. If we have to make a choice for our own framework, which might be different from those, for the safety of people in industry, why should that not be done on the Floor of this House rather than through delegated regulation? It is one of the most important issues that will face us in the coming years.

[Michael Wheeler]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I will happily admit to the House that I am not an expert on AI. I do, however, recognise that the fast-developing nature of AI as it relates to consumer safety and product regulation requires a rapid response, which is potentially not necessarily suited to a full debate on the Floor of the House.

[Graham Stuart]

Can the hon. Gentleman give a single instance of a Government at any time in the past decade not being able to take action on a seriously risky product? I cannot think of one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Wheeler]

I can think of several—for example, the lack of regulation around the e-bikes and e-scooters on our streets that are causing fires. We are in a fast-moving environment, and we are creating a framework that will future-proof our system.

[Ms Creasy]

I want to help my hon. Friend out, because he was not here when the previous Government introduced the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which deleted more than 4,000 laws and used statutory instruments to replace them. The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who was a Minister at the time, is nodding his head as if that process was acceptable. He is now challenging a colleague who was not here at the time by saying that somehow it is not acceptable now, but it was acceptable then. My hon. Friend is right to be concerned and slightly sceptical about the Opposition’s sudden agreement that statutory instruments are perhaps not the best way forward.

[Michael Wheeler]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We are dealing with a regulatory black hole that was left behind, and the absence of a framework is letting down the consumers and people of this country—[Interruption.] I was about to say that I am sure we would all agree on that, but that is potentially a stretch in this debate and in this Chamber.

I hope that we do agree that consumers should be able to buy products online without worrying about their safety, and that product standards should not be bypassed or compromised on any platform, digital or otherwise. However, research by the Office for Product Safety and Standards found that 81%—eight in 10—of products for sale on online marketplaces between 2021 and 2022 failed to meet safety standards, which underlines the need for the Bill. We cannot allow companies to circumvent essential safety standards, presenting a public health risk just because they sell their products online.

However, the Bill is not just about safety, critical though that is; it is also about ensuring fairness. We simply cannot continue with a product safety regime that enables online marketplaces to undercut bricks-and-mortar retailers, or that allows rogue traders to out-compete responsible retailers with unsafe, low-quality products. That is unfair on consumers, reputable manufacturers and the small high street businesses that must compete with the online giants. With online sales already making up over a quarter of total retail sales in 2023, we must level that playing field now, providing our high streets with a long overdue boost to their competitiveness.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about product regulation, but is the issue that he is highlighting not actually about enforcement? I have no issue with legislating for product regulation safety standards, but they already exist. In fact, he says that there are products that do not meet the safety standards, so we know that those standards exist. The issue that he highlights is purely around enforcement, which this Bill does nothing to address.

[Michael Wheeler]

I disagree that the issue is “purely” around enforcement. Obviously, there are elements of enforcement, but separating out one part of a package—a regulatory framework that will future-proof us from other issues—is not a coherent argument.

To conclude, it is vital that we create a product safety, regulatory and metrology framework that protects consumers, encourages fair competition and meets the changing picture internationally. This Bill delivers that framework, and I look forward to supporting it further in this House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joy Morrissey]

I agree completely with the right hon. Gentleman. I will leave it there, because that is an excellent point.

This is about free trade and expanding our global reach by making money, growing our economy and allowing everyone to benefit from a tax base that grows because our businesses can export freely. I am very supportive of that. If the Bill in any way addressed the concerns I have raised, I would be happy to support it, but it is vague and does not give us the insight we need into the kind of alignment that is intended. That vagueness presents a challenge that was mentioned repeatedly in the other place. In this House, we must address the Bill’s challenges with a similar rigour. It may look quite harmless on the outside, but under the surface it will deliver profound change and threaten our ability to scrutinise these regulatory changes. In the other place, the noble Lord Sandhurst described it as:

“a Henry VIII Bill par excellence”. —[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC44.]

We would do well to heed those words.

Where is the policy framework under which Ministers will decide to use these powers? On parliamentary sovereignty or Ministers’ decision to use the powers, there is no such framework.

[Michael Wheeler]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. As a fellow member of the Procedure Committee, I do enjoy a good procedural debate, but I wonder whether she will get to the meat of the Bill at any point. Will we be talking about Brexit bogeymen, or will we be talking about consumer safety, representing those we are here to represent, looking after their interests and making them safer?

[Joy Morrissey]

The Bill is a legislative blank sheet of paper for Ministers to fill with whatever legislation they feel like. The Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated that the Bill

“signifies an exceptional shift in power from Parliament to the executive and entails the Government, in effect, asking Parliament to pass primary legislation which is so insubstantial that it leaves the real operation of the legislation to be decided by Ministers”.

I say to Members right across this House: heed those words. If we do not stay alert to legislation that looks so harmless yet confers such powers on Ministers, we are failing in our role as legislators.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Of course I agree with my right hon. Friend, and that comes to the nub of what I want to say. Yes, inevitably we are party politicians. We have the official Opposition, we have the Government, and we have those who sit on the left-hand side of the official Opposition. Above that, however, we are parliamentarians, and some of us are quite new. I may look old, and indeed I am, but I was first elected in 2019, and an awful lot of Members in the Chamber who may be voting tonight are even less experienced than me. It takes a while to begin to understand the difference between the role of the legislature and the role of the Executive, and my profound concern is that we are at risk of handing very significant powers from ourselves, the legislature, to the Executive.

