Commons Chamber

Wednesday 12th March 2025

(began 9 months, 1 week ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
None Portrait Oral questions: Wales
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. We Order. We start
11:34
None Portrait Q1. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the rise in employer National Insurance contributions on employment in Wales. (903058)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. We start with Order. We start with questions Order. We start with questions to the Secretary of State for Wales. Number one Mr Speaker.
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:42
None Portrait Q3. What estimate she has made with Cabinet colleagues of the number of farms affected by changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief in Wales. (903060)
-

Question number three Mr Speaker.
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
None Portrait Q4. Whether she has had recent discussions with the Welsh Government on the implementation of cancer strategies. (903061) [R]
-

Question four.
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
None Portrait Q6. What recent discussions she has had with the Welsh Government on NHS waiting lists. (903064)
-

with Darren Miller, her Welsh colleague, but I don't think they are having that conversation because
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:39
Daniel Zeichner Portrait Daniel Zeichner MP, The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Cambridge, Labour)
-
-
Thank you Mr Speaker. Your permission I would like to update the house on the Sustainable Farming Incentive. We stand on the edge of an unprecedented global transition in British farming. Leaving the European Union, the challenges of climate change and geopolitical events, we are asking more farmers than ever before. To continue to produce the food that feeds the nation and protect the environment on which our long-term food security depends. We are determined to create the conditions for businesses to be profitable and succeed.

We are proud to have secured £5 billion for farming over the next two years, the largest budget in our country's history. That is £1.8 billion customers already in agreement, £1 customers already in agreement, £1 billion for farmers in agreement and further money for other farmers. Labour has got that money out of the door and into the pockets of farmers. We have invested into putting thousands more farmers into schemes which were vastly underspent by the last government. To make a record number of capital items available for farmers to help them carry out actions under the stewardship, £600 million available for productivity, animal health and innovation, and other measures that support agricultural productivity.

As well as 50 Landscape Recovery projects across the country. We have responded directly to calls from the sector to roll out a new hire tear scheme and to increase payment rates so many farmers are fairly rewarded for their work. We now have many farmers in schemes, 50,000 farmers in Elm agreement. Under the SFI, 800,000 ha of arable land, 300,000 ha of low-impact grassland sustainably, and 75,000 km of hedgerows being protected. This is a huge success for nature.

I want to thank all the farmers involved, and to reassure them that all existing SFI agreements will be honoured. Farmers will continue to be paid under the terms of their agreement. If they entered into a three-year SFI agreement earlier this year, they will be paid until 2028. If they submitted an SFI application that has not yet started, that will also be honoured. All farmers took part in the SFI pilot will be able to apply for agreement. But the fact is the high uptake of the scheme means it is now fully subscribed.

As a government we inherited SFI with no spending cap despite a farming budget. We will continue to support farmers to transition to more sustainable farming models including through the thousands of existing SFI agreements in the coming years and a revamped SFI offer. But this is an opportunity to improve how we do that under a fair and just farming transition. The transition that supports farms to be profitable businesses in their own right, to fairer supply chains, Better Regulation, and greater market access.

In the direct public funding in a fair and orderly way towards the priorities we have set out on food, farming, and nature. We will be strategic in how we design our schemes and responsible within the budget we have available. This is about using public money in a way that supports food production, restores nature, in respect farmers as the business people they are. SFI can and must work better for all farms, and for nature. I will set out the details of the revised SFI offer pulling the spending review including and it will open for applications.

We will work closely with the sector to design and improved scheme they can tell us what works best for their businesses will stop will also put in place strong budgetary controls so SFI is affordable in the public purse. Revised offer will align with our values framework to better target SFI actions fairly and effectively. Focusing on helping less productive land contribute to our protein for food, farming, nature. The underlying problem facing the sector is farmers do not make enough money. And the government is changing that.

The members opposite may laugh but actually businesses do need to make money. We announced a new set of policies in a new conference last month aimed at improving farm profitability, securing our food security, and protecting nature. Throughout farming roadmap we have created the conditions for farmers to run profitable businesses that can withstand future challenges. This decision is about investing in long-term stability. It is about the future where farmers are supported to run profitable businesses, public monies used in a better way to better restore nature and secure long-term food security.
12:43
Victoria Atkins Portrait Rt Hon Victoria Atkins MP (Louth and Horncastle, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Secretary of State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I thank the Minister for advanced copy of his statement which I'm going to pull apart. They I thank him also for granting the thank him also for granting the Urgent Question that forced the minister to the Dispatch Box. They minister to the Dispatch Box. They sneak this statement out last night presumably hoping nobody would notice but, guess what, the notice but, guess what, the countryside has. Because the question that we are all asking ourselves is what has this ourselves is what has this government got against farmers and the countryside.

They sneak this announcement out, that they were announcement out, that they were halting the Sustainable Farming Incentive scheme immediately. This scheme replaced the EU's common agricultural scheme when we left the EU. We set up this scheme with our Brexit free to establish a farming policy that works for farmers, the environment, and food production. Yet Labour pulled the plug without warning last night. This scheme is popular with farmers, and he doesn't have to take my word for it. To quote one of " These schemes have the potential to be the most progressive and environmental responsible schemes of their kind anywhere in the world.

" Those were the words of the former president of the CLA and father of the honourable member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire who I'm sure will agree with his father's analysis. Why would the city dwelling government stop such a successful scheme? In the word of the CLA president, Victoria Vivian, " Of all the betrayal so far, this is the most cruel. It actively harms nature, it actively harms the environment, and with war once again waging in Europe, to actively harm our food production is reckless beyond belief.

" Does the Minister think she is wrong? Despite this, the secular state who by the way is missing in action, this is a significant statement which he has made. And he is sending out as junior Mr take the hit. Perhaps it is because the Secretary of State did not want me to remind him of his own words in November? Which was he said "Farmers feel ignored. Alienated. And disrespected. I hope the Minister will be telling us how that is going.

The farming policy of this government can be summarised in three sentences. They will halt any farming and environmental scheme on which farmers rely without warning, without consultation, and using

**** Possible New Speaker ****

criteria there have never before The estate will cease their farms at will and if their families have at will and if their families have managed to cling on to their farms despite all of this, Labour will tax despite all of this, Labour will tax them for dying. I am delighted to hear that the farming minister himself can see farmers do not make himself can see farmers do not make enough money. I hope he is going to be changing the family farm attacks.

This adds to nothing less than an This adds to nothing less than an outright assault on the countryside. As a proud rural MP, somebody who As a proud rural MP, somebody who actually likes the countryside, I am already being contacted by constituents and farmers across the UK, who have had the door slammed in their face with no notice and asking how they are meant to diversify, make a living and protect the countryside. The Prime Minister said he understood the significance of losing a farm.

Acknowledging it losing a farm. Acknowledging it Moving the goalposts for the agricultural sector. Yet that is exactly what the government is doing. The statement issued last night was a masterclass in Orwellian double speak. It says the SFI scheme has reached completion. By what criteria? The government has not set the criteria before. The website said it was up to 6 weeks notice given for the withdrawal of SFI. Why was this discarded last night? How does he recognise by doing so this government has betrayed trust in the farming community yet again.

How many farmers does he believe will now be caught out without an agreement during the transition period of at least a year? Just as with the family farm tax, Labour has got the figures wrong. The CLA has asked me to ask the Minister what the government ambitions are now 4066% of farmers in England not currently in environmental schemes? How much have the vast cuts to BPS payments saved his department and where has the money gone? How will the Secretary of State support upland farmers that intended to move on to the sustainable incentives? Then there is the legal problems this announcement last night caused.

How will the government meet legally binding environmental targets, given they rely so heavily on the SFI scheme? I hope the Minister gives us a good, clear legal analysis on the impact of changes to SFI on internal market competition law between England and other devolved authorities as a result of this change. Any words the Minister uses about food security are meaningless in the face of this policy. Particularly as we all know this government has been delaying consideration and grants of applications since the general election.

So the figures he are using -- is using is wrong. The theory behind this policy is questionable. Yet the government would have us all believe that he understands farming and the impact this will have on farmers. They are in despair. My message to farmers is clear. We have got your back. We will help you to hang in there for the next four years. We will axe the family farms tax. We will sort out this shocking mess to help build a bright future for British farming with British farmers.
12:50
12:51
12:51
12:51
Tim Farron Portrait Tim Farron MP (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for advanced site of his statement. The closure of the SFI from 6 PM last night came without warning or consultation. It constitutes the breaking of the government's word two farmers. Farmers are already losing their Farmers are already losing their basic payment this year and are now excluded from the very scheme excluded from the very scheme designed to replace that. As the Minister not broken his word to farmers and all who care about farmers and all who care about nature? Will he clarify how much nature? Will he clarify how much money he will save from the cuts this year and therefore it is not true that SFI is overspent? Is it not true that when the BPS cut is considered, more than £400 million will remain on spent? A bigger budget is pointless if you do not spend it.

This money was supposed to reward farmers for nature restoration and sustainable production. Does this not damage both? There are 6,100 new entrants both? There are 6,100 new entrants to SFI this year. Yet only a mere 40 R hill farms. Does that not prove that because of the failure of the Conservatives in the last administration, for big landowners and corporate, they are already comfortably inside the tent but the farmers outside are now locked out without warning, the poorest farmers in Britain's most beautiful places like mine in the legs and the Dales.

A 40% drop in hill farming in five years. Is this not a bit unbearable blow for upland farmers? This will outrage everybody that cares for the environment, upland nature and landscape and it will outrage everybody who cares about food security. Everyone who cares about our tourism economy. It will outrage everyone who has that old-fashioned expectation that governments should keep their word. The secretary of state came to my beautiful constituency on Monday to pose for pictures by Windermere. Might he come back tomorrow and face up to the farmers who steward the stunning landscapes around the beautiful lakes, who he has shamefully abandoned? Will he honour his promises or else turn his back on the very people who feed us?
12:54
12:54
12:55
12:55
12:55
12:56
12:56
12:57
12:58
12:58
12:59
12:59
12:59
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:01
13:01
13:02
13:02
13:03
13:03
13:03
13:04
13:04
13:05
13:05
13:06
13:06
13:06
13:07
13:07
13:08
13:08
13:09
13:09
13:10
13:10
13:11
13:11
13:12
13:12
13:12
13:13
13:13
13:13
13:14
13:14
13:14
13:15
13:15
13:15
13:16
13:17
13:17
13:17
13:18
13:18
13:19
13:19
13:19
13:20
13:20
13:21
13:21
13:22
13:22
13:23
13:24
13:24
13:24
13:25
13:25
13:25
13:25
13:26
13:26
None Portrait Points of Order
-

Point of order.
13:27
13:27
13:27
13:28
13:28
13:29
13:30
Liam Conlon Portrait Liam Conlon MP (Beckenham and Penge, Labour)
-
-
move on to the 10 minute rule may.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I beg to move that leave beginning to bring a bill to require the Secretary of State to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the potential merits of disregarding payments received under the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme operated by the government of Ireland for the purposes of taxation, means tested Social taxation, means tested Social Security payments and social care capital limits and for connected purposes. Philomena Lee was 18 years old when she became pregnant in 1952 and was sent to Sean Ross Abbey mother and home in Ross Gray County Tipperary in Ireland.

