Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my membership of GMB.

I will apologise now if I have an out-of-date amendment paper; the one that I have is dated Tuesday 3 December. Very early on in our discussions, we had the strange definition of a small or medium-sized businesses as one employing 500 people or more. I just want to check whether the proposed amendment is indeed accurate, because it refers to

“the test of reasonableness in subsection (2)(b)(ii)”.

I do not think that any such subsection exists—I think it should be (3)(b)(ii)—but I appreciate that that might be my misunderstanding.

[The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)]

I draw the Committee’s attention to my interests, and to my membership of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the National Education Union.

The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire seeks to amend clause 7 in order to commit the Government to exempting the security services from the requirement to refuse a flexible working request only when it is reasonable to do so against one of the eight reasons set out in legislation. His amendment would also exempt the security services from having to explain to an employee why their request for flexible working could not be met. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Northfield, for Worsley and Eccles and for Gloucester have pointed out many good reasons why that is unnecessary, and I will explain why I think the same.

The grounds for refusing a flexible working request are intentionally broad, so that they capture all the business reasons that may make such a request unfeasible. That applies to the security services as it does to any other employer. I will not read out all eight reasons, but I will give some examples. The work may not be able to be reorganised among other staff, or quality or performance may be negatively affected. There may be a lack of work at a particular proposed time, or the business’s ability to meet the demand of customers—we have mentioned the Home Office—may be negatively affected. There is a huge range of reasons that could be used, and they would surely cover—

[Nick Timothy]

I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what conversations she has had with MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to understand whether, given their unusual, specific, specialist operations, there are any circumstances that might go beyond those already set out.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

If I may continue, the point is that there is significant leeway. Basically, the way the provision is worded takes into account the context of the particular type of business. There are many different types of roles in the security services, as has been pointed out, and different things will apply in different circumstances. There is plenty of opportunity there.

[Nick Timothy]

I think the answer to the question must be no. That may be fair enough, but can the Minister tell us whether she has had any conversations with her opposite numbers in the Home Office, which sponsors MI5, or the Foreign Office, which sponsors GCHQ and MI6?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

What really matters is that flexibility is in-built, and I am sure that colleagues in the Home Office will be able to use it.

The other point that the hon. Member for West Suffolk might like me to address is whether giving a reason could expose something that it would be undesirable to expose—in other words, whether any explanation given would incur a breach of security. In many cases—probably the majority—the reason for refusing a flexible working request will not involve matters of national security. It might be a matter of not being able to reorganise the work among existing staff to facilitate a requested working pattern, or there being insufficient work during the period someone has asked to work. Those reasons will be no different from what other employers are considering. In most cases, it will be possible for an employer to give reasons for their refusal without disclosing any sensitive information.

There will certainly be cases where matters of national security come into play, but there are already protections in place. The grounds for refusal given by the employer have to be made public only at the point at which legal proceedings are started. In the unlikely event that an employee makes a claim in the employment tribunal, the tribunal is able to conduct all or part of the proceedings in private, or to order a person not to disclose any document. I therefore invite the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire to withdraw his amendment.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for her responses. I highlight that this is a probing amendment designed to test the Government’s thinking. I appreciate the flexibilities that she has outlined, but as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk set out, the security services are a particularly unique element within public service.

I can see a multitude of reasons why some of those flexibilities will not be good enough to ensure that those predominantly charged with our national security can comply with every measure in the Bill. I urge the Minister to have those conversations with relevant Ministers in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office, who are responsible for our security services, to double-check that they are entirely comfortable with the provisions in the Bill, which I dare say has been through the write-around process. Sometimes minutiae and detail can be lost in that process, and it is vital for our national security that the Bill should be properly road-tested to the nth degree.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 26—Consultation and assessment on the right to request flexible working—

“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of the right to request flexible working provided for in section 7 of this Act.

(2) As part of the assessment, the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation on the proposed right to request flexible working.

(3) The assessment must—

(a) include labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis,

(b) examine the impact of the measures in section 7 on employment, wages and economic output,

(c) consider the likelihood of the costs of flexible working measures being passed on to employees through lower wages, and

(d) examine the likely effect of the right to request flexible working on—

(i) productivity,

(ii) wage growth,

(iii) equality of opportunity,

(iv) job security,

(v) economic activity, and

(vi) employment.

(4) A report setting out the findings of the assessment must be laid before each House of Parliament no sooner than 18 weeks after the consultation has been initiated.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clause 7.