[Michael Wheeler]

Having heard these comments several times, I wonder whether the hon. Member will accept that wisdom is not necessarily proportional to the amount of time spent in the Chamber.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The conventions of the House, and the conventions of the legislature, cannot be brushed aside by a flip comment like that. There are reasons why we have conventions. There is a separation of powers between the Executive and the legislature, and the power to create legislation lies with us. There are grounds, sometimes, on which we can give it to Ministers, but there must be really sensible reasons for that to be done, and there simply are not in this instance.

“Chapter 4A

Michael Wheeler Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) mentioned the upcoming review of parental leave, and I am sure the Minister will mention it in summing up, but I really encourage the Government to support new clause 16 to grant entitlement to statutory adoption pay to the self-employed. We should be removing any barriers to adoption so that brilliant potential parents can adopt and some of our most vulnerable children can join their forever families.

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my proud membership of USDAW and the GMB.

It was an honour to serve on the Public Bill Committee for this historic piece of legislation. The Bill represents a watershed moment: a turning point for working people in our country who for too long have been left behind in an economy plagued by weak employment rights, stagnant growth and the soaring cost of living. The measures contained in the Bill represent a meaningful intervention in our broken labour market, looking to promote good quality jobs that offer dignity, security and respect to working people. As someone with a proud background representing workers, I wholeheartedly support the Bill’s spirit and provisions. I believe it will meet Labour’s promise to deliver a new deal for working people— a new deal that will make work pay.

Whether it is banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, ending the scandal of fire and rehire, or protecting employees from unfair dismissal from day one, the Bill will promote good secure employment and a workforce who finally feel valued. It recognises trade unions as the force for good in the workplace that they are, encouraging positive, productive and harmonious partnerships between companies and unions. The evidence we heard in Committee made it clear that many of the Bill’s measures enjoy broad support from both employees and employers, such as the modernising of family friendly rights to meet the needs of today’s workers, and the creation of the Fair Work Agency, which will protect good employers from being cynically undercut by unscrupulous competitors.

Let me now turn to statutory sick pay and Government amendment 81. During the pandemic, it became clear that SSP is in desperate need of reform. I am therefore delighted that the Bill removes the three waiting days and the lower earnings limit, delivering greater financial security to working people when they need it most. However, an issue remains. Setting the amount a low-paid worker receives while off sick at 80% of their wages has the unintended consequence of reducing sick pay for those who earn at, or slightly above, the lower earnings limit. Low-paid, long-term sick workers will be the most affected. I believe that is an oversight, and contrary to the spirit of the legislation. I call on the Minister to close the gap.

Turning now to the right to a regular hours contract, the proliferation of one-sided flexibility throughout the workforce has been one of the most damaging labour market developments of the past 14 years. It has left workers vulnerable to sudden changes of income as their hours change from week to week. The right to a regular-hours contract is therefore one of the Bill’s most important provisions. However, limiting that right to those on a specified number of hours, such as 16 hours a week, will unnecessarily exclude those above the threshold from benefiting from the right, while giving employers a perverse incentive to give additional hours, when available, to those who already have more hours.

I raise these points not to be critical, but because I believe that we have in front of us a magnificent piece of legislation—one that is testament to the power of collaboration and consultation—and I want as many people as possible to benefit from it. Jobs are the cornerstone of our lives. The Bill takes giant strides forward, ensuring that people are fulfilled by their jobs, protected while at work and take home enough to make ends meet. It restores a fair balance of power between employers and employees. It is good for workers, good for productivity and good for growth, and is therefore good for business, too. I suggest to the House that anyone serious about fairness at work and increasing living standards should support it.

[Joe Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the Bill being good for growth, but is he concerned that the Government’s own assessment says it will cost businesses £5 billion? Does he have any concerns at all about the downward impact on growth of that cost?

[Michael Wheeler]

I think that a Bill that promotes good, secure work across the economy is something we should not shy away from. I believe, if I am correct, that the figure referenced represents 0.5% of the costs of businesses, so no—I am not concerned.

I would like to finish in a slightly odd place. Benjamin Disraeli believed that his Government’s active role in passing legislation that benefited the working person would

“gain and retain for the Conservatives the lasting affection of the working classes”—

clearly he failed in that endeavour. One nation Tories are now a vanishingly scarce presence on the Opposition Benches. I ask all hon. Members on those Benches, with their opposition to this Bill: when did the Conservatives give up even trying to be on the side of working people?

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

If growth is the intended destination, as my friends in Dublin would say, “You can’t get there from here”. This Bill—so long on amendments and so short on detail—cannot be reconciled with this Government’s stated mantra of growth, growth, growth. By their own estimate, the Bill will cost business £5 billion—so easily dismissed by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler), despite being a serious amount of money. The only growth will be in the mountain of red tape in which the Bill will snare businesses.

I rise to speak in favour of new clause 87, which would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the

“international competitiveness of the economy”

and its growth in the medium to long term. The Secretary of State for Business must surely recognise the importance of this—after all, I saw him just days ago in a slick video, with cuts quicker than the shower scene in Hitchcock’s “Psycho”, boasting of

“working together abroad to deliver growth at home”.

Now, I love a fantasy film as much as anyone, but the Secretary of State is in danger of jumping the shark with this level of sophistry and stretching credulity beyond snapping point. Growth at home is feeble, and this Bill is its enemy.