Here Philomena gave birth to her son Anthony, and here they both lived until Anthony reached the age of three and Philomena was cruelly forced to give him up for adoption. Anthony was sold to a couple in the United States. Philomena would never see him again. Almost 60 years on, Philomena story reached a global audience when it was made into the Oscar-nominated film Philomena. Starring Dame Judi Dench and Steve Coogan. The film chronicles the time Philomena spent in Sean Ross Abbey and her painstaking search for her long lost son decades later with help of author Martin Sexsmith.

I wish her story was an isolated one. Sadly it is not. Philomena is one of tens of thousands of women and their infant children who spend time in mother and homes across Ireland for the perceived sin of becoming pregnant outside of marriage. The women were regularly used as unpaid labour and infant mortality was alarmingly high. They experienced harsh conditions, mistreatment and abuse, both physical and psychological. In certain homes, women were routinely separated from their children with some being adopted against the wishes or even knowledge of their mothers, as happened to Philomena Lee and her son Anthony.

As a direct result of the abuse and trauma they experienced, many mother and home survivors moved to England. In some cases they came here because they thought the disappearing from their home country was the only way to protect their families reputations. And so for decades, thousands of survivors, including here in Britain, lived in secrecy and shame. It wasn't until 2021 they finally received an apology from the then Taoiseach Micheal Martin for what he described as a profound generational wrong visited upon Irish mothers and their children.

This was followed by the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme, which opened to applications last March. The scheme represents a measure of accountability for what happened, recognising the lifelong impact the time spent in these institutions will have. It's an impact that can be felt in all corners of a survivor's life from earning potential and financial security for physical and mental health and well-being. Ultimately, the scheme aims to acknowledge the suffering and improve the circumstances of former residents of mother and homes.

Just why it is wrong that up to 13,000 survivors living here in Britain today risk losing their benefits if they accept this compensation. Under our current rules, any money accepted through this payment scheme would be considered savings and can see them lose means tested benefits and financial support for social care. Deterring them from making any application at all. It's one of the reasons why only 5% of survivors in Britain have applied so far. And for others, having received the compensation offer, they are now having to weigh up whether it's worth accepting the money or if to do so would sink them into a worse financial situation overall.

This includes a survivor from the North of England who has shared her story with me. This woman who experienced harrowing abuse over several years applied to the payment scheme in September of last year and received an offer soon after. She told me when I first heard about the payment scheme, I thought that it was marvellous and I was excited. I couldn't take it in. I have never had any money at any point in my life. I was going to use this money to visit 1/2 brother in America.

He had been born less than 16 miles away, but I did not know that him or his brother and sister existed until we get some family tracing. It would have been lovely to meet him, but I do not feel that I could use the money for this as my benefits would be affected. The whole point of the payment scheme was to recognise the suffering that survivors experienced while resident. But for many it has become an additional burden, a process which has forced them to revisit their most dramatic experiences but seemingly to no avail.

But fortunately, there is a solution, and it's a relatively simple one. The introduction of an indefinite capital disregard, which my bill is proposing would remove any risk to applicants benefits. And there is also strong precedent for this with the same arrangements having been applied to similar special compensation schemes in the recent past. They include those introduced for the victims of the 77 London bombings and payments made under the Windrush compensation scheme. Before I conclude, I want to pay tribute to some of the many incredible organisations in Britain that continue to support mother and home survivors.

This includes Rosa and the team at Irish in Britain, Sean and the team at the London Irish centre in Camden, the Irish cultural centre in Hammersmith, the Freya network supporting the Irish community in Leeds, Manchester, Merseyside and beyond, Coventry Irish Society, Luton Irish Forum, Irish network Stevenage and many more. And finally, I would like to pay tribute to mother and home survivors here in Britain, in Ireland and elsewhere. He summoned the courage to share their personal experiences, to recount their most rheumatic years in the name of justice.

Their bravery, not only secured the apology from the Irish government and subsequently brought about the payment scheme, but also about the payment scheme, but also and perhaps more importantly, has contributed enormously to the heart and crucial work of dismantling the stigma and secrecy that has long been an issue with her time spent in mother and homes. This includes Philomena Lee, whose story brought this to large audience, and I'm delighted that her son and grandson Joshua here in the chamber today.

Ireland's mother and homes were cruel institutions. Over seven decades, tens of thousands of Irish women were sent there for the perceived sin of becoming pregnant outside of marriage. They were subjected to the most horrific mistreatment and abuse, physical and psychological. Women were used as unpaid labour. They had the children forcibly adopted, sometimes overseas and never to be seen again. Women and children fortunate enough to leave the institutions often came here to Britain. They came here to escape the stigma and shame and build a new life.

And there are more than 13,000 survivors living here today. Last year, the Irish government opened a long-awaited compensation scheme for those survivors. It is a small but important mark of accountability and redress for what happened to them. But thousands of survivors in Britain today cannot access this compensation without being penalised for it. If they do, they will lose any means tested benefits or financial support for social care. Just as we did for the Windrush families, we must now change the law to ensure that compensation payments to victims and survivors are ring fenced.

This bill, Philomena's Law, named after the inspiration courageous Philomena Lee will achieve just that. I'm proud to bring into the House today, hope in the months ahead we will see a change in the law so we can deliver justice for survivors and show them

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the kindness and respect they have so often been denied in life. Thank you. The question is... Please be seated. The question is that the seated. The question is that the honourable member have leave to bring the bill. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and bring in the bill? Liam Conlon, Claire Hanna, Colum Eastwood, Deirdre Costigan, Ila McAvoy, Damien again, Irina Kamara, Sarah Coombes, Helena Dollimore, Florence Eshalomi, Tom Rutland and Rachel Hopkins. Rachel Hopkins.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very steady. Very steady. Mother and Baby Institutions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Payment Scheme report bill. Second reading what day? Friday 20th of March.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday 20th of March.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday 20th of March. Friday, 28 March. Well done. The Frontbencher shuffling over very Frontbencher shuffling over very quickly. The clerk will now proceed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to read the orders of the day. Employment Rights Bill as amended to the Public Bill Committee to be further considered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now. We will begin with clause 39 with which it will be convenient to which it will be convenient to consider new clauses amendments and new schedules as listed on the selection paper the day to you. I
13:40
None Portrait Legislation: Employment Rights Bill: Remaining stages (Day Two)
-

called the Minister to move new clause 39. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I beg to move that the clause be read a second time. First clause be read a second time. First of all, can I declare my register of interest in Bishop and financial interest in Bishop and financial interest in trade unions as I have done throughout the passage of this bill. And can I thank all members in bill. And can I thank all members in all parts of the House for their contributions to yesterday's debate? I look forward to another good I look forward to another good debate today as we work together to ensure this bill works in practice for workers and businesses of all sizes across the whole country.

sizes across the whole country. Similar to yesterday and will use my opening remarks to explain to the House of the amendments put forward in parts four and five of the bill. The government is moving a number of amendments which represent a significant step forward in modernising our industrial framework. Amendments to clause 50 will strengthen the provisions of trade union access right, ensure the framework functions effectively and deliver on our commitment to modernise working practices. They were streamlined access provisions by allowing a single CAC member to make a fast track decision on whether access should take place.

In making a decision about whether it is a single person or panel who will consider the application, the CAC will be required to have regard to the complexity of the case as well as whether the proposed terms of the agreement are modelled terms, various criteria that which will be described in secondary legislation following consultation. They also clarify the supporting work is a legitimate purpose for access and provide power to bring forward secondary legislation to make further provision as to how the CAC is to determine the level of penalty fines for non-compliance with access agreements, and will expand access rights enabling access agreements to cover communicating with workers in ways that don't involve entering premises for example, connecting digitally using technology, therefore modernising our antiquated industrial relations framework.

New clause 39 new schedule to and associated amendments insert new provisions into the bill, facing clause 51 and will address unfair practices in the recognition and due recognition process test protections at the point at which the CAC accepts an application for recognition or de-recognition and ensures employers can increase the size of the bargaining unit for the purposes of the recognition application after the application is made. This will end the deliberate gaming of the system that we have seen in recent years.

It will also delete the second test for determining an unfair practice complaint, which currently requires the CAC to consider how and an
13:43
Justin Madders Portrait Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)
-
-
alleged unfair practice may have affected workers votes in the recognition for D recognition recognition for D recognition balance. It will extend the time limit in which unfair practices can limit in which unfair practices can be reported after the ballot closes to five working days. It will ensure that an employer cannot recognise a non-independent trade union after non-independent trade union after receiving a request for voluntary recognition from an independent recognition from an independent trade union as a means of thwarting the independent trade union subsequent application to the CAC the statutory recognition, and will bring forward and formalise the process for agreeing access arrangements between the employer and the union during the recognition and D recognition process.

These amendments will streamline the recognition process, reduce opportunities for unfair practices to occur and ensure union seek recognition, have a fair and statutory route to enable them to do so. Today's amendments in terms of industrial action rules will reduce the costly complex and bureaucratic requires and years in relation to industrial action and ballot notices whilst ensuring employees have the necessary notice and information to prepare for industrial action. New clause 42 also provide notices to employers of industrial action balance and industrial action, reducing the chance of spurious challenge in making the information required more proportionate.

New clause 43 will extend industrial action Mondays from six to 12 months, reducing the need for repeated ballads and amendments to clause 61 will mean a notice period for industrial action will be set at 10 days, giving businesses time to repair prepare while safeguarding workers rights. Amendments to clause 58 mean that the 50% ballot turnout threshold repeal will be subject to commencement on a date to be set in secondary legislation. Turning out a political fund balance, new clause 40 and associate moments remove the requirement of the unions to hold a ballot every 10 years on maintaining a political fund.