Amendment 132, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—

“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force section 7 of this Act until the findings of the report under section [Consultation and reporting on the right to request flexible working] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”

This amendment is linked to NC26.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Flexible working is essential to helping people achieve a better work-life balance. It can lead to employees being happier, healthier and more productive. Having the ability to vary the time, hours and place of work is also key to the functioning of the UK’s flexible labour market. Improving access to flexible working is therefore good for employees and good for business. That is why we have committed to making flexible working the default, unless it is not reasonably feasible.

I reassure members of the Committee that my team has fully engaged with members of the Security Service, particularly on amendment 132 and not just the write-around, which is quite important. I am, of course, looking forward to this year’s Mid Buckinghamshire pantomime—I assume the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire will play the role of a secret service special agent.

To return to the clause, the Government accept that employers must be allowed to make decisions about what is and is not reasonably feasible so that they can ensure that business operations are able to run effectively. We are therefore retaining the existing legal framework, which allows employers to reject flexible working requests on one of eight specified business grounds. The Bill makes it more likely that requests will be accepted and that flexible working will become the default. It contains the three following measures. First, it creates a new requirement that employers may refuse a flexible working request only if it is reasonable to do so on the basis of at least one of the eight specified business grounds.

Secondly, the Bill requires employers to state the ground or grounds for refusing requests and explain why they consider it reasonable to do so. Under the current framework, an employer must only notify the employee of the decision; there is no requirement for an employer to explain the basis of a decision, which can mean a lack of clarity and transparency for the employee if their application is refused. While these measures do not remove the employer’s ability to make a decision on whether a flexible working request is reasonable, they do require the employer to explain and justify that decision and, in turn, the measures open up that decision for scrutiny by an employment tribunal.

Finally, the current legislation is silent on how to meet the requirement to consult when rejecting a request. We think it is important to provide employers and employees with greater clarity around the process if the employer intends to reject a request, so we are inserting a new power for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the steps that employers must take when consulting with the employee before deciding to refuse a flexible working application. We do not want to create bureaucracy for the sake of it. To ensure we get the balance right, we will work with stakeholders and undertake a full public consultation in partnership with business, trade unions and third sector bodies. The consultation will consider what the process should be, and that will ensure we get the balance right before we lay regulations.

Taken together, these measures are designed to encourage the acceptance of more requests, to improve clarity on decisions, to encourage more careful consideration of requests and to encourage constructive dialogue between employers and employees. We believe that this will help to make flexible working the default in a sensible and pragmatic way.

There is strong evidence to support our approach. Research by the equal parenting project, for example, found that 75% of UK managers believe that flexible working increases productivity and that 62.5% believe that it boosts motivation. Yet, according to the flexible jobs index 2023, although nine in 10 people want to work flexibly, only six in 10 employees are currently working flexibly and only three in 10 jobs are advertised with flexible working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Uma Kumaran]

I apologise, Sir Christopher.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I thank my hon. Friend for her valuable contribution; she reminds us that flexible working can often be a real help in getting people into work.

The changes in the Bill will support employers and employees to agree solutions that work for both parties and increase the take-up of flexible working. The Opposition amendments, new clause 26 and amendment 132, proposed by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, include a requirement for an assessment of the impact of the Bill’s provisions on flexible working to be produced before the provisions can be commenced. The Government resist those amendments. They have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments, which was published alongside Second Reading and based on the best available evidence on the potential impact of the Bill’s measures on business, workers and the wider economy.

Our proportionate assessment included labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis considering the impact of these changes on individuals and businesses. It also provided a breakdown of the impacts on employment tribunals, small business and individuals with protected characteristics. We intend to refine that analysis over time, working closely with businesses, trade unions, academics and think-tanks. The analysis published alongside the Bill describes the overall business impact as neutral. Businesses may see benefits in improved productivity, employee loyalty, worker satisfaction, staff retention and the ability to attract a wider range of employees. It is important to remember that businesses can still reject flexible working requests on eight valid business grounds, including the burden of costs.

As is standard practice, the Government will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill reaches Royal Assent, in line with the requirements of the better regulation framework. That will account for where the primary legislation in the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament in such a way as to change the impacts of the policy on business significantly. That impact assessment will be published alongside the enacted legislation. We will then publish further analysis alongside future consultations, ahead of secondary legislation to meet our better regulation requirements. I therefore ask Opposition Members to withdraw their amendments.