So lacking in detail is this Bill, which was clearly scrabbled together to beat the Government’s own deadline of the first 100 days, that it is the equivalent of a parliamentary blank cheque—sign here, and we will fill in all those pesky details later—handing sweeping powers to the Secretary of State. We are being asked to walk into a cage without a key. I have seen this before with the SNP’s woeful prospectus for Scottish independence in 2014. Scots were bright enough then to see through the smokescreen. Will Members across the House be sharp enough to discern the dangers here?

Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Michael Wheeler Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Good morning, Sir Christopher. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am pleased to move the new clause, which would add special constables to the scope of section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, giving them the right to unpaid leave to perform their duties.

Special constables are volunteers. They give their time, at no cost to the taxpayer, to help our police forces. Specials have existed in some form ever since the Special Constables Act 1831, which allowed justices of the peace to conscript volunteers. The special constabulary as we know it was established by the Police Act 1964, which gave chief constables the authority to appoint and manage special constables. Today’s specials carry all the same legal powers as their full-time counterparts, on and off duty. They put themselves in harm’s way, without payment, to keep our society safe.

I tabled the new clause because my constituent, Ms Emma-Elizabeth Murphy, asked me to do so. She came to see me at one of my first constituency surgeries and asked me to help her and her fellow special constables. Ms Murphy joined up as a special in 2021 and took the oath as a constable. Since then, she has recorded more than 1,300 hours of duties, arrested multiple offenders and dealt with fatal accidents. Last year, she was recognised as student special constable of the year.

Ms Murphy explained that she and many of her colleagues use their weekends and holidays to perform their duties. They may ask their employers for unpaid leave, but 60% of employers who were surveyed do not grant it. Bringing specials within the scope of section 50 would mean that their employer had to consider the request officially and grant a reasonable amount of unpaid leave. That would put them in the same position as councillors and magistrates.

The number of people who volunteer as a special has fallen by two thirds over the past decade. Many forces now face significant gaps in their special constabulary ranks. Applications have slowed significantly, with most special constables joining purely as a stepping stone into the regular force. The two-year attrition rate of the force is 90%. That means that the constabulary does not see a good return on the time and training that it invests in new recruits.

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under you, Sir Christopher. I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—and the GMB.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater is making a powerful case. Were the Government to accept his new clause, would he support the Bill as a whole?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

That would not be quite enough to offset the £5 billion-worth of costs for small and medium-sized enterprises. The advantage of the new clause is that it would not cost either the taxpayer or employers any money. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.

The truth is that, currently, many people simply do not have the time to offer to the role without employer support. The measure I propose would make it easier for specials to perform their duties and, I hope, help recruitment. Unlike so many of the proposals in the Bill, it would not cost either employers or the taxpayer any money.

I am pleased that this campaign has the support of the Association of Special Constabulary Officers and more than a dozen MPs from Government and Opposition. We also have the endorsement of 10 police and crime commissioners. Importantly, Assistant Chief Constable Bill Dutton, acting in his capacity as the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for the special constabulary, has provided his written support for including special constables under section 50. The Minister has received letters from hon. Members in all parts of the House, and I believe that some of his ministerial colleagues, too, may have received letters or held meetings with Government Back Benchers.

The new clause could help with the recruitment and retention of many new special constables and it would make our streets safer. It would also finally recognise the work of the specials and put them on the same footing as the thousands of other people in this country who are allowed time off work to complete valuable civic duties. I ask the Minister to consider that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

Well, there we have it. The Government who say they are pro-growth have shown their true colours and will not back our amendment to prove their intentions towards growth. This whole Bill is a socialist charter and we know that we cannot have socialism and growth at the same time. The history books have taught us that time and again.

We deeply regret the Government’s resistance to these two amendments. We will continue to be the party that champions business, growth and getting our economy going again, while this Government do everything they can, in this Bill and in their Budget and in so many other ways, to hold our economy back.

[Michael Wheeler]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Greg Smith]

Of course I will. Bring it on.

[Michael Wheeler]

I am going to try an entirely new tactic to derail the shadow Minister mid-stride. This is a genuine question, and I hope he answers it. Does he agree that throughout our line-by-line discussion of the Bill, he has been most generous with his time in accepting interventions that I believe to have been valuable?

[Greg Smith]

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is for others to judge whether any Member of this House has been generous or otherwise.

What I can say, as we come towards the end of our debate on the final amendments and move on to the final clauses, is that we have had a good debate in this Bill Committee. It has not been one of those where those on the Government Benches are told to be quiet in the interest of getting on with it. We have had a genuine debate and a back and forth. Although we have not always agreed, and it looks like we do not agree on the amendments we are debating right now, we have had a debate. Our constituents sent us all here to represent them in arguments over ideas, concepts and values, and practical steps to meet the ideas and values that we hold dear, and we have done so. I agree with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

On amendments 164 and 165, I repeat that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition regret that the Government do not wish to accept these pro-growth amendments. I will not press them for now, but we may well be seeing them very soon, when the Bill returns to the main Chamber on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Employment Rights Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Michael Wheeler Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I broadly welcome the bringing together of powers under the fair work agency. I note that the Secretary of State is due to publish an annual report, but I am sure that businesses in Torbay would be interested to know where in the Bill the critical friend is to hold the Secretary of State to account and ensure that they are being light of foot and driving the agenda we all want to see in this area, so I would welcome the Minister’s sharing that.

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

As is customary, I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the GMB.

I warmly welcome this clause and the subsequent clauses, and the establishment of the fair work agency. I remind the Committee of the evidence we heard of the broad support for the agency, including from Helen Dickinson, the chief executive of the British Retail Consortium, who said:

“I think everybody is supportive of and aligned on proposals like a single enforcement body.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 99, Q95.]