Instead, unions will provide reminders about members right to opt out every 10 years, ensuring transparency without imposing costly and time-consuming imposing costly and time-consuming imposing costly and time-consuming Moving to the Fair Work Agency, it will bring together numerous agencies and enforce employment rights to ensure when employers are not doing things right a strengthened system will protect workers and ensure justice and the work place. The Fair Work Agency need support to do the job and these amendments will give them the tools that they need to hold employers to account more effectively.

It is fair for workers and businesses, too. The government is moving amendments for a new public speech will be key to the enforcement role. Clauses 44-56 create a civil penalty regime and officers will be able to issue notices and imposed penalties where there has been a breach of statutory pay rates within the remit of the Fair Work Agency. As a result, the agency may be able to help workers get the result more quickly than an employment tribunal. We want the Fair Work Agency to be able to support individuals and ensure the time of the tribunal is used as effectively as possible and clause 57 allows them to bring proceedings before the tribunal if individuals are unable to.

Clause 58, the Fair Work Agency will also be able to offer advice and assistance to individuals bringing cases before the court or tribunal. The government is also moving amendments to upgrade the power the Fair Work Agency will need for labour abuse effectively. The committee held from stakeholders including the Independent Antislavery Commissioner and currently they are investigating many cases because they do not meet many cases because they do not meet the threshold. The case is that do not need modern slavery will be tackled.

We will give them the majesty require. We will enable officers to use their powers to investigate cases helping the Fair Work Agency to protect the most vulnerable in the workforce and furthermore, enforcement officers will be given the ability to issue special warnings that means if employers refused to answer questions about certain items are the post, it could be used against them in court. -- Certain items or their whereabouts.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The measures he is bringing forward I think will improve... He forward I think will improve... He touched on the Modern Slavery Act but did not address the issues raised yesterday. Casey more about the governments intention to update the governments intention to update the clause? Speak ungrateful for the intervention of the Oversight intervention of the Oversight Committee. We accept that there are gaps between the Modern Slavery gaps between the Modern Slavery Network enforcement process and what we currently have.

Working with the Home Office and the GLA to improve that time we will continue to work on that in due course as we develop the scope and remit of the Fair Work Agency and as well as reforming the powers, they are moving to assure effective enforcement of statutory sick pay and holiday pay. This will bring the Northern Ireland SSP regulation and open up the powers of the Northern Ireland Executive. Employers will be able to retain records for six years within the scope of the Fair Work Agency.

It is the intention of the government for the agency to enforce new protections with relation to zero- hours contract, subject to detail and the outcome of the spending and the outcome of the spending review. Clause 60 has power for the Fair Work Agency to take enforcement action against business it's going to be non-compliant with the law. This is in recognition of the payment principle and are similar to how regulators operate, such as the health and safety executive. We will discuss this with businesses as appropriate before exercising the power but we think it is an important principle that where there is wrong, the person in the wrong pays a contribution towards taxpayer cost in enforcing the law.

To sum up, I know that many people are eager to speak today. We must make sure workplace rights are fit for the modern economy and contribute to workplace growth. I urge members to support the bill the amendments we are moving to ensure that we are pro- business, growth, family.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the new clause 30

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the new clause 30 and be read a second time. -- Clause 39. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ahead of getting into detail of the many amendments that we have before many amendments that we have before us today that the Minister rattled through in 10 minutes, overnight, we learned the government are moving learned the government are moving the responsibilities of one to the other, omitting the payment system is regulated Financial Conduct Authority, Putting One Quango into another pitch already share a building. The Prime Minister has called this the latest attempt to kickstart growth and that is why it is relevant to the amendments we have this afternoon which do the opposite and the Chancellor said the regulatory system has become burdensome to the point of chalking burdensome to the point of chalking off -- choking off investment and growth, the things the bill does.

I growth, the things the bill does. I do not know how they can say that with a straight face when we have a with a straight face when we have a 5 billion cost to businesses of blocking regulatory burdens on every business, small, medium, and large in this land.
13:52
Greg Smith Portrait Greg Smith MP (Mid Buckinghamshire, Conservative)
-
-
In the chamber yesterday, it was quite clear that the Minister and his team did not understand what the definition of a small business was. I am sure that my honourable friend absolutely does understand. Does he agree it is fundamental to understanding where the balance of the legislation is wrong.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right honourable friend makes a superb point as she always does. Every single business in my own constituency are very concerned about the measures in this. I will about the measures in this. I will about the measures in this. I will give way of he is able to support give way of he is able to support the bill. I'm asking the Minister to give because the backbencher who tap give because the backbencher who tap intervened during the time I was.

One of the reasons there is so much confusion as the shadow minister moved to define a small business as an organisation employing 500 or more employees in store if there is any confusion, it is on that site.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

24 hours later, he still cannot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

24 hours later, he still cannot name a small business that supports this bill. It shows how out of their depth this trade union government actually is when it comes to supporting businesses in this land. In the words of the Chancellor In the words of the Chancellor herself, the bill is choking off investment and growth. To pretend otherwise is village. I turn to clause 89 and 90. Almost everything this government has done is contradictory to the objective of growth.

If that remains the objective this week. Whether it is the National Insurance job tax, change to business rates, this bill itself, everything goes against growing the economy and therefore it is little surprise that under Labour, the economy is flatlining. The Prime Minister estate area this year that everything the government does will be subject to a gross does will be subject to a gross test. -- growth. The details have been spiced. So sparse, you may think it does not exist. I will give way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can he describe the growth test of Liz Truss?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Liz Truss? To cut red tape, for a start. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To cut red tape, for a start. I think what we see from the Liberal think what we see from the Liberal Democrat benches is the orange-book tradition is well and truly dad and tradition is well and truly dad and they are positioning themselves firmly to the left of the Labour Party. There is no greater openness it does not exist than the bill itself because if it did exist, the bill would fall at the first hurdle. Today, I come with good news.

I have two amendments, two amendments that they can back this afternoon. Two amendments that will help them to grow the economy and of course they are clause 89 and 90. It will require the certification officer to advance the objectives of the international competitiveness of the economy. 90 will require the Secretary asked to have regard for international competitiveness when passing regulations under part four of the bill concerning the trade unions. The government has been acting regulators for ideas to boost growth.

We are happy to help them on their quest. These amendments should be the ones that the government can support and if they cannot, it shows that they are not serious about economic growth and shows that they do not intend to use the powers to achieve growth our economic competitiveness because they do not intend to exercise the powers compatibility with the objectives. I moved to new clause 88 which I am sure will get damn hot under the collar regarding trade union political funds.

For this government, it is a Labour Party- first, country-second government. This is clear now we are more than the changes the government are making to the political fund with the bell. These changes are designed with one simple purpose, to bolster the copies of the Libertadores Cup the copies of the Libertadores Cup party. Clause 52 Bellarmine members of trade unions will automatically contribute without being activated first. They were hard to opt out rather than opt in. If trade union subscriptions...

Did someone want to defend that? Clause 52 means members are trade unions will automatically contribute to the clinical fund without being asked about it. Trade union subscriptions, if they are to be used for party political campaigning, it should be a conscious decision of the trade union member to endorse such campaigning.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Shadow Minister called for the Bill Committee but every Reaper the Bill Committee but every Reaper member declared sponsorship for the member declared sponsorship for the trade union movement. -- Labour membro. Does he agree this is simply membro. Does he agree this is simply payback for the financial support for the Labour Act?.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend served assiduously and raised many good assiduously and raised many good points during the Bill Committee. I agree with the one he just made that the public will ask serious questions about their scientific honourable gentleman wishes to defend this, I will give him the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opportunity. I am a member of three trade

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am a member of three trade unions and I got less than the honourable gentleman did for a small business and I think he is talking business and I think he is talking about 12,500 Taiz did he feel the need to declare that now he is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

making a case against legislation? I'm making a point about the trade union movement. I've never been part of it and never received money for it happy for them to look at all my declarations in the register of interests.
13:59
None Portrait Points of Order
-

A point of order. opposite receive money from businesses affected by this should make a tackle which in the same way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the trade unions are? This will end up in back and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This will end up in back and forth on things that are not a matter for the chair. These are the responsibility of individual members responsibility of individual members to make appropriately.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to make appropriately. The avoidance of all doubt and transparency, I will declare my entries in the register of interest entries in the register of interest for all to look at and the are all for all to look at and the are all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This argument about opting in and opting out of trade union levies goes back at least to the 1970s and goes back at least to the 1970s and probably beyond when I remember arguing about it as an undergraduate. If there are to be levies that you have to opt out of, a defensible case can be made for a defensible case can be made for them provided the process of opting them provided the process of opting out is easy and is advertised to every member.

Does my honourable friend know whether the government proposes to institute mechanisms to make it known to every member how

**** Possible New Speaker ****

easily they can opt out? My right honourable friend makes an incredibly important point on this because if you look at the this because if you look at the detail of this bill, what is very clear and obvious is that the clear and obvious is that the government are trying to make it as difficult as possible for people to opt out if the trade union political opt out if the trade union political fund. That's the very point of them changing this legislation.

And opt in... I'm going to make a bit of progress and then will come to the honourable lady. Opt in is the default under consumer protection law and information law. Combined with the 10 year reminder change, it is highly likely that many trade union members will not be aware that their subscriptions are being used in this way. And that they are eligible to save money on their trade union fees by not being a member of the political fund. Despite all the talk of supporting working people, it is clear that concerns simply do not apply when working people's money is being taken to fund the Labour Party and other political causes.

We have tabled an amendment to 91 because we fundamentally believe that people should consent explicitly what is in effect to a subscription trap. Amendment 2 91 simply maintains the status quo. It is the right thing to do. The Secretary of State for centre trade... OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Many thanks. I draw attention to my register of interests, my membership of the community and membership of the community and Astro. Can the honourable gentleman Astro. Can the honourable gentleman tell us how many times such a ballot has actually resulted in the closure of a political fund?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of a political fund? The honourable lady is putting a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable lady is putting a smoke and mirrors argument up here to try and cover the fact that they are changing the status quo of an opt in system to an opt out system. To me it is just straightforward common sense that something like this people would expect to have to opt into, not this particularly egregious case of every 10 years being casually reminded that maybe they could save a bit of money by opting out to a cause that perhaps they don't even agree with in the first place.

The Secretary of State for trade pledged in fact to end auto renewal subscriptions. Because when this side were in government, we passed the digital market competition and consumers bill. This contains two significant proposals on subscription contracts that are notable here. Reminder notices that businesses need to provide notices to consumers to remind them that their subscription contract will be new and that payment will be due unless the consumer cancels. And secondly, to allow consumers to be able to exit a subscription contract in a straightforward cost-effective and timely way.