[Greg Smith]

New clause 26 and amendment 132 are about impact assessments of flexible working. Amid her speculation about the Mid Buckinghamshire pantomime, to which I trust she will be buying a ticket, the Minister talked about impact assessments that have already been made. But we know what the Regulatory Policy Committee has said about those impact assessments:

“there is little evidence presented that employers are rejecting requests”

for flexible working “unreasonably”.

We should remember that the previous Conservative Government, although they want to repeal it, introduced the right to request flexible working from the first day of employment through the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Act) 2023, which came into force in April. The RPC has said that the Government have not considered the effectiveness of the previous Bill—it might be difficult to do so given how recently it has come into force—and that it is therefore

“difficult to assess the justification for the additional measures”

in the Bill. The RPC also says that the Government have not considered the effectiveness of non-regulatory options such as raising awareness of the right to request flexible working. So the Government have not made the case for why this is necessary. I do not believe the Minister gave a clear explanation either. I am sure she will have a second chance to do so in summing up.

The RPC rebukes the Government for failing to take into account the costs this measure will impose on business, namely

“the costs to employers of engaging with more ET cases and hearings taking longer because they will now be considering wider and more subjective factors”

and that the Government’s own impact assessment

“assumes that there are no net costs to employers of accepting requests, on the basis that they would do so only if the benefits at least matched the costs. However, this does not necessarily hold as rational, risk averse employers will also factor in the increased cost/risk of rejecting requests under the proposal, seeking to avoid costly employment tribunals and, especially for SMBs”—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex McIntyre]

The “cake and eat it” argument is the point I was trying to make. I advised on flexible working requests regularly when in private practice, where individuals and, in particular, employers were asking what their rights were in respect of a request.

The hon. Gentleman raised two points, the first of which was about costs. Again, I point to the exemptions. The burden of additional costs is one of the exemptions by which an employer can say that it is not reasonable to accept a flexible working request. The balance between having rights for employees and making sure that they are not too much of a burden on business is important. The burden of additional costs is already explicitly covered in the legislation.

Secondly, in relation to tribunals, one of the issues with the current system is the lack of explanation provided. Employees often believe the worst, even if that is not always the case. They might make their request, with valid reasons, and if their employer tells them a flat no, with no further explanation, they often believe the worst and bring a tribunal claim.

Providing that explanation at the beginning requires the employer to think about the request. Not every employer is an excellent, flexible employer; some employers think that by offering flexible working, they will somehow lose productivity, whereas lots of studies have shown the opposite. Through that provision, employers will think about the request, engage with the process and the exemptions, think about what that means for their business, and provide a reasoned explanation.

That will not take as long as we might think, because there are only eight exemptions and people know their business very well. When they give that written explanation, it can be relatively short. It does not have to be “War and Peace”—I should have mentioned another James Bond novel—because it is just to give some background. We will then have an explanation that can be used in a tribunal. That will really assist tribunals in dealing with these cases, because there will be a written explanation of why the decision has been taken.

There are loads of cases in which people bring claims of discrimination because their flexible working requests have been rejected. Those can take up lots of time, when there has been just a misunderstanding between the employer and the employee. By introducing the requirement to provide an explanation, and for the employer to think through the reasonableness of it, there might hopefully be fewer claims in the employment tribunal.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Let me make a couple of quick points to sum up. The Opposition are trying to say that most businesses already do this, but this is not about the principle of introducing flexible working; it is about making the process straightforward, clear and consistent across businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, by ensuring that clarity, it may well reduce the number of cases that get taken to tribunal.

If most businesses are already doing this, why do we want to legislate? Well, we do not want those businesses to be penalised for doing the right thing. We want everybody to be offered the opportunity of flexible working within the reasonableness of their working situation, and with the opportunity for employers to refuse on the eight specified grounds. That will spread best practice not only in it being offered in all places of employment, but in the way that any request for flexible working is dealt with. That is an explanation of the context.

As we have clearly said, our impact assessment has provided an initial analysis of the impacts that can follow, but we will update and define them as we further develop the policy. In fact, part of the clause is specifically about the Secretary of State having the power to provide further detail. We are confident that as most businesses already participate in this process, make the appropriate responses to their employees and understand the system, it will be not a huge new burden to them in any way. I remind Committee members yet again that dealing appropriately with requests for flexible working can considerably help recruitment and retention for businesses. On that note, we reject the amendments tabled by the Opposition.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Statutory sick pay: removal of waiting period

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 5—Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: removal of waiting period.

Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my membership of Unite and the GMB.

[The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of USDAW, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.

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

I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and USDAW.

Employment Rights Bill (First sitting)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I also refer to my declaration of interests. I am a member of the Community union, Unison and GMB.

[The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)]

I also refer to my declaration of interests. I am a member of the USDAW trade union.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

I also refer to my declaration of interests. I am a member of the Unison and Community trade unions.

Employment Rights Bill (First sitting)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I also refer to my declaration of interests. I am a member of the Community union, Unison and GMB.

[The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)]

I also refer to my declaration of interests. I am a member of the USDAW trade union.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

I also refer to my declaration of interests. I am a member of the Unison and Community trade unions.

Lesbian Visibility Week

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

It is a real privilege to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing it and on her excellent opening speech. I also thank our fantastic ally, our hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), for all that she does—for the pertinent points she makes about supporting the whole LGBT community and for all the work she has done in standing up for trans people. I must not forget our hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), an outstanding champion who, long before many of us were in Parliament, was flying the flag in what was a very lonely place at the time.

It was also a real privilege to attend the event on Monday that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow organised and to meet Linda Riley, the publisher of Diva, and Professor Sue Sanders, the co-founder of LGBT History Month. Just to be among such people is such an honour for someone like me. Thinking back to 30 years ago, Diva was quite a lifeline for people as isolated as we were in south-west Wales, perhaps not knowing anyone quite like us and certainly not wanting to be open about ourselves because we were worried about society’s reaction.

At the time of section 28, I was in a relationship with another woman, both of us were teachers and this was very inhibiting. As I have previously said in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall, it was a very difficult time—a time when it was not easy to challenge the homophobic bullying that was going on then and which still goes on now. I thank all those who were braver than I was and came out sooner than I did.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I apologise to the House for intervening, but I have to go with my wife to celebrate her 17 years as chancellor of the University of Hull.

The hon. Lady is rightly talking about the bullying and the fear she experienced. There has been some of that more recently. I started to become conscious of some of the issues when Kathleen Stock was being bullied mercilessly in Sussex. We ought to be careful. If I were to make a speech in this debate, I would say that two of the greatest events I have been to were the LGB Alliance conference meetings, which were picketed by people who seemed to hate the people inside. They would not come inside to listen; they were shouting outside. That kind of attitude has echoes of what speakers today have talked about.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central has said, there is real need to approach these things in a calm and appropriate way, and to respect everybody’s different ways of manifesting their humanity.

What for me is very telling is the fact that I came out when my relationship broke up. It is almost impossible to hide grief. It is ironic that, having spent a considerable period not being open and trying not to make it obvious that we were in a relationship, it was when we did not “need” that hidden approach any more that I came out. It is incredibly difficult to explain to people why you are in such a state of grief if you do not explain the relationship. What was interesting about that was not only the reaction of very supportive friends, which was great, but finding that some people had never guessed; I was quite shocked and surprised by that. It was strange to realise that we were more hidden than we understood, because people did not see lesbians. That shows the importance of Lesbian Visibility Week.

Perhaps because society is so male-dominated and women are marginalised in many respects, or perhaps because women are more likely to be seen doing things together, holding hands or going on holiday with other women, we were not even noticed. One of the important aspects of raising lesbian visibility is enabling people to be their natural selves and enabling other people to recognise that. Of course that has meant over the years that women were perhaps not the subject of homophobic legislation. In many ways, it reflected the role of women as society was then and that women were very marginalised and not seen. That is perhaps part of the wider picture of where women were.

There have been workplace stereotypes: women have to dress in a certain way and behave in a certain way towards heterosexual men, or they are expected to do so. When they do not, be that as lesbians or as heterosexual women, it can be interpreted negatively, which has often held lesbian women back over the years. It is a form of discrimination and stereotyping that has had pernicious results.

It is not enough for us to hope that attitudes can change. Hope is not enough. We all have a responsibility to challenge, and to use our legislative powers to strengthen our challenging through legislation. We were proud, as a Labour Government from 1997 to 2010, to do a number of important things that helped LGBT rights, including ending the ban on LGBT people serving in our armed forces, ending discrimination against lesbian and gay partners for immigration purposes, and giving LGBT individuals and couples the right to adopt children. Of course, we scrapped section 28, which was very important for people like me, but we also banned discrimination in the workplace and in vocational training with the introduction of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003.