Jamie Cater, the senior policy manager for employment at Make UK, said:

“The important thing for levelling the playing field is the fair work agency, and making sure that we have an approach to enforcement of labour market policy and regulation that is properly resourced and does have that level playing field.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 54, Q53.]

Jim Bligh, the director of corporate affairs for the Food and Drink Federation, said:

“For me, it is about enforcement and having a really strong, well-resourced enforcement agency.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 55, Q53.]

--- Later in debate ---

For a starter for 10, I would argue that the word “independent” will need to do a lot of heavy lifting. For example—

[Michael Wheeler]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Greg Smith]

I will be delighted to in one second, when I have finished my train of thought.

Can someone be classed as independent if they are an academic or a university professor, perhaps with considerable knowledge of and expertise in employment law and matters relating to the Bill—someone we should all respect—but also a member of a trade union? Does their membership of a trade union count towards whether they are independent? Would that be at odds with paragraph (a)?

[Michael Wheeler]

I apologise for interrupting the egging of the pudding—we were definitely in the “over” area of the egging. Does the shadow Minister accept that despite what we have heard, and despite the picture that he is trying to create, this model works? It is not novel; we have the Low Pay Commission. It is an established fact. Despite the many layers and convolutions that we see being built in front of us, we are actually considering something quite straightforward here.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for what appears to be his support for the British egg industry. I encourage him to eat as many British eggs as possible and to support our farmers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I have a number of concerns about the establishment of the advisory board for the enforcement of labour market rules. I do not believe that such an advisory board is necessary and I am convinced that its creation would represent an expensive and bureaucratic exercise that would be redundant at best and a tool to disguise the Government’s intentions behind a veil of unnecessary consultation at worst. Let me explain why.

Let us first address the central issue: the need for advice. It is not as if there is a shortage of expert opinions on labour market matters; far from it. If the Secretary of State is seeking guidance from trade unions, he need look no further than the extensive and loud representation of trade union interests on the Benches behind him. There seems to be no shortage of trade union representatives in key positions, be it MPs with close ties to the unions or those with—

[Michael Wheeler]

Does the hon. Member accept that there is a difference between “member of” and “represents” when it comes to trade unions?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Yes, I do. Indeed, “funded by” trade unions is another distinction. The point I am making is that this advice is available for free. There is no need for the Secretary of State to commission a board and pay representatives of trade unions to give him advice. The notion that three members of trade unions are needed on the advisory board seems, to put it bluntly, quite redundant. The Secretary of State can obtain that advice from any number of trade unions, their experts, or any of the MPs that sit on the Government Benches, who will all freely give it. Let us not forget that there are already plenty of independent experts contributing to various public bodies and providing high-level advice to the Government—there is certainly no shortage of them dotted throughout Whitehall.

If the Government require business perspectives, they certainly need not search too far for that advice either. If they wanted to, they could listen to the CBI or, if they preferred, to the Federation of Small Businesses, which provide ample insights and recommendations on policy matters relating to labour and employment. Those bodies represent businesses large and small, and have extensive networks of experts available to advise on any issues regarding the labour market. The problem—I suspect the Federation of Small Businesses would agree—is that the Secretary of State does not listen to them, so what difference would it make if he were to put one of them on a board of nine or 12? Do we need more voices from the same sectors giving advice?

Who might we see the Secretary of State appoint to this board? I am sure Sir Brendan Barber would get a look in, or perhaps Baroness Frances O’Grady. I wonder what Len McCluskey is up to these days—I am sure he has vast experience in employment rights matters.

Employment Rights Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Michael Wheeler Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Greg Smith]

One moment and I will, of course, give way to the hon. Gentleman.

If unions cannot reach 10%, what is the rationale for saying, “Oh well, we’ll just lower it to 2%”? Surely, if the union cannot get to 10%, they are on a pretty sticky wicket and in a situation that one might describe as a wing and a prayer in the first place, so lowering it to 2% is exposing them further.

[Michael Wheeler]

I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my membership of the GMB and USDAW.

The shadow Minister is painting a very rosy picture of reasonableness and neutrality, of businesses that sit by and allow these things to happen, and of unions that can wander around and have a nice chat and recruit people. Does he accept that the reality in the world of work is actually one of hostility, of difficulty, and the types of measures that this Bill is trying to address so as to restore the situation to an even keel?

The reality out there is hostility to recognition and trade union membership. Therefore, 10% has proven to be a high and often insurmountable barrier, and not actually reflective of the will of workers, rather than when a proper choice, in reasonable and neutral conditions, is put to them. The threshold should actually be lower, to allow the process to take place and for it not to become a tool for erecting barriers to trade union recognition.

[Greg Smith]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and I appreciate his contribution, through that intervention, to this debate. Where I would gently push back is that there are many provisions in the Bill around allowing union access for recruitment, for example, or other things we have spoken about this morning, such as the regular reminders of the right to join—or not—a trade union. Therefore, my central argument is that to most reasonable people, 10% is still a very low bar—it is not a high proportion of anything. So, if the other provisions in the Bill still cannot allow the trade unions to have reached that very modest 10% threshold, something really isn’t working.

Whether you are a passionate trade unionist or not, it must be accepted, from the perspective of how the clause sits as part of the package of provisions in the Bill, that something much more fundamental and problematic is happening for unions to be unable to reach that 10% threshold. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that there is universal hostility. I accept that in some workplaces there is hostility; that is unquestionable and clearly something that does happen. However, I can equally think of many examples where the relationship between management and trade union may be—to put it politely—difficult, where it is still one of good will and a wish to engage, negotiate and try to come to an arrangement that works for everyone, rather than the absolute hostility that the hon. Gentleman described.