Businesses will need to ensure that process of terminating is not unduly onerous and that consumers can signal their intent to end the contract through a single communication. The Labour Party then in opposition supported those aims. In fact, the bill did not go far enough for them at the time. During report stage, the honourable member Pontypridd table new clause 29, which the Labour Party voted to add to the bill. This new clause had a two pronged approach. It required traders to ask consumers whether they wished to opt into subscriptions renewing automatically, either after a period of six months and every six months thereafter or if the period between the consumer being charged for the first and second time is longer than six months, each time payment is due.

The second limb of the new clause the Labour Party used to support would have required that if the consumers did not opt into the arrangement just described, the trader had to provide a date by which the consumer must notify the trader of the consumer's intention to renew the contract, which must be no earlier than 28 days before the renewal date. If the consumer did not provide notification, the subscription contact could not renew. So where am I going with this? The chuntering too early because there is a considerable shift in the Labour Party's policy position on subscription traps.

The Labour Party seems to believe that consumers should be given every possible opportunity to cancel subscription contracts with businesses, but it should be as hard as possible to cancel a subscription to the trade union political fund. That is why we've tabled amendment 2 90 and new clause 88 so that members of trade unions receive the same rights that Labour pushed for the other individuals with a subscription. Moving to new schedule two, new schedule two is just another amendment that could be used to give sweeping powers to the trade union paymasters of those on the benches sat opposite me.

It will give the secretary of state powers to reduce the threshold for trade union recognition to as low as just 2% of the workforce. By doing so, trade unions could easily be imposed on workplaces across the country with small employers being particularly vulnerable. For example in a workplace of 200 workers, less than five would be required for workplace recognition. Paired with the other measures in this bill, this will strike fear into business owners across Britain who could now be forced to deal with all-powerful trade unions as part of Labour's return to the 1970s.

By the way Labour have gone about this is just another example of the shoddy nature of this bill and Labour's approach to workplace regulations. As the Attorney-General has said, excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses or skeletal legislation upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values, and quoting her,, " I have all ready outlined that also the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty." So I move on to talk about facility time through amendments to hundred 93 and 295.

Which would leave out clause 54. Facilities provide trade union officials and learning representatives and leave out clause 55, facilities for equality representatives. These amendments will remove those aforementioned clauses and to remove the requirement to provide reasonable time off facilities time, the removal of the creation of facilities time for equality's representatives and moves clauses that will reduce transparency requirements over facilities time respectively. And then amendment 2 96 which is together with these to prevent facility time for equality representatives from being provided unless the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory targets for performance.

Trade union facility time already costs the government nearly £100 million a year. Under the last Labour government, the Civil Service spent .26% of its annual pay bill on facility time compared to 0.04% in the private sector. In the Civil Service, the average was 0.05%. In 2022/23 and the last Conservative government. And Labour councils are still the worst culprit. The transparency data collected by the government in 22/23 shows that the Mayor of London Sadique Khan is Transport for London has 800 and has 881 full-time equivalent union officials on the books.

Costing £8 million a year. Bankrupt Labour run Birmingham City Council has 30 full-time equivalent union officials on its central books, costing 1.2 million. It's no wonder they went bankrupt. And further 12 full-time equivalents in its maintained schools, costing 583,000, costing £583,000. But clause 54 and 55 will increase this cost by giving more time off the public sector union officials at the taxpayers expense. That is not right but the Chancellor is asking ministers to make cuts to their departments across the board, meaning that public services will be worse with the taxpayer expected to contribute more.

Furthermore, this bill extends that right to equality representatives will now be allowed representatives will now be allowed paid time off work to carry out activities for the purposes of promoting value of equality in the workplace, arrange learning or training matters, relation to equality in the workplace, provide information, advice and support to qualified members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace, consult with the employee on matters relating to equality in the workplace and obtain and analyse information relating to equality in the workplace.

All noble goals, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that should not be done at the taxpayers expense. Does the shadow Minister agree with me that the only jobs that will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with me that the only jobs that will be created by these bills are those people employed by trade unions? Before Mr Smith returns to respond to that, I must add we've respond to that, I must add we've got shy of 40 people hoping to contribute. Just a little notice, we want to get them all in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want to get them all in. As ever I take your advice and will speed up, but will first say... will speed up, but will first say... While the Minister urges me to carry on. I have course would not ignore on. I have course would not ignore your advice, will never say never again. Anyway, I make no comment on the value of these activities were at public sector employees and their productivity, but what I would say is that we have already seen this government happy to hand over large pay increases to trade unions with no guarantee of anything in return.

That is why we have tabled amendments to night 329 five and 296 in an attempt to make sure the taxpayer is getting something out if this latest concession to the trade unions. As briefly as I can, and amendment to hundred 97, trade unions can create significant disruption in the economy, where they are stopping work from taking place or preventing people from getting work or school or to hospital appointments or many other activities. That is why it is important that a fair balance is struck between the ability of trade unions to strike and the public we all serve.

Our amendment 2 97 will mean that vital public services such as the NHS can better plan and prepare for strikes. It simply seeks to keep the status quo of two weeks notice. Without adequate warning, constituents of members from across the House are more likely to miss hospital appointments, not be to travel to see loved ones or get to work or suffer greater disruption when schools closed due to strikes. That is part of the reason why in the consultation on thresholds, 58% of those who responded support retaining the 14 day period as it currently is with only 7% preferring a longer period.

Two thirds of respondents want the period to stay the same or longer. Labour promised they would work with business on this bill, but their response to the consultation is just another example of them having their fingers in their areas and simply not listening. The reduction to 10 years, 10 days as against the wishes of business, would you hunt all of our constituents, and that's why we've tabled amendment 2 97 to retain the notice period at 14 days. On amendment 2 99, very briefly, strikes should only take place when there is a clear mandate for them.

Clause 58 will mean the strikes can happen with low thresholds by removing the 50% turnout requirement and the 40% support requirement. Combined with government amendments to extend the mandate for strikes from six months to 12, this bill allows unions to unleash waves of low support for strikes. These costs will come on top of the national insurance jobs tax and changes to business rates, mistakes the government are already making and making running a business more difficult, which is why we've tabled in tonight to remove clause 58.

There is much in this bill to talk to, but I will not test your patience or the patience of the House further by going into them, but I look forward to a thorough debate not least from the benches behind me, to further point out why the amendments the government have put down in this bill this afternoon will harm our economy, destroy jobs

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and just give more power to the trade unions. Point of order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point of order. Is it pertinent to the central debate? Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point of order. As we all know, members are required to draw attention to any required to draw attention to any potential conflict of interest prior to speaking to avoid any impression amongst other things of paid amongst other things of paid advocacy. Given the clause 52 will lead directly to increased payment of money from unions to labour of money from unions to labour Members of Parliament, I ask for guidance and proper declaration of interest. Most members of the party opposite listed to speak this afternoon have received thousands of pounds from unions.

Tarted up and make it £283,974.86 p. So in addition to the general reference to their register of interests, in this instance where there is this direct link, should they also set out the actual amount of money they have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

received? Are releasing further clarity required in this as it was raised required in this as it was raised earlier on. It is the responsibility of interval members to ensure that of interval members to ensure that they declare their interest properly. The procedure for raising a complaint of this sort is by writing to the Parliament writing to the Parliament Commissioner for standards, the guide to the rules set out the rules relating to the declaration of interest in the debate. This is not otherwise a matter for the chair.

Hopefully that brings about the clarity to that issue. Now, chair of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clarity to that issue. Now, chair of I start with my technology interest as a former member of the interest as a former member of the CBI and the current member of the
14:15
Liam Byrne Portrait Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, Labour)
-
-
CBI and the current member of the trade union, Unison. I will try to bring some points of consensus. I'm old enough to remember when the members opposite like the former member of Harlow were writing think thank pamphlets for agencies like Davos about embracing the trade union movement and Harold Macmillan famously said that the you to think we could not have a modern industrial society with a trade unions and I still think that. I think we would all benefit from acknowledgement that industrial relations in this country have been in a good place.

In fact, in 2023, there were more days lost to strikes than at any point in the last 30 years and at the back end of 2022, the ONS calculated 2.5 million days were lost to strike action, not record any one of us should be proud of. It is incumbent on all of us to moderate industrial relations in this country saw that we are not divided in this way in the divided in this way in the workplace.

I hope the Minister will use the moment and see the moment and the fact we have the build the advent of industrial strategy that will bring together government arrangements to get businesses and unions around the table to talk about economic growth. It is a big moment and big opportunity and a big moment when we could bring together the country around the modern industrial strategy and I hold the Minister has got this done, had a rest, may be gone on holiday and think about how the government will publish a modern industrial strategy for the future, backed by restoration of some of the things we used to have such of the Workplace Employee Survey which we type until 2012 but was stopped.

We must be The harmony in the workplace because it is in the interest of our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituents that we serve. They used the term 'modernising industrial relations was part of it sounds like a euphemism but is he not surprised that MBP rises that not surprised that MBP rises that have come for doctors, train drivers, trade unions, the requirement for increased requirement for increased productivity has been put alongside the increases in pay. Surely if we are modernising industrial relations, it should be combined, the increased pay that they want with the productivity gains the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country needs. Will be aware of the marks made by the Duchy of the exchequer at the by the Duchy of the exchequer at the weekend and I think we will see some pretty radical steps taken in the Comprehensive Spending Review to improve the efficiency of the civil service which grew significantly in the years after COVID and must be invented for new times. I'm confident the productivity gains will come. The second point I wanted to make was to draw the attention of the House to some of the evidence of the Select Committee and the report I commenced to all honourable members because what struck me in the evidence that we heard from the most productive firms in the country like Jaguar Land Rover, Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace, these are world beating companies, some of the most productive in the country, and what characterises the WordPress arrangements in those companies is they have long-standing, robust, deep partnerships with good trade unions and those trade unions help to make decisions that deal with conflict and help businesses to succeed.

And we also took from companies whether it's harmony such as Amazon, the company that has had to call ambulances to warehouse is 1400 times in just five years. We on the committee received evidence from workers who were having to it into bottles because they did not dare to take time off. We heard complaints around injuries being complained and when we had the executives in front of us they would not and could not tell the committee require the strike action had been taken.