We also included homophobia in the definition of hate crimes. Sadly, we have seen a rise in hate crimes in recent years, to which I draw the Government’s attention. In particular, I ask that more should be done to tackle homophobic, including transphobic, hate crime.

Of course, we created civil partnerships and awarded statutory rights to fertility treatment for lesbians on the NHS but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow said, there is a long way to go on equal and fair access. I hope the Minister has listened to what she said today, and to what she said to the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, and I hope progress can be made on this sooner rather than later.

Although we have made progress, we know that, in many respects, there is a lot to do to stop attitudes regressing in this country but also internationally. Women are hardly noticed or recognised in many countries and, if they are, they are certainly not allowed to be in same- sex relationships.

Again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. With others in this House, I hope I can play my part in securing greater lesbian visibility.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Post Office Board and Governance

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will be very pleased to ensure that that happens. I met the Northern Ireland Justice Minister virtually a few days ago to discuss these matters. I know that the Northern Ireland Administration’s preference is for UK-wide legislation; we do not think that is the right approach, but we will continue to work with the Administration to ensure that they can deliver the right legislation or process to make sure that the compensation is paid. Clearly, once convictions are overturned anywhere in the United Kingdom, people enter exactly the same compensation scheme—they can get rapid compensation through the fixed-sum award of £600,000, or go through the full assessment process. We are determined to make the process quicker, easier and fairer. I am happy to work with the hon. Gentleman to ensure that that is the case.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his work on the Horizon scandal, and for answering my letter concerning a constituent. In that answer, he confirmed that former post office clerks and those working for a franchise who lost money, jobs and reputation through the Horizon scandal are not eligible for compensation under the current scheme. Will he look into ways to include them in a compensation scheme?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for representing her constituents so effectively. I am keen to have continued conversation with her. All the schemes that have been established thus far require a contractual relationship between the Post Office and the individual, and I know that was not the case for her constituent. A number of Members of this House have addressed the issue, and we will continue to look at it.

Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Let me be clear about this. I am not taking the position that we should remove the CBE, and that should not be our position, because we have not yet assigned blame to individuals. However, given that during that critical period the Post Office clearly failed in so many areas and in so many shocking ways, it would be sensible and reasonable for the former CEO to hand back an honour that was given for services to the Post Office. There may be other avenues, and my hon. Friend was right to identify some of the potential avenues, but we think that Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry is the best way to identify who was responsible.

I agree with my hon. Friend that this is not about retribution but about justice. I have spoken to some of the victims of this scandal and others, and there are two things that they want. Obviously they want compensation, but they also want people to be held to account, and I entirely share my hon. Friend’s ambition for that to be done.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

We have all been appalled by the fact that the Post Office went on and on, for so many years, prosecuting and ruining the lives of sub-postmasters. It certainly makes us ask who knew what. As the Minister said, we want to ensure that this type of scandal can never happen again, so perhaps he will understand how disappointing it was that in December the Government stopped short of agreeing to introduce a Hillsborough law to ensure that victims could secure the disclosure of crucial information and to place a duty of candour on all public servants. Will he now talk to ministerial colleagues about reconsidering that decision?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We are very keen to find out exactly who knew what, and Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry was made statutory so that people could have access to all the information. There is nothing to which they should not have access, and all the disclosures should be available to the inquiry. That should lead to people being held to account, and the exploring of other avenues in respect of what might be done at that point and the evidence that is uncovered. I am not aware of the issue that the hon. Lady raised about what happened in December, but I am happy to take it away and look at it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We work very closely with the Financial Reporting Council. No one can deny that the FRC has changed its approach completely and is now a much more effective regulator. Sir Jon Thompson did a fantastic job when he was there, and the current chief executive, Richard Moriarty, and chair, Jan du Plessis, are following his work. We are confident that the FRC can make sure that the UK’s corporate regime works effectively, without tying businesses up in red tape.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

3. What steps she is taking to prevent the use of fire and rehire practices.

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

17. What steps she is taking to prevent the use of fire and rehire practices.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

The Government consulted on a draft statutory code of practice on fire and rehire earlier this year. The Government response and the final version of the code will be published in spring next year. The code sets out employers’ responsibilities when seeking to change contractual terms and conditions of employment, and is designed to ensure that dismissal and re-engagement is used only as the last resort.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