[Michael Wheeler]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way again, because I would not want my words to be misrepresented. In no way was I suggesting that there is universal hostility; I was just talking about the reality on the ground and the way that recognition procedures are often used. Let us bear in mind that voluntary recognition agreements are a thing, so these procedures tend to be used where there is hostility. There is not universal hostility in the workplace. In fact, I worked in a union that had the largest private sector partnership agreement with a large private sector employer, and it was harmonious and beneficial for all involved, so I would not want my words to be taken out of context or misrepresented.

[Greg Smith]

I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman in any way, shape or form, but I return to my central argument. Although I entirely accept what he says—that there are examples of hostility—and I understand why the Government wish to take measures to overrule them, it is impossible to view clause 47 in isolation. It must be looked at as part of the package of measures in the Bill. If, having become law, they still fail at some future point to counteract the problems that he talks about, there is something much more fundamentally problematic occurring, which the clause alone would not solve. I therefore ask the Minister to reflect on how he envisages the other provisions impacting the need for the clause to be implemented in the first place, particularly if an already low threshold of 10% has the potential, under the Secretary of State’s direction, to become even more absurdly low by the test of reasonability and go down to 2%.

If Members were to go to the average high street to do one of those dreaded media-style vox pops and ask, “Is 2% a reasonable threshold to allow in any of these circumstances?” I think the general answer would be that 2% is absurdly low, and that 10% is already low enough. The test of public opinion is important. I dare say that many more consultations are to come, and it is important that they tease out what is reasonable and what is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

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

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

[Michael Wheeler]

I might surprise Conservative Members by saying that I welcome the amendment. Before those on the Labour Benches start to panic, I welcome it because it is a reminder that the only place in the country where Conservative Members support increasing red tape is for trade unions.

It is always nice to follow and to be of one mind with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, so I will try not to repeat too much of what he said—although I agree with it all. The shadow Minister challenged Labour Members who have spoken, but it is fundamental to point out that the analogy he drew is false. A trade union is a member-based democratic organisation designed to protect those who are part of it. It is not a subscription or an entertainment package on TV. It comes with more rights, more democratic involvement and more control over where money and resources go. A fundamentally false analogy was drawn.

We heard earlier about businesses. I gently push back on what the hon. Member for Bridgwater said; I do not think I heard the Minister say it would be an annual notice. It was up for consultation, but even one notice was described by Conservative Members as onerous. Yet here we have an amendment pushing not just for reminders but for annual reconfirmation, from people who have already given their consent to pay into a political fund, that they are happy for that to happen, as a compulsory measure. That is deemed reasonable by Conservative Members, but it is not. The amendment is a continuation of a decades-long attack on the trade union movement by the Conservative party.

[Greg Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Wheeler]

I was one sentence from the end, but I will always happily give way.

[Greg Smith]

Perhaps I can put to the hon. Gentleman a hypothetical scenario. If his trade union, the political fund of which he had willingly opted in to because in some cases it might support the Labour party, decided, like a quarter of Labour voters, that it regretted that political choice and now wished to go even further to the left and support the Liberal Democrats, would the hon. Gentleman wish to opt out of that political fund and have clear instruction on how to do so should that be the case?

[Michael Wheeler]

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

[Laurence Turner]

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

[Michael Wheeler]

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

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

[Justin Madders]

We have had a good debate on the amendment. It is fair to say there is a deep divide in our positions. I will address the amendment and the clause stand part debate.

Amendment 126 would make two changes to clause 48. First, it seeks to retain the requirement on trade unions to provide their members with an annual notice of their right to opt out of contributions to the political fund. Secondly, it seeks to require trade union members to opt in to contributions to the political fund annually. As we have heard, that would place substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic requirements both on trade unions and on their members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles said, this is one of those rare occasions when the Conservative party seems to be in favour of more red tape, which is clearly something that we want to see reduced.

I will start with the change that would retain the requirement for trade unions to send an annual notice to members reminding them that they can opt out of contributing to a political fund. The amendment targets the wrong section. It would amend section 86 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which relates to ensuring that employers do not deduct contributions through check-off from the member where the union member has opted out of the political fund or where the opt-out notice has been given but is not yet in force.

However, I will respond in terms of the spirit of the amendment tabled by the shadow Minister. The Government have been clear in our intention to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, which was a clear manifesto commitment. We have a mandate to deliver on that. The amendment seeks to frustrate that clear intention by retaining the substantive effect of section 84A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as amended by the Trade Union Act 2016.

We should be clear that members are, of course, free to opt out of contributing to a political fund whenever they wish. Clause 48, which I will come to, sets out how that is possible. Currently, alongside the requirement to ballot members on the maintenance of a political fund every 10 years, trade unions must also remind their members of their right to opt out of a political fund. The Government are proposing to remove the ballot requirements. We have consulted on whether to retain a requirement for trade union members to be reminded on a 10-year basis that they can opt out of the political fund.

Employment Rights Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Michael Wheeler Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

The better regulation framework states that when a Government Department is making a policy intervention, a regulatory impact assessment should be prepared when a measure has an annual direct net cost to business of £10 million. Think about the figures we have just been talking about for the impact of strike action: if that test is £10 million, but the RMT strikes alone cost the economy £5 billion, I really do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that we should have impact assessments in place.