If a company executive cannot explain to the committee why so many workers are on strike, that it is not a sign of harmony and is not a recipe for success and that is why I think the major the Minister has brought forward in the bill to improve opportunities for trade unions, and in aware this was recommended by the honourable member, and they are a good thing and now we have gone some way in recognising this and we have committees such as improving beyond 24 hours the that complaints are heard and access agreements and strengthening the role of the CSE and there was one further step I would suggest which is where we suggest access rights include digital access rights and in the modern workplace, this is not an opportunity for workers to get information about the opportunity to join a trade union.

The final point I wanted to make was the first factory act passed by the House was in 1802 and the Health and Modern Apprentices Act which was celebrated as an act which failed because there was no enforcement and the enforcement is essential. The enforcement is important. 20 employers have been prosecuted since 2007 and despite the fact we all know that there are abuses of this sort didn't waste and spending has been flat since 2014 and we are well off the target of one labour market for every 10,000 workers and the new clause 82 in my name requires the Secretary of State to set out a roadmap for the target and for stronger partnerships between the Home Office, police, the Fair Work Agency.

We cannot in this country a situation where the best British firms are being undercut by the worst labour market practice in the country. In conclusion, I welcome this bill and I think that there are some amendments tabled today which I approve of but ultimately we must remember that if we want to create a genuine pro-business, pro-worker economy, the measures in the bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are long overdue. Daisy Cooper. I rise to speak to parts four and five and clause 19, tabled in the of five and clause 19, tabled in the of my honourable friend and losses 110, my honourable friend and losses 110, 111, 112, in my name. I thank the 111, 112, in my name. I thank the honourable members for a they are along with many other members of this House. Overall, throughout the
14:23
Daisy Cooper Portrait Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
this House. Overall, throughout the passage of the bill, we have indicated support for many aspects of the employment rates bill. Boosting statutory sick, strengthening parental pay and leave I'm giving people on zero, strengthening parental pay and leave I'm giving people on 0- and low- hours contracts more certainty but there is more issues with new amendments and continuing consultations which make it impossible to believe that we endorse the bill on the hall at this stage. Even with 264 amendments at committee stage and 437 government Are still major issues to be determined, especially in part four and even after all these amendments, the government says that they intend to consult further on modernising the trade union landscape following the Royal assent of the Employment Rights Bill including secondary legislation and record of rights.

It is clear part four is still far from finalised. The Liberal Democrats believe employee participation in the work place is vitally important and it should go hand in hand with ownership. It's important for economic power, promoting enterprise, increase in job satisfaction, increase in service to customers, getting long-term economic stability angles. The government report was on trade unions are based on employee rights and what can be a confrontational and complicated environment. The Liberal Democrats see the bill as a missed opportunity to improve ownership and provide collaborative working environments and long-term growth and poor that is through reforming company purpose rules are a duty on employers to encourage ownership of large listed companies.

However, given what we have before us, there are a few amendments we have and the first is and then 19, have and the first is and then 19, -- NC19 - the rate to be a company. It does what it says on the 10. It is a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy and I hope it is not to controversial because it rectifies an anomaly. The current law only allows trade union representatives or colleagues to accompany an employee and this leaves many other employees support.

Some sectors like the medical profession already allow accompaniment by non-union companions but this is not reflected in the law. Our targeted amendment would fix this anomaly and I urge the government to accept it. Clause 110, this simply request a review into the impact on small business. Throughout the passage of this bill, we've raised concerns about the cumulative impact of all of the government work in this area and the impact it will have on small businesses in particular. The other day, the Federation of Small Businesses told me they spent thousands and thousands of hours giving advice to small businesses on employment matters and these new obligations will create a huge amount of extra laws to understand, interpret, apply.

Small businesses do not have the same resources as big business. They often do not have a legal department, no compliance team and no HR specialist. Because more businesses are rooted in the community, they are conscious of their reputation. They know their employees and want to get things employees and want to get things right. This means it will take extra time, effort, cost, for them to navigate and comply with this part of the bill. Before everything else that the government is seeking to introduce, taken together the measures of the employment Bill, national insurance, business rates changes, everything else, small businesses feel overwhelmed.

All this clause does is request impact assessment. Small businesses are passionate and are often the first businesses to give people their first job a second chance and cooperate part-time flexible working and opportunities to return to work and I encourage the government to look at the impact of part 41 small businesses. Was 111 -- clause 111 is about legal aid in employment tribunal. But it was first introduced the intention was for it introduced the intention was for it to become the NHS of the justice system but today will be delayed as far from that.

Our amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on options for expanding the rates and employment tribunals. Many employees cannot afford legal representation and this treats an imbalance of power when facing well resourced employers. The amendment simply ask the government to look at the available options in this regard. Clause 112 is looking at the, asking for a review of the single enforcement body. The Liberal Democrats positively support the government that was to create a single point of contact than four and a similar measure was manifesto and be called for a powerful new protection enforcement authority but as a matter of good practice, when putting the organisations together, it is important to make sure that no gaps are treated in that protection.

This is not just a formality important set to ensure employment rights enforcement is a fact, fair, fit for purpose. In conclusion, there is much in the employment Bill that we welcome but there are many areas we cannot support because it is not clear yet what the government's intentions are. We urge the government in the strongest possible terms to look at the impact on small business because this is one area that we are deeply concerned about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to speak in this
14:29
Ian Lavery Portrait Ian Lavery MP (Blyth and Ashington, Labour)
-
-
debate, following the honourable member from Buckinghamshire, the Shadow Minister. I have got to remind him that trade unionists are the bedrock of our communities. Producers of wealth in the country. They are taxpayers, ordinary working people. They should not be basically described as on the shoes of other people. The shadow minister can hardly hide his disdain for ordinary working people. He could not pull himself back in his contribution and basically he disapproved of I want to refer to my declaration of interest as a proud trade union member of the National Union of Mineworkers, of Unite the union, an honorary member of the prison officers Association, and also chair of the trade union group of Labour MPs.

But it is an absolute pleasure to speak today on a piece of legislation which turns the tide on decades of antitrade union laws. Laws which have restricted the power of workers and seen the wealth of those at the top grow exponentially. Personally, it's fitting to see this bill in front of the Commons this week because last Wednesday, marked the 40 years since myself, my father who sadly passed on, my brothers and thousands of my colleagues marched back to work at the end of the miners strike.

And although bruised and battered, the fact that I am still here today speaking on this bill proves that whilst the party of vulture capital may have won a victory in 1985, it didn't win the war. But whilst this is a good bill, I think it could have been a lot better. In time through time and further discussion and further legislation, it will prove to be a great bill. I draw the attention of the House to the amendments submitted in my name.

I think they will positively strengthen and enhance this bill. Some of these amendments that would take the focus of the remainder of my contribution. Workers in the UK have never ever had the right to strike. However, since 1906, the unions have had protection against common law liability, subject to statutory conditions being brought. New clause 108 would establish a positive right to strike, bringing the UK in line with most of the democratic world. Would also remove provisions that make strike action unlawful if it turns out retrospectively that the action the worker took was unofficial.

And I think this is important because a worker company has to take a good faith -- in good faith the navigation of bureaucracy of the action and the unscrupulous bosses cannot similarly dismiss the bosses cannot similarly dismiss the hard NUT. No clause 109 is wide- ranging. The U.K.'s ban on secondary action is almost unique in the world. Condemned on every occasion, the ILO have considered the position the ILO have considered the position since 1989. not when P&O didn't consult command by dismissing unfairly the unions were unable to react by calling them dockworkers and lorry drivers and other industries on the dockside to boycott the vessels in dispute.

We need to bring back solidarity I think. I want to support people in industrial disputes. Section on new clause 109 tackles that. This clause would put this right by ending the ban on secondary action, which would have constituted. It would basically remove the clause 109 would remove the need to provide a ballot paper on the right to improve unions and to rerun the bell every six months. It will end any industrial action to achieve recognition for collective bargaining.

Amendments 347 2348 would change the requirements for notification about the results of the union ballot, meaning they could be displayed online with ease of access to the public. Amendments 345 Amendments 345 2346 would remove the restriction confining pickets to their workplace. The reason secondary picketing was banned in the first place was because it was a tool that benefited workers in advanced their cause. Solidarity action should be an important part of seeking resolution to disputes. This brings measures that aim to end discrimination and place equality at the heart of the workplace.

It gives key workers in social care and school support more say on pay and conditions through the unions. It brings measures to tackle exploitative zero hour contracts and gives protection against unfair dismissal from day one and extends sick pay rights. It appeals minimum service level laws in the majority of the reactionary Trade Union Act of 2016. Greater rights for workers to organise collectively through their trade unions. And reduces bureaucracy on trade unions during bureaucracy on trade unions during industrial action processes.

Finally, the howls of derision from those opposite show that the Labour government are doing the right thing. This is a good bill that should mark the start of a process. I hope the Frontbench and my honourable friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and ensuite who has done a fantastic job, I hope he understands and appreciates the fact that we all are just trying to strengthen this bill through the amendments which we are putting forward. But once we expect the howls from the Conservatives, whilst we accept the howls of derision from the Conservatives, it's worth reminding ourselves that indeed, reminding the country that the turquoise champion Tories in Reform have also opposed this bill at every stage at every step of the way.

Perhaps it's because as a company, and that's what they are, they want to ensure their workers, for example the member from Great Yarmouth for example is limited in how he addresses workplace bullying from the owner. Or perhaps it's because whilst they masqueraded as a party for the ordinary working people of this country, in reality they are simply a Margaret Thatcher tribute act with a sprinkle of bigotry, determined advance her destructive agenda at all costs, regardless of its impact on working people across this country.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

We've got over 30 members wishing to contribute. I don't want to set time limit but if people could police themselves and keep their speeches to shy of eight minutes, speeches to shy of eight minutes, everybody will definitely get in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

everybody will definitely get in. Thank you. I wish to develop some of the very detailed and eloquent
14:38
Charlie Dewhirst Portrait Charlie Dewhirst MP (Bridlington and The Wolds, Conservative)
-
-
of the very detailed and eloquent For Mid Buckinghamshire and speak to those in relation to part four of the bill and the trade union movement. Before he leaves like to thank the right honourable member the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North his very measured comments. I enjoyed his referral back to the 1950s and industrial relations there, and we've moved on a little since then I would point out, and I will develop some of the argument going forward. And think you will slightly sympathise with The Opposition's position here.