The very fact that only last week P&O Cruises felt able to say it would impose new contractual terms on workers through fire and rehire tactics shows that some employers still feel that they can use these tactics with impunity, in spite of the Government’s promise to clamp down on them. I thank the Minister for his answer, but is there any way he could bring in the legislation more urgently, so that we can protect our workers properly?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree with the sentiment behind the hon. Lady’s question in terms of bringing legislation forward as quickly as possible. Of course, we have to get this right. I have to say that P&O was not a fire and rehire situation; it was a fire-only situation, which was strongly condemned by this Government and by many other stakeholders, and a civil investigation is ongoing into the matters surrounding that case. But yes, the hon. Lady is right, and we are keen to get the new statutory code of practice in place as soon as possible. We expect that to be in spring next year, and once it is in force, the employment tribunal can increase employees’ compensation by up to 25% when an employer fails unreasonably to comply with the code.

Section 28 Repeal: 20th Anniversary

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Sharma, for coming to our rescue and saving our debate this afternoon—we very much appreciate that.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing this debate marking the 20 years since 18 November 2003, when the repeal of section 28 came into effect. It is very fitting indeed that he should lead the debate: as many Members here will know, and as he referenced in his speech, he was brave enough to stand as an openly gay parliamentary candidate in 1997 and endured a vicious and abusive campaign.

I pay huge tribute to my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), Lord Cashman and others who did so much to pioneer gay rights—leading the way, speaking out when it was much more difficult to do so, taking risks and campaigning ceaselessly to create a society in which no one is disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Of course, they are still campaigning.

My right hon. Friend described in detail the build-up of negative views and attacks on gay people in the lead-up to the introduction of section 28. He set out clearly that we are, worryingly, hearing echoes of the section 28 times from the present Conservative Government, leading to fear and prejudice, particularly against trans people. He detailed clearly the tirade of attacks that make things ever more difficult for young trans people.

The hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) described the change we have seen in society, but noted that further action is needed and spoke of the challenges across the globe. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) described her campaigning against section 28 and reminded us of the toll that the HIV/AIDS epidemic took on the gay community. She also reminded us that the Labour Government in Scotland repealed the Scottish equivalent of section 28 three years before the UK Government did.

The hon. Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) mentioned the dangers of toxic speech and its effect on people, including himself, as well as the importance of role models. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), speaking from the Scottish National party Front Bench, mentioned how easy it would be to allow backsliding and how our job is to speak up and not allow hateful attitudes to take hold. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is a good friend, reminded us of the common-sense approach of the Welsh Government, who insist that all children should have fully inclusive LGBT education because that is the society we live in.

On a personal note, celebrating the repeal of section 28 brings back some awkward memories of 30 years ago for me. At the time, I was teaching in a large comprehensive school and in a relationship with another female teacher. Same-sex relationships were little acknowledged, and we knew very few other same-sex couples, so we were already quite isolated. Then, in 1988, the Thatcher Government introduced the homophobic law, section 28, which stipulated that local authorities must not “promote homosexuality” or

“promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.”

That language was hateful, threatening and intimidating, and I was conscious that the force of the law could be used against me. Back in 1988, there were no anti-discrimination laws that covered a person’s sexual orientation, meaning that they could be fired just for being gay. All of that made it difficult for gay teachers to be open about their sexuality, thus taking away valuable opportunities to provide positive role models for young people. It undoubtedly delayed my own coming out, and I just got into the habit of never mentioning anything at all about my personal life to anyone at work. In fact, it was not until 1995 that I came out to my friends and family, and I was very conscious that, standing for town council in a multi-member ward, I would be putting my fellow Labour candidates in a position of having to defend me. But they were great about it.

Perhaps the worst thing about section 28, and the fear that it instilled in gay teachers like me, was that it made it very difficult to challenge homophobic bullying effectively. At the time, homophobic insults in the classroom were commonplace, thus making the lives of many students a misery. If we had called out those comments as homophobia, we risked being accused of promoting homosexuality. When a pupil made a homophobic remark, I did not want it to go unchallenged, but all I could manage was something feeble, like, “Don’t you think that could be a bit hurtful to some people?”

If the classroom was hard, the staff room was even worse, especially when trying to challenge male teachers exchanging homophobic banter. Some colleagues were already quick to mock me as a lefty feminist, so could I risk the suspicion of being gay, when that could be used against me in my employment? I am ashamed to say that I did let comments go unchallenged. I could and should have spoken up, and I am immensely grateful to all those who were brave, who did speak up and who helped society to become more accepting of LGBT people.