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

Does the shadow Minister accept that the strikes he talks about happened under an incredibly restrictive regulatory and legislative regime? The measures in the Bill seek to foster a better industrial relations environment, which will lead to fewer strikes, not more. Under the previous Government, we saw an incredibly restrictive environment, which ratcheted up the tension and resulted in more strikes.

[Greg Smith]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I gently ask him how a no-strings-attached bumper pay rise for the train drivers worked out in practice when it came to strikes over the Christmas period. We have heard repeatedly from Labour party politicians that they will prevent or stop strikes. The most visible example of that in our newspapers and on our television screens was the Mayor of London, who made some pretty bold promises about stopping strike action. Londoners and those coming into London for work, pleasure or hospital appointments have suffered multiple times during his tenure. I am not sure I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that the Bill will somehow magically reduce the number of strikes, when the reality on the ground has been very different.

Given the prolonged and repeated strike action made easier by the Bill, it could almost certainly lead to large costs across the economy. We think it is only right that a level of transparency similar to that applied to Government Departments should be applied to trade union decisions. Trade unions should exercise some responsibility and consider the consequences of their decisions to undertake strike action. We would therefore like trade unions to assess the likely impact that their going on strike will have on real people and their lives, journeys, hospital appointments, theatre tickets, enjoyment, pleasure or whatever it might be that the strike action will prevent them from doing—and, of course, on our children’s education, which is so important.

New clause 43 would require trade unions to carry out impact assessments and family tests, to publish the reports of those, and to inform members of the trade union about their contents, before a ballot for industrial action can take place. It is hardly a controversial position that people should know what they are voting for before they are asked to cast a ballot on it, and that they should understand the consequences of the strike action not just for them, but for the wider economy and people’s health, education, and so much more across our great country. We think it is only right that trade union members should be fully informed of the consequences before they cast their votes. Such information would provide some public transparency about the cost and inconvenience that trade unions are willingly inflicting on the British public.

Employment Rights Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Michael Wheeler Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Gibson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Smith]

I will give way to the hon. Lady first.

[Greg Smith]

I think the hon. Lady has potentially misinterpreted my remarks. I am not directly conflating the pay of staff with the educational outcome: I am saying that there are academies that may well be able to structure their own affairs in the way they recruit, pay and set terms and conditions so that that is actually more favourable. That is one of those fundamental freedoms that make academies—and free schools, for that matter—different and able to offer the diversity that we both seem to celebrate, particularly in supporting those children who need additional support to whatever degree in that setting. Someone else was waving at me a minute ago.

[Michael Wheeler]

I am more than happy to wave in a friendly manner in this festive sitting. As usual, I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests of my membership of the GMB and USDAW. We have heard the phrase “academy freedoms”, with a lot of emphasis put on freedoms. We have also heard the Minister confirm that diversity is not being lost in terms of educational choice. We have heard that teaching assistants, according to the Low Pay Commission, have unfortunately been defined as low-paid workers. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the only “freedom” —I use inverted commas there, for the sake of the record—being lost is the ability of academies and free schools to pay poorly?

[Greg Smith]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I caution him against this presumption that those academies want to pay poorly, somehow mistreat their staff or set pay rates so low that most of us would think that it was an absurdity. I am not sure that they do; I am not sure that anybody wants to pay their staff as low as they can get away with. Those academies often advertise and appeal for staff, be they teaching assistants, teachers, ancillary staff or whoever, in a manner that actually makes them more attractive than the other offerings. That is part of the freedom to set up the school in the way that they wish and to ultimately deliver the best possible outcome for the children they are teaching and preparing for their future lives.

I come back to the point that if we start stripping away the freedoms and rights of those establishments to have local control, in this case around employment, I do not see any other natural conclusion than trying to bring our entire educational establishment back into being one single style of education. There may be some on the left—I say “the left” broadly; I am not just looking at the Labour party—who would welcome going back to simply having the secondary modern or whatever it might be. To be fair to her, the hon. Member for Chippenham agreed with me on the point of diversity and choice in education. It is a huge strength and a benefit to all children in this country that we have that level of different offering and choice in our educational establishment, and it has made our country fundamentally better. For total fairness, I repeat the fact that it was the last Labour Government who introduced academies.

Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Michael Wheeler Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

Of course there will always be some who look for loopholes, but I gently suggest that the vast majority do not. They are good employers who care for their workforce, because, as we have discussed many times over, no business is anything at all without both parts—the workforce and those who risk their capital and so on to make those jobs happen, and to produce the products and sell the services in the first place.

The intervention from the hon. Member for Dundee Central neatly leads on to where I was going anyway. The Committee heard from almost every witness who was an employer or who represented employers that the dismissal and re-engagement provisions in the Bill were already too restrictive and would lead to staff being laid off. The SNP amendments make those even more restrictive, so it is not hard to work out where those witnesses would have gone on this front. Given that risk of lower employment and higher unemployment, I gently ask the hon. Gentleman to consider how the SNP would actually answer that challenge were the amendment to go through.

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

As ever, it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. As usual, I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and particularly to my membership of the USDAW and GMB trade unions.

I am sure it will not surprise the hon. Member for Dundee Central to hear that I share some of his concerns about the practice of fire and rehire, and I welcome the significant steps taken in the Bill to outlaw the practice. However, I disagree with his amendment 160. What might be seen by some as a loophole is actually an important safeguard against the perverse potential for the law to mandate redundancy when there might have been other options on the table. I am sure that none of us would want to be party to including that in the Bill.