We are not here to bash the unions. We support a progressive modern trade union movement where the balance is struck correctly between employer and employees. Unions should not and do not run businesses, but they are an important part of our industrial relations landscape. There can be little doubt that this is a bill unfortunately drafted by the few to the detriment sadly of the many. And the number of provisions which will largely abolish the Trade Union Act 2016 is trying to drag the country back to the dark days of the 1970s I think, and the very enjoyable speech we've just had from the honourable member for Blyth and Ashington perhaps rather illustrates that return to the 70s, and I'm pleased to see a number for is friends from the rebellious left on the benches today, and look forward to hearing their comments in due course.

The Trade Union Act of 2016 was brought in by the last Conservative government to reflect the modern British economy and workplace. It moves the trade union movement into the 21st century and enjoyed hard- working people are not disrupted by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

little supported strike action. We've been blighted by a think approximately seven years of strike approximately seven years of strike action by Northern. Does he agree with me that in fact the key to with me that in fact the key to modern industrial relations is to have good industrial relations, not to pull apart bills that make things

**** Possible New Speaker ****

better? Yes, I mean I think the best solution to that would be a more proper privatisation of railways so nationalise services like Northern, which are constantly on strike, I which are constantly on strike, I would use the example of Hull trains which serves a lot of constituents in my area which is very very rarely ever tall on strike as an excellent private open access firm and actually those of the rails franchises which are nationalised have been having far greater problems with strike action that those are not.

I wish to go back to the 70s again briefly, to the height of the industrial, trade union movement which numbers 1979 around 40 million. Since then they have declined significantly down to around 6 million, the majority of those are within the public sector and for good reason, the members are often members of the unions in the public sector but it means the landscape is changed. With me from the society and economy of heavy industry enlargement fracturing, has The Mace been built on one or two industries of one or two factories where everybody in that area was employed largely directly or indirectly in those places.

And actually that was where the trade union movement was required, where were strong and was needed. The modern work is very different. We now largely a services-based economy. The relation between employer and employee is much more modern and flexible, and therefore the need for a traditional movement which we've heard a return to secondary action and flight tickets et cetera clearly there is no place for that at all in the UK. Now because we must remember...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful for him giving way. The honourable gentleman opposite I The honourable gentleman opposite I understood him to suggest we should have a return to secondary action.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have a return to secondary action. Once his view? Adam to speak on behalf of the honourable member, but if he's made his comments. Very clear. And I'm sure we will be hearing more on that sure we will be hearing more on that tone as we go through the afternoon. Because it's really... Now really important that this bill does not important that this bill does not take us back to a place where growth take us back to a place where growth is stifled.

The governance talking about the importance of growth but you take this bill alongside the project and we will have a very severe problem going forward because there is very little point of having extra trade union representation if unemployment is going through the roof. Those who are unemployed will be represented. My big fear here is that this overall is an active economic sabotage, protecting the dinosaurs from extinction, damages the UK economy, and Tony ensures trade union donations continue to flow into the Labour Party.
14:43
Katrina Murray Portrait Katrina Murray MP (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, Labour)
-
-
Katrina Murray. my membership of Unison and the Mr Mishra of the national executive of Unison prior to election as well documented. I draw the houses attention to my register of interests. But what people on the side of the House probably don't know is that I'm also an associate member of the ACP ID, the professional body for the people profession and have spent over 20 years as a manager and as an employer. I have therefore spent most of my career working with people, managing people, and employing people.

I've ensured that staffing levels are maintained and hours the people are contracted to work. I've managed the flexibility without having to resort to bank or agency staff every week. But as a trade union rep, I've prepared for, I've worked on consultative ballots, statutory industrial action ballots, and political fund ballots. I've done the hard yards. I've work towards at 3 o'clock in the morning to speak to the nightshift. I've gone out to remote workplaces to engage with people, but have also met and agreed with management of what essential levels of service are.

I pay tribute to all of those who have worked in this bill to get into a place that it is today. And I welcome it coming back to the House. I believe in fair work. Where there is a relationship between the employer and the worker, which is based on equality. A fair days work for a fair days pay. The right of an individual to withdraw their labour should be collectively brought to withdraw their labour. We discussed yesterday what health implement relationships look like.

And it's about more than just pay. It's about how people are treated out their work, about ensuring that people have a guarantee that they not only have a job but they have guaranteed hours if that's what they want. And that work pays. If someone wants to work full-time, they should not have to work two or maybe three contracts with the same employer to make up those hours. To work the same excess hours every week for months and months until they have, they want to take on annual leave day when they lose entitlement to that.

Today's amendments focus on the two main aspects of the bill. The rights of trade unions to organise the way that we recognise in the 21st century and how this vital piece of legislation is enforced. The world of work as we have been reminded has changed fundamentally in the last 20 years. And so has the world of trade years. And so has the world of trade unions have done so also. I listened with great, listen very carefully to the memo from Saint Albans and with great respect of our view of the combative and adversarial nature of trade unions.

That's not the world I Speak grateful for addressing my concerns. To be clear,, we are looking for a environment between employees and employers. The can be working environments that can be cumulative.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you for the intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you for the intervention. My experience has been working in the partnership over the past 20 the partnership over the past 20 years. Management and staff have worked alongside trade unions as the worked alongside trade unions as the recognised body for the staff within recognised body for the staff within the NHS and it is natural to sit down together and there that these down together and there that these are the issues and how do we resolve them? It is financially advantageous that we do not end up in a situation where it gets to the adversarial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nature. Electronic balloting has become common practice part not for a common practice part not for a statutory trade union barons. It is not just the public vote of 'Strictly Come Dancing' and I'm a celebrity but also the Conservative celebrity but also the Conservative leadership election in 2024 which made good use of electronic made good use of electronic balloting. However, it is absolutely time for a trade union ballots to be time for a trade union ballots to be brought into line with where society is at.

I welcome the measures to widen the measures of forcing in industrial action ballots. The ultimate... Also to amend the action for strike action. The ultimate form of industrial reaction is that it should be resolved. By all the parties, ideally until any action is taken, before individuals lose their money and the public is affected. The parties must get around the table to talk before those issues. The members opposite reminded us that when faced with that opportunity, they did exactly the opposite.

They introduced the minimum service level act of 2023 and this was a piece of legislation which was still useless that it stopped precisely 0 strikes. It was you precisely, zero times, and is rightly being repealed as part of the legislation and it is not recognised by the members opposite that trade unions and trade union members do not take action likely. I wonder what the Shadow Minister was thinking because he's never talked thinking because he's never talked to trade union members.

Sorry. People know they are right. They now to -- know be involved but people collectively make decisions about prescriptions. I already know. I was told that this has not been in kicking and screaming. Most businesses who work with people Bell know exactly what is going on. In the interest of time, I completely endorse this bill and every aspect of its enforcement. Everybody knows somebody who is being exploited at work. This bill goes back to stop it and prevent that happening.

It is time to rebalance the employment relationship.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oost the term -- you used the term 'you', if it makes it easier to term 'you', if it makes it easier to focus the debate on the Chair, but it is best not to do that for it is best not to do that for I should draw the attention of I should draw the attention of members to a printing area in clause 52 it appears that the printed version of the amendment paper. The closing brace at the end of subsection 1 should "The Secretary subsection 1 should "The Secretary of State may withdraw by giving a corrected version to the person and the corrected version is available

**** Possible New Speaker ****

online. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a chaotic mess of a bill, pulled together and 100 days to satisfy the press and then we have satisfy the press and then we have satisfy the press and then we have this unedifying spectacle of an amendment list which is 274 pages amendment list which is 274 pages long, trying to create their many mistakes. The main thing I want to mistakes. The main thing I want to address is this idea that Labour is putting more into the unions.

It is often suggested that between 2019-
14:52
Jerome Mayhew Portrait Jerome Mayhew MP (Broadland and Fakenham, Conservative)
-
-
often suggested that between 2019- 24, Labour only received £31 -- 24, Labour only received £31 -- £31,319,000 from the union and now £31,319,000 from the union and now 200 Labour MPs will be paid directly by the unions. If you look at the ministers from the Department of Business and Trade, they have collectively received £120,000 from collectively received £120,000 from the news. What are unions for? Whatever it is, they have been handsomely repaid in the drafting of the bill and to make it easy for the members opposite, perhaps they could put their hands up if they have not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

received cash from unions. Oh dear. Every single one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Every single one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 52 suggest we could have a requirement with political funds under the union and changes the rules on how the union members should donate and contribute political funds for the Labour Party political funds for the Labour Party and if you look at 52.2, it changes and if you look at 52.2, it changes from opt-in to opt-out. It begs the question, why do we need this? What is the problem they are trying to fix? Is £31 million not enough? The clause encourages that members when signing up, the unions will take advantage of their destruction if they are not focused on this and fall into what is effectively the subscription trap.

In other circumstances, the party opposite do not think the subscription traps are a good idea and the government set out a press release on 18 last year entitled, open put New Measures Unveiled to Crack on Subscription Traps'. It Says, "Consultations Launched to Clamp down on Subscription Traps and Better Protect Shoppers. Families Pay £14 per Subscription and £1.6 Billion per Year in Total. New Proposals Have Been Unveiled Today. Subscription Traps Are Instances When consumers are misled into signing up for a subscription and it comes as new figures confirm they are spending billions of pounds a year on unwonted subscription is due to unclear terms and conditions and complicated cancellation policies.

The business Secretary, the right honourable member said this, "Our mission is to put money back into the people's pockets and improve living standards across the country, tackling subscription traps that rip people putt Little Bay is an important part of back." This clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

flies in the face of that. Does the honourable gentleman agree with me that there is a massive difference between taking massive difference between taking money out of people's bank account every month and trade unions you want to represent people as effectively as possible in the workplace.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

workplace. This clause expressly sets out that this is for financial gain but the difference is in this instance the people who gain ugly members opposite. Eggs the question of why they have drafted this and finally, shamefully, they may vote for it later on this evening. And here we have it. We have got a clause where there is a direct financial interest to the members opposite. We've had two speakers so far who have received significant sums because they did not refer to it at the first was the honourable member who received £20,000 into his interest from the unions.

The second is the honourable member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch she received £14,000 directly from the union. This is akin to the debate that we are having right now. This is central to the debate we are having

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right now. I thank him for giving way. As has been said already in this has been said already in this debate, trade union donations are debate, trade union donations are declared and donations from employers that had clear interest in employers that had clear interest in areas we have debated in this debate are not. If any of his colleagues have not drawn attention to such an have not drawn attention to such an interest, will he encourage them to do so and will he agree with us on do so and will he agree with us on this site that they were wrong to not make such a declaration?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are two points of order from their collisions earlier and I made it quite clear and just to let the honourable member, if you are referring to members directly, you are meant to give them prior warning so be mindful of what comes next in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

your speech. The intervention is classic distraction technique. This bill distraction technique. This bill addresses the unions and union membership this clause directly moves money from unsuspecting union moves money from unsuspecting union join use directly to the Labour Party. There is no other explanation. I will give way. Becoming I thank him for giving. Becoming I thank him for giving. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The honourable member is working hard to make a case of vested interest in the belts, in fact richer for the working people of the country.