We owe it to today’s young people and the teachers who are delivering LGBT education to give them our full backing and ensure that there is no backsliding in this important step towards creating a genuinely inclusive society. But, of course, it was not just teaching that was affected by section 28. It set back local council initiatives and fomented prejudice and hate, and who knows how much misery, how many additional suicides, how many late diagnoses of HIV and how many additional deaths it led to?

Thankfully, the Labour Governments of 1997 to 2010 faced down fierce opposition and championed LGBT rights, including by repealing section 28. Not only did Labour repeal section 28, with the repeal taking effect on 18 November 2003, but we achieved an equal age of consent; ended the ban on LGBT people serving in our armed forces; ended discrimination against lesbian and gay partners for immigration purposes; created civil partnerships, allowing same-sex couples to have the same rights as married couples; gave LGBT individuals and couples the right to adopt children; awarded statutory rights to fertility treatment on the NHS for lesbians; banned discrimination in the workplace and vocational training; outlawed discrimination in goods and services; included homophobia in the definition of hate crime; brought in the Gender Recognition Act; and brought in the Equality Act.

By 2010, it was encouraging to see a growing acceptance of LGBT issues by the Conservative Government. We were pleased to support their legislation for same-sex marriage, although far too many Conservative Members voted against the Bill, some of whom, it must be said, have since apologised. Sadly, as Opposition Members have already said, LGBT+ people have been badly let down by the recent Conservative Government, who killed off their own LGBT action plan, disbanded their LGBT advisory panel, cancelled their international LGBT conference and have still not honoured the promise to ban the insidious practice of so-called conversion therapy. Instead of standing up for LGBT+ rights and bringing people together, the Conservatives have stoked a culture war and pitted different groups against each other.

Hate crimes against LGBT+ people have soared in the past decade. In 2022-23, almost 30,000 hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity were reported. It is not difficult to see the connection between that shocking increase in hate crime and the bandying about of LGBT-phobic remarks, particularly transphobic remarks, especially by people of influence, including, sadly, Conservative Members.

Hate crime figures are not just statistics. Behind each number is a real person who has been attacked or even killed, and many more who live in fear. Not long ago, I was speaking to a trans woman in my constituency, and this is what she said to me about the debate on the Equality Act that we had in this very room:

“As a transwoman I find the idea of this change to the equalities act terrifying. The change that has been suggested is purely out of contempt and malice.”

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

May I just finish the quote from my constituent? She went on to say:

“I have been a patient with the NHS for my gender affirming care since 2017-18. The soonest I will be offered surgery is still at least 12 months away. Despite being fully transitioned in all but 1 final surgery, this will segregate me and make me vulnerable to violence. This isn’t moving goal posts to protect cisgender women: this is just cruel.

Every time politicians open their mouths to peddle hate to stoke up a culture war, I become more afraid to open my door for fear of the people they have riled up. You do not protect anyone by taking rights away from minorities.”

[Joanna Cherry]

I take issue with the hon. Lady on that point. I am one of the people who support amending the Equality Act to make it clear that sex means biological sex, and it is not because I have any hatred against trans people—it is because I want to ensure the rights of women to safety, dignity and privacy and the right of lesbians and gay men to freedom of association. Does the hon. Lady oppose those rights?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

As the hon. and learned Member would acknowledge, there is already provision in the Equality Act for specific spaces for biological women, where that was deemed appropriate. She knows that perfectly well. Things like women’s refuges provide one of the obvious examples of a biological single-sex space—

[Joanna Cherry]

That is not the case. Many once single-sex women’s refuges now have male-bodied individuals in them. That is why some other people have set up women-only spaces. Equally, lesbians are now unable to run lesbian-only events without men insisting on being admitted. As a lesbian, does the hon. Lady not find that concerning?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

The point is that we know perfectly well that there are one or two extremely far-reaching and far-thinking women’s refuges that have a very inclusive policy, but the vast majority are very aware of the importance of that single-sex space. I think the hon. and learned Member knows that. I am sure she understands why we want to make sure that trans women feel fully included and fully accepted in our society. We can manage to find a way to do that without prejudice and hate and without whipping up hate against each other. I hope she would agree with me on that point.

[Joanna Cherry]

But it is not hate.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)]

Order. I think that is enough interventions, and you have already spoken.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Thank you. I would like to leave the Minister some time.