As I said, I share some of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and I hope the Minister will look closely at proposed new section 104I(4) of the 1996 Act, because the words

“likely in the immediate future”

are doing some precariously heavy lifting. However, if the amendment were accepted, the focus on a business being a going concern, which is the most important part of that subsection, would be removed completely. When we are passing legislation that protects jobs and promotes good employment, we absolutely cannot allow the unintended consequence of mandating redundancy when there are other options.

I look forward to the Minister’s comments. I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Dundee Central, but this is a sledgehammer of an amendment to crack a nut of a possible loophole, with significant potential consequences.

[Laurence Turner]

Like my hon. Friend, I have intense sympathy with many of the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Dundee Central, but the “Make Work Pay” document published earlier this year, which was subsequently endorsed in the Labour manifesto, stated:

“It is important that businesses can restructure to remain viable, to preserve their workforce and the company when there is genuinely no alternative, but this must follow a proper process based on dialogue and common understanding between employers and workers.”

We all want to see both parts of that carried through, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that. If amendment 160 were accepted, would it not have the effect of invalidating that part of the Government’s manifesto commitment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Wheeler]

It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend that I agree with him. It is important that we keep our focus on the reality of work and the need to provide workers with protections and good-quality employment. The Bill has been brought forward in the context of “Make Work Pay” and the “Next Steps” document, and I look forward to what I am sure will be illuminating comments from the Minister.

[Sarah Gibson]

I thank the hon. Member for Dundee Central for tabling the amendment, which has drawn out a potential loophole that I hope the Government will look at carefully. We so often see legislation introduced with good intentions, and then 90% of businesses—especially smaller businesses—comply with it to the letter, because they think that is the right thing to do, but the larger corporations find a way around it.

Employment Rights Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Michael Wheeler Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, although he was possibly milking it with the length of that intervention—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] It is nearly Christmas.

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s points about some of those very outdated provisions. I really hope that my children do not find a job out there that involves free milk, because they might jump at it a little too quickly. This probing amendment seeks simply to understand a little further where the flexibilities lie, and to get underneath some of the detail around when a variation of contract might be a good thing on both sides, or when things have just changed and there needs to be a variation in order for the jobs to be saved. I would hope that Members on both sides of the Committee would come at this from the perspective of the real world and wanting to save jobs, create more jobs, grow the economy and grow employment.

There may be legitimate reasons for wanting to vary terms and conditions, such as to provide for improved employment practices, or to update and reform outdated working practices—as the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield referenced—in order to allow for the more effective running of a business or organisation. The amendment seeks to understand the Government’s position should such a situation arise, and to understand why they are legislating to prevent businesses from acting in such a way.

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

On a point of clarity, is it the purpose of the amendment or an unintended consequence of the drafting that it would completely delete the subsection, rather than adding to it? If the purpose is to completely delete the subsection it is amending, are Opposition Members trying to remove the protections for those going concerns?

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly legitimate question. I repeat that this is a probing amendment: we are not going to press it to a vote or try to put it in the Bill. The purpose behind it is to get the evidence base, the justification and some clarity of thought from the Government about why the clause is necessary and proportionate. Sometimes we have to suggest getting rid of something to get a good example or a good justification for going there, doing it and putting it in primary legislation.

The Opposition certainly do not want to see exploitative fire and rehire in any workplace. From talking to businesses, and from the evidence we have heard, we know that there needs to be solid grounding and an evidence base to show that the wording in the Bill is justifiable and does not justify shutting down many businesses that are growing, adapting and changing—hopefully, for the better, so they are more successful. They should be able to keep and grow their staff, rather than go down the redundancy route or other scenarios whereby jobs are lost.

Matthew Percival from the CBI said:

“In the fire and rehire proposals, there is a risk that we might be making it easier to make people redundant than to change contracts”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 7, Q1.]

That is the absolute nub of the matter. It would be nothing short of a total disaster if the unintended consequence of the exact wording of the clause or the Bill perversely incentivises companies to make people redundant, so people lose their jobs and have to go home and have that difficult conversation with their loved ones and say that they need to find a new job, with the devastation that that brings to real people’s lives. I cannot imagine that the Government want that to happen. With this probing amendment, we are seeking to kick the tyres. We want an explanation, or at least to encourage the Minister and the wider Business and Trade team to find a better way that does not have that unintended consequence.

A recurring theme of our debates in recent days, and from the Bill Committee witnesses—other than trade union representatives—is that the measures in the Bill on dismissal and re-engagement will be too restrictive for employers. I gently ask the Minister to reflect on that and think about whether the measures will actually work and will not have unintended consequences, so that people’s jobs are protected and saved. We do not want people to be unintentionally forced down the route of job losses.

[Michael Wheeler]

I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, but I want to talk to its specifics. It appears to me that there are plenty of consensual mechanisms for achieving most of what the shadow Minister is suggesting about the variation of contracts to reflect working practices. If anything, they are inherently better than anything that is imposed. Quite often, when working practices, organisations and business practices are modernised, communication between those doing the work and the managers and owners leads to a much better outcome.

I suggest that we need to remember that we are talking about fire and rehire, which is inherently quite extreme. The amendment seems to refer to the particulars of normal working practices, looking at updating mechanisms to account for modern technology and suchlike, that are much better handled by the existing consensual mechanisms. While I appreciate that it is a probing amendment, it seems entirely unnecessary and does not necessarily speak to the heart of what the clause is about: ending the extreme practice of fire and rehire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

Indeed, we know from their declarations of interest that they all are. I hope the Minister takes the question with the good intent with which it is asked. Not everybody is in a trade union and not everybody organises in that way, so how would the mechanics of the measure work in those circumstances?