I appreciate his efforts and see how Tarrant has afternoon snack today Tarrant has afternoon snack today but given it proceeds my time in this ember I wonder if colleagues to help me as to whether he was as vociferous during the pandemic, a time of national crisis, where close relationships insured now PPE when the country was in desperate need. -- Close relationships with government contracts ensured there was no PPE. Speaker Max people were not impacted by the impact of trade unions The honourable member agree that working people of the country are hammered the most when the trade

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unions go on strike? I think he has hit the nail on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think he has hit the nail on the head. I support an amendment 291 the head. I support an amendment 291 in the name of the Opposition which in the name of the Opposition which removes clause 52 because it is a circular bill of self interest to circular bill of self interest to get money from the union and give them powers and the bill increases money for the unions and this is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

money for the unions and this is brazen and should be removed. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I start by drawing members' attention to the register of attention to the register of interests and my proud membership of the Communication Workers Union at the GMP. Far too long, working
14:59
Johanna Baxter Portrait Johanna Baxter MP (Paisley and Renfrewshire South, Labour)
-
-
families in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire South have Paisley and Renfrewshire South have been let down by law is unfit for a been let down by law is unfit for a modern economy, leading to many workers trapped in insecure, low- paid jobs. When the party opposite crashed the economy, who was at that bore the brunt? It was not the impact the people in insecure, low- impact the people in insecure, low- paid roles you were left to bear the brunt for economic incompetence.

brunt for economic incompetence. Everything watching the debate will remember on the previous government's watch the dread of opening bills, saying the mortgage statements and seeing how much costs have skyrocketed. They will remember standing at the supermarket checkout and forced to put Essential Eight back on the shop because it costs much more than it the week before. That might essentials back on the shelf. Some sat at the dinner table and watch their children eat while they went without. For too long, many have gone to work not to build many have gone to work not to build a better future but to scrape by and they have worked hard for the poverty that they have experience.

As a former trade union negotiator, I spent more than 20 years of working life standing up for those people in low-paid jobs. As a former head of local government for a cap listen in Scotland, I was proud to represent bin collectors, care workers, support workers, the bedrock and backbone of local communities, upon whom we rely so communities, upon whom we rely so much during the pandemic. When their bills went up, they turned to trade unions and asked us to negotiate for nothing more than a fair wage for a fair day's work but under new laws introduced by the previous government for them, too often it felt like fighting with one arm tied behind our back.

Within the legal framework was provided laws which allowed bad businesses to ignore trade unions and the voice of workers, laws that allowed businesses to form a bargaining to prevent trade union recognition and reaching the powers of occurs and then an attack on the rights of workers which did not fix the root cause of the public. We on this side of the House have no problem with this disease. The problem is the government allowed exploitation to thrive.

Most businesses want to do right by their workers. They know that fair pay can lead to happier workers are more productive economy and that treating workers fairly is not a bread-and-butter benefit and that is why this bill it's so important because it fixes these issues, expands the statutory sick pay to help keep people improving their health and well being and getting back to work and it improves industrial relations and give stronger protections for workers stronger protections for workers It introduces a new Fair Work Agency to enforce their rights because frankly there is no point in having those rights unless you can enforce them.

What the party opposite just don't get is that to be pro-worker is to be pro-business and pro- growth. When they introduce burdensome redtape on trade unions, they introduce burdensome redtape on businesses and their ability to engage in the bargaining and negotiation process that settles disputes quickly. Negotiations with trade unions means fewer disputes, fewer days lost to industrial action, and greater economic stability. At the last general election, this Labour government pledged the biggest upgrade to workers rights in a generation.

Restoring dignity in work, putting more money into families pockets. Today we take another step forward in delivering that promise. And I do want us to be more ambitious because we are always ambitious on this side of the House. So I do want to particularly draw my right honourable friends attention to the potential issue in the bill with regards to the Lower Earnings Limit for Statutory Sick Pay and hope that that can be resolved when the bill goes to the other place.

I want to just finish on a quote from Paisley's own Robert Tannehill, who said through summer and winter surgery I toiled on the farm, never one stream growing weary for Love gave my labour its charm. Good work gave my labour its charm. Good work . Works should provide security, not uncertainty. Should be a source of pride, not per carotene. It should be a means of building a good life, not just allowing people to scrape by. That's what this bill stands for.

That's what Labour, this Labour government stands for. We will fight for and I am proud to support it.
15:05
Saqib Bhatti Portrait Saqib Bhatti MP (Meriden and Solihull East, Conservative)
-
-
Are likely just address a point the honourable lady just made about being pro-worker and pro-business. We on the side of the House to believe being pro-work is pro- business. The only problem is that this legislation put forward is not pro-worker, is not pro-business. It will drive up unemployment, drive up the regulation of businesses, and therefore the workers that she purports to represent and support will be exactly the people who will suffer at the hands of this legislation, so be on the side of the House absolutely get that.

We do. I'm going to talk in favour of the clauses around the political funding clause 88 and 291, but also for 299 and refer to some of the points around access to the workplace. The refer members to my register of interest, not least because I worked in a family business in a small business before and still retain an interest in the family business, but and I was previous to being elected as well was also president of the Chamber of Commerce which represented thousands of in greater Birmingham, thousands of small businesses, one of the largest in the Chamber of Commerce in the country and in the world.

I lesbian no doubt, this is a terrible piece of legislation. It is a love letter from this Labour government trade unions, and it will lead to a trail of socialist carnage and destruction which will be leaving the country reeling for many years to come. It harms business, undermines employment, will drive up unemployment, and will not increase greater investment in the United Kingdom, the very purported aims of this government. In fact the government's own original impact assessment when this bill was first introduced talked about there being a cost to business of about £4.5 billion, almost reaching 5 billion.

But we've yet to see what the impact of these new amendments, this further move to a more socialist version of this bill, what will be the cost to businesses. And there was much made of the honourable member who was a friend of mine, the member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North North, who used to talk about the modern workplace. I agree that workplace has changed from the 1950s, and even the 1970s, but this bill will take the workplace back to the 1970s because what it fails to do is achieve a balance between working people and businesses and the relationship between trade unions and businesses.

Goes way way down the line in favour of trade unions and naturally makes it much harder for people to run businesses. And when as president of Chamber of Commerce, I was heavily fined trade unions and having good relationships because I had friends who joined trade unions even though they weren't in unionised workplace for I encouraged it. They needed reps and patient. I thought it was a good thing to do. So I have no problem in the modern workplace to have trade union relationships, but there has to be a balance achieved.

And the comment was made earlier about economic units. The economic units are the businesses that create economic growth in the economy, and of course their workers are really important. My employees were really important to me because my business cannot run without them, but most and a majority of business owners in this country recognise that and will be recognising the side of the House, those people who run businesses and working those businesses, those employees it's a symbiotic relationship. Those individuals are drivers of economic change, innovators, with the ideas, the risktakers who then turn a profit which then pays the taxes which serves all public services, and unfortunately this bill doesn't recognise any of that.

In fact businesses are absolutely anxious and worried about what this bill is introducing. Someone shouted know they are not. They absolutely are, and adeptly promised when she was challenged on any business that supported this bill could not do so. I'm sure the honourable member will have an opportunity to speak on this in his own way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my Noble Friend for giving way. Does he agree with me that this bill is also badly drafted, even if you support the drafted, even if you support the content, is a badly drafted bill that was brought far too quickly before this House, huge bill of that before this House, huge bill of that nature should have had time, and it's hardly suppressing the government is tabling some new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government is tabling some new amendments itself because it is still writing it. I couldn't have made the point that myself also the level amendments and the cost placed and the regular three burden on the regular three burden on businesses large medium and small has worried many many businesses, not just in my constituency but across the country, and this business or do immense harm and will take a long time to fix the mess

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that has been created. I thank my Noble Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my Noble Friend for giving way. There are 24 people sitting on the government benches. Would you like to issue an open Would you like to issue an open invitation to any one of them coming forth that if they can name a single small business that has been in small business that has been in touch with them to say that they support this legislation, that you are welcome?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

More than happy to extend the invitation. Madame Deputy Speaker may get annoyed with me if I take 24 may get annoyed with me if I take 24 interventions. Although I don't see anyone jumping so we will take that as it is. There is also anxiety about the clauses around access to the workplace, and now the governor has gone further to talk about digital access. Of course for small businesses, this is a huge burden that has been placed upon them, and to wilfully and blindly ignore those concerns I think is really shameful, and I think there's a lot of questions from the members opposite will have to answer to businesses in their own communities, those same businesses that will be contributing to the Treasury coffers, that will be paying for the public services, the members opposite will be championing.

This is going to be really important. And the burden of course will go up. And time after time, the party opposite before the election, after the election, during the passing of legislation so they were listening to businesses. Clearly that isn't the case. Businesses continued to feel like they've been led up the garden path by this damaging Labour government. by this damaging Labour government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I think just to clarify the point about listening to businesses, I think we have listened businesses, I think we have listened to business, and the chartered Management Institute has gone on record saying that the implement record saying that the implement rights bill represents a significant step forward in improving the conditions of the UK workforce.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conditions of the UK workforce. Adeptly promised to fail to name a single business when she was challenged to do so. And in the challenged to do so. And in the short time I've got left now I will make a couple of quick points. The members opposite keep saying that this is going to lead to fewer this is going to lead to fewer strikes. It's not going to lead to fewer strikes for so it makes it easier to strike. In fact the Transport Secretary today said that strikes in a portfolio will be necessary.

This is going to make it easier. It's not going to make it harder. And what it really means is See, they will get a chance to comment but what it really means is this country is now at risk of being turned into a 1970s style striking country. And this bill should be a wake-up call for all of those working people will be undermined under those businesses that will be Because it will only be the Conservatives as we've heard from across the House, only conservatives who will stand up to businesses.