I say to the Minister that if the Government have the will, it is not too late for them to act. The Minister, a fellow Welshman and a fellow member of the LGBT community, will be taking the flak, but I am sure he would like to do some of the things we are going to suggest. We would like him to be able to push hard with his colleagues to carry this out. I say to him that it is not too late for the Government to act.

Will the Minister’s Government now make time to bring forward legislation for an outright ban on all forms of so-called gay conversion therapy to protect all LGBT+ people from this abhorrent practice, or agree to give full support and speedy passage to a private Member’s Bill to do the same? Will he also push his Government to move forward on the consultation that they held back in 2018 on the reform of the Gender Recognition Act to modernise the law on gender recognition by removing the futile indignities that people currently have to go through to obtain a gender recognition certificate, which do not contribute to the integrity of the process? Will the Government also do more to tackle LGBT hate crime as a matter of urgency? Finally, and very importantly, will the Government ensure that the rhetoric they use is not in any way homophobic or transphobic? Action on those four fronts would be a fitting tribute to mark 20 years since the repeal of section 28.

Free Trade Agreements: Scrutiny

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Business and Trade Committee, following the demise of the International Trade Committee.

There are two important points. First, the 21-day period under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act needs to be reformed. One such reform might be that the Committee needs more than 21 sitting days to be able to take a view on often complicated and full free trade agreements. No doubt the Minister for International Trade, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), who is sitting on the Treasury Bench, will have heard that request.

Secondly, it is not for me to commit other Committees to a work programme, but it is right to point out that there are many issues, such as agriculture, defence, human rights and environmental issues, on which colleagues on other Committees take an interest.

I gave evidence this morning to the International Agreements Committee in the other place, and it does significant work on trade agreements among other things. One of the commitments we made was that, between our Clerks and between both Houses, we will co-ordinate our action to try to improve our capacity for reviewing trade agreements.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) and his Committee for their important work on this report. As the report points out,

“we operate within finite resources and recognise that attempting exhaustively to scrutinise every aspect of the Department’s work is impractical… We intend, therefore, to adopt a case-by-case approach to scrutiny of prospective free trade agreements in future.”

Given that important and entirely understandable finding, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to overhaul the wider scrutiny process on trade negotiations to allow greater opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny of these agreements?

I applaud the Committee for highlighting the importance of a debate on negotiation objectives. Does my hon. Friend agree that this needs to be timely and meaningful, so that Members have a genuine opportunity to contribute? Does he also agree that more should be done to allow scrutiny earlier in negotiations, so that the parameters of trade talks can be better informed? As a Welsh MP, I am particularly keen to ensure that the nations and regions of the UK are able to contribute properly.

The report notes that the former International Trade Committee criticised the Government for a lack of transparency on the timetabling of the CRaG period, and for the difficulty of securing oral evidence from the Secretary of State in relation to the Australia and New Zealand trade deals. Does my hon. Friend think the Government might have been concerned about a backlash, given the criticism of the Australia deal from some of their own MPs, such as the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)?

Finally, does my hon. Friend have any concerns that the resource implications of the Committee’s scrutiny of trade deals will undermine any of its other vital work?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her questions and comments from the Dispatch Box, and I will take each in turn.

My hon. Friend is right about resource allocation. As I said in my speech, we have subsumed not only the responsibilities of the International Trade Committee but those of our former colleagues on the European Parliament committee that had power and resources to scrutinise trade agreements on our behalf when we were a member of the European Union. I gently suggest to the House that this is just one example of where, post Brexit, Committees ought to have greater resources, both financial and otherwise, for the additional work we have taken on after leaving the European Union.

The issue of time has been raised both by me today and by the predecessor Committee and our colleagues in the other place. These agreements are long and complicated, and the House’s Select Committees have other work to do in holding Departments to account. Having as much time as possible is always very welcome.

On access to information, let me add that I have learned, having taken on these responsibilities, that it is often easier to look at the press coverage in the other country to find out what is going on than it is to try to get information from the Government. If this information is on the public record, albeit in another country, it ought to be readily shared with us in this Parliament. I encourage Ministers to take that action.

Lastly, on Australia and New Zealand, my hon. Friend pointed out that an unusual approach was taken in the use of primary legislation and highlighted what that meant for this House’s ability to debate and intervene in the details of those agreements. I am not privy as to why Ministers chose to do that, but it is unusual. If it were a symbol, at least, that the Government are minded to update the processes for scrutinising FTAs, perhaps we could take the opportunity to do that.