That leads to the wider question, “Why 20?” Why not 19, 18 or 15? Why not 25? It seems like an arbitrary number. I accept that a number needs to be put down. In some ways, in specifying a number, this clause is more detailed than most in the Bill, and it gives certainty, but I would like to understand why it is 20. It seems like a number picked from thin air. It could negatively impact an organisation if it led the employer to decide, “Well, we’ll just get rid of 19 of them, and we won’t have to comply.” That seems at odds with the other provisions in the Bill, where the Government seem to want to move all rights back to day one, yet they do not seem to want to apply that to organisations where, for whatever reason, 20 people are, sadly, being consulted on being made redundant. I would like clarity on that point.

[Michael Wheeler]

I will keep my contribution relatively short, but I did not want to let the clause pass without warmly welcoming its inclusion in the Bill. In a previous life, I worked to represent shop and retail workers. While P&O and the scandal of fire and rehire entered the collective consciousness, the Woolworths redundancy situation was burned into the consciousness of the workers I represented at that time. That is exactly the loophole that this measure is trying to close. Thousands of workers affected by the Woolworths redundancy missed out on the compensation they deserved as part of the lack of consultation because they worked in individual establishments that were small and fell below the threshold. The interpretation of the law at that point meant they were isolated, divided and not included as part of what was clearly, to everyone—

[Greg Smith]

Perhaps I can test the hon. Gentleman a little bit on that. I remember many happy hours as a child in Woolworths in the town where I grew up. They were fantastic stores, and they are greatly missed. Given where he is coming from, is he content with the number being set at 20? While Woolworths was a substantial business, I can think of smaller businesses with separate sites, retail outlets, pubs, restaurants or whatever that might employ 19 or 15 people.

[Michael Wheeler]

The hon. Gentleman invites to me to say whether I am content. I draw his attention to the fact that the clause removes the single establishment loophole while leaving in place the thresholds that are already part of the law around consultation and the time period. I have not examined and, despite the invitation, I will not speculate on where those thresholds should be, but I warmly welcome the removal of the single establishment loophole, so that where the numbers in a redundancy cross those thresholds—legitimately and apparently to everyone looking at it—there are not legalistic mechanisms for those workers to be left out.

Having warmly welcomed the removal of the loophole, let me reassure the shadow Minister. In a previous, previous life I was in a different job—we have all had many jobs—where trade unions were not recognised. I speak for myself alone when I say that I would love for every worker in this country to have the benefit of trade union representation. I confirm for the shadow Minister that I would love to see that, because I think it has genuine benefits.

[Greg Smith]

Not a surprise.

[Michael Wheeler]

I am sure it is not. I worked in a retail establishment that did not benefit from trade union representation and that went through consultation, not on redundancy but on a variation of contracts, so it is relevant to what we were talking about before. It was actually a relatively smooth and easy process for employee representatives to be appointed and elected from among our number, despite the lack of an existing structure, and to engage with the company in those consultation exercises. While I would love there to be a trade union fighting the corner for every worker, when it is absent it is not a burdensome process to have employee engagement in these processes.

[Justin Madders]

I recognise that the shadow Minister welcomed the clarification I provided. No doubt there will be debate to come, as is often the case with legal issues, but the Government are fairly clear and confident that the clause will not have the unintended consequences we heard raised in evidence.

The shadow Minister asked, “Why 20?” He will pleased to know that that was a product of EU regulation. It is in existing law as part of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which has been amended many times, so I could not say exactly when it came into force, but—

Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting)

Michael Wheeler Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Laurence Turner]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. It is a shame that our Liberal Democrat colleagues are not able to join us, because we could have an interesting discussion about the consequences of the 1919 police strike, and the promises that Lloyd George made and subsequently broke, which led to the creation of the Police Federation rather than an independent trade union, but I will not detain the Committee on that matter. I will just say that we are operating under the international framework for employment law, which sets out very clearly that there are exemptions to the normal right of freedom of association—let us call it what it is—and that includes industrial action. I do not think that the Bill is the right place to diverge from that international framework.

I had reached the end of my points. As I say, there are good national security reasons for rejecting the amendment.

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. As this is my first time speaking today, I draw everyone’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my trade union memberships. I want to pick up very slightly on some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield.

I fully appreciate that we are talking about a probing amendment. I will not revisit my use of the word “ridiculous” on Tuesday—we stayed in that territory for long enough—but the shadow Minister perhaps underestimates the ability of different sectors to accommodate flexible working and to overcome the challenges that he believes the flexible working measures in the Bill might present. In fact, GCHQ already operates a flexible working policy. On its website it is proud to point out that

“Work-life balance is important to us”

and that its

“flexible working patterns…are designed to help work fit… alongside…personal lives.”

If anything, exclusions for entire services sectors would be a retrograde step in places where flexible working provisions are already working perfectly well.

Moving on to the broader point, as demonstrated, I believe that sectors, businesses and employers can cope with this change. There are adequate measures for reasonableness in the Bill. Access to flexible working is an incredibly important right for workers in a modern, evolving workplace. Measures such as these gear the world of work for the future by enabling people to enter the workforce and to stay in it—something that the shadow Minister has expressed a concern about. Anything like this amendment that would exclude sectors, groups or organisations wholesale feels unnecessary, especially in the light of how the measures would work in practice.