And I will finish on this point because I can see I have questions all the members opposite because when people ask what is this Labour government stand for, and it undermines businesses, undermines working people, I think that's a legitimate question. I fail to see now, other than trade unions, who is it that the Labour Party now stands for? And when people ask is what we stand for as Conservatives, I think Margaret Thatcher had a very good answer to this. She said the Labour Party because the member before me quoted, I thought I should do a quote as well for the Labour Party believes in turning workers against owners.

We believe in turning workers into owners.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. And I proudly draw attention to my membership of Unite
15:13
Antonia Bance Portrait Antonia Bance MP (Tipton and Wednesbury, Labour)
-
-
the union and my declaration in the register of register interest, thanks to my friends at the GMP and Aslef for their support of my election campaign. I am in this place to stand up for working people, and that is what I will do. The best protection anyone can have at work is the support of their workmates organised together in a union, bargaining with management, sitting down as equals at the table, making sure business grows and thrives and everyone takes home a fair wage.

This bill and the government amendments will make it easier for working people to choose their union, be represented by the union, and get all the benefits of being in a recognised union. An economy where better terms and conditions at work go hand in hand with the sort of growth we need. And let's be clear, this bill supports growth. It could add £13 billion to the economy through improvements to employee well-being, reduced stress, improved National Minimum Wage compliance, reduced workplace conflict, and increased labour market participation.

The type of market participation. The type of I will happily give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I invite her to acknowledge the £5 billion cart to businesses that the government's loan analysis says the government's loan analysis says will be caused by the bill. -- own. I do indeed acknowledge that and every single pound that will go into every single pound that will go into the pockets of working people alongside £13 billion of increased alongside £13 billion of increased productivity, reduce stress, better employee well-being and reduce employee well-being and reduce conflict in the workplace.

This is the key to getting more people into unions. If workers get to meet unions in workplaces, and I strongly welcome provisions to give unions the right to access workplaces for a meeting, organising, recruiting, collective bargaining. I am glad the government amended the rules to make sure it is digital access as well as physical and I'm glad to see the CAC oversight and penalties when employers do not comply, as they sometimes do. Once a union has established membership in the workplace, they will want to seek recognition.

Most employers do not have to be forced to recognise a union. It is what you do as a responsible employer. Where employers refuse, statutory recognition can be a. This process, until now, has been mad. It was dysfunctional and the cards were stacked against working people and the union at every turn. The worst example of this in recent years is in Coventry where a company dedicated to keeping unions of the workplace brought US industrial relations to the UK, took on their own workers you wanted no more no bass than for management to sit down and negotiate with the GMB.

-- less. Amazon is £27 billion company in the UK but the sales are growing three times faster than frontline workers' wages and it has had 1400 collars for ambulances. It is not a safe workplace in Coventry. For film workers being asked to take too much for workers being asked to lift heavy weights above their head. Those workers at the Amazon plant forced to take 37 days of industrial action over property play. At the Select Committee, the badly pre- stand evasive executives could not bring themselves to acknowledge.

-- Badly briefed and evasive. This is something 1000 companies would have accepted without question but not Amazon. At the Select Committee, the GMB organiser told us that Amazon flooded the bargaining unit and 1400 workers when GMB first look for a statutory recognition and 27 days after the application, it went up to 2749. Amanda told us about how Amazon delayed the access agreement ducts 52 days to agree access to the workplace which was a chance for them to swap the workers without union propaganda.

Everything in the workplace, antiunion and on the app used for work, antiunion, and threatening to close the site of the workers unionised. The GMB finally got a tiny number of screens, one session of 45 minutes per worker and Amazon had screens everywhere and five hours. The induced the GMB members to leave the union and impeded access in every way. I pay tribute to the GMB leaders at Amazon tribute to the GMB leaders at Amazon in Coventry including Garfield Hilton, and many more heroes, standing up to huge intimidation and standing up to huge intimidation and under huge pressure they ran a brilliant campaign.

The deck was stacked against them. I will in just a moment. The deck was stacked against them and they lost the ballot by a heart 29 votes. My honourable friend Gary Smith is the general secretary and he is clear that if the legislation we are debating today was in place, the GMB members would have won the fight. I will give way to my honourable friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She is a fearsome campaigner on the Select Committee. She talked the Select Committee. She talked about intimidation and paints a lovely picture of unions working for their workers but how do we square their workers but how do we square that with the diverse intimidation the honourable member referred to in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

terms of flying pickets? The honourable member will realise it is close to her eight realise it is close to her eight minutes. She will want to talk but not for long.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not for long. I thank my member of the Business and Trade Select Committee. The government is not proposing the return of secondary picketing. Schedule number two gives unions greater protection from unfair practices during the recognition process and make winning more likely. I wish ministers had deleted the 3-year log out and perhaps there will be opportunity to take the property. In conclusion, on the whole, this package of modern industrial relations will lead to more sitting round table starting outages, fewer picket lines and strikes, more productive relationships and more long-term measures in the industrial base with better jobs, higher wages, skills, productivity.

That is why the changes to collective rights and individual rights in this bill are so crucial, as opposed by the Tories and the absent Reform Party. This is the drawer of my party stands for, they take when proceeds are shared by all. It is time to make work pay.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a great pleasure to follow the honourable member. She is such a compelling advocate that I am compelling advocate that I am tempted to go on strike myself. I sense a certain amount of antipathy
15:22
Lincoln Jopp Portrait Lincoln Jopp MP (Spelthorne, Conservative)
-
-
sense a certain amount of antipathy between the two states of the House I come on to make a fair point in support of Amendment 292 and I prepare the ground by doing two things. Firstly, convincing members opposite that at heart I am a rabble rousing potential motivator of people and that they missed an opportunity. I think three Christmases ago the ambulance drivers went on strike. It really irked me that the soldiers stand again would have their Christmas ruined and so I started a campaign in order to try to get them an additional £20 for every day that they were standing in for ambulance drivers.

The Chancellor would have. It was net positive to the Treasury because the departments who employed the ambulance drivers do not pay pay on strike days and so it meant that actually the government still save money. I managed to get a letter

**** Possible New Speaker ****

into the paper. I managed to get 'The Sun' on board and did some television. It was fortuitous. I will give way. Is the not ashamed of his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the not ashamed of his government's record that hard- working ambulance drivers had to go

**** Possible New Speaker ****

working ambulance drivers had to go on strike mark She has slightly missed the point. I was reading the body language of the members opposite to language of the members opposite to I think wanted to hear how the story ended up. The Secretary Of State for Defence was a friend I served within Defence was a friend I served within the Scots guard and that helped but we got the £20 for the service personnel who stood and, regardless of the fact the generals and admirals were against it, as were all the apostles.

I am very much, I have the same values apart. In order to win over the other side of the House with a fair point, I pay tribute in particular to something the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill said in his remarks earlier on. It was in respect of union membership and he said, "I want people to make a fair choice, one way or the other." Also, I noted the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch also referred to fair work and coming back to that theme of fearless in addressing Amendment 292.

-- fairness. It is something of a cats cradle of clauses and seems to place an obligation on the employer to give the worker a written statement that the worker has the right to join a union and if they do to contribute to the political fund. I meant 292 would inject a bit of balance and to that legislation by requiring the trade unions solidify members annually they have got the -- annually to opt in or out. This puts me in mind of 1988, when Mrs Thatcher was just about to visit Poland.

She was asked in this place in November at Prime Minister's Questions, priority going, a member opposite said that span the Prime Minister was on per trip, which he raised with the Polish Prime Minister of the rate to join a trade union. -- right. There may be some members who were there I will not be ungallant and ask but there was a roar from the Labour paint design Mrs Thatcher said, "I will be raising the rate to join a trade union with the Poles but also the right not to be a member, to." The bill seeks to move the pendulum pretty hard in favour of union power and our amendment would seek to bring it back into balance somewhat.

We all know someone after all has fallen prey to a charity mugger. You in the street and try to sign you up to whatever charity they are being paid by. I have known people who have done that job and it is not easy. Similarly, any member of this House who has stood in the precinct trying to sell their political brand than trying to get people to sign up will attest to that. Sometimes these charity collectors are successful and the all-important direct debit details are extracted.

I remember hearing a number of members opposite speaking against this practice in the last Parliament and this amendment 292 remains work as they have got an off ramp if they want, have got an off ramp if they want, agency, freedom of choice. We have heard member after member stand up over the past two days of debate and declare, in some cases sheepishly, and others more proudly, the money they have received from trade unions. This is only right and proper. The public can make up their own mind powers to whether this money has coloured the judgement of the members opposite or whether it simply is support from an organisation which shares their values.

To turn down I meant 292, in my view, would be a dreadful look. It is totally measured, balancing amendment and if the members opposite vote against it, I think the public would be right to conclude that the government is not being motivated by a sense of equality, fairness, justice, but instead by something else. I urge honourable members to vote for amendment 222 and give power to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to be called to speak at report stage for a second speak at report stage for a second time. I refer the House proudly to my entry in the register of my entry in the register of interests as a member of You might
15:29
Andy McDonald Portrait Andy McDonald MP (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, Labour)
-
-
interests as a member of You might -- Unite. Much has been spent as of the purpose trade unions is to get workers rights and I think it is a mischaracterisation and it was eloquently described by my honourable friend. I think it is also a miscalculation of corporate Britain to think that everyone is exploitative and abusive. The majority of companies in our country adhere to social governance and have made that timid and want to demonstrate that they are responsible and they will want that for their investors and long-term sustained investment and so we have got to draw back on this and step away from the disdain and contempt for working people and trade unions.

I will move on to the substantive issues. With regards to government amendment to hundred and 50, I wish to express my support in increasing the role of the fair pay agency, and the body for Social care. Adult social was the sector uppermost in our thinking when considering the concept of Fair Pay Agreements negotiated through sector collective bargaining as expressed in the new deal for working people. I noted during the Bill's committee stage the TUC general secretary said, bodies as disparate as International Monetary Fund and OECD have talked about the benefits of unions and collective bargaining in the modern economy.

Benefits in terms of improved productivity and business performance, but also businesses for workers in terms of increased pay. The TUC has said "We would like the bill to prove paid to other sectors. I agree, the FPAs of themselves do not remedy the broader need for much greater sector collective bargaining. Unite the Union has said we want to see further measures in the bill to extend collective bargaining. The RMT general secretary said they would like that there will be a provision and an amendment for sector collective bargaining.

To ensure the government can establish new negotiating bodies supporting Fair Pay Agreements elsewhere in the economy, I have tabled new clause 68. A good starting point for the government to demonstrate the benefits of central collective bargaining would be in the civil service. I hope the plans to modernise the civil service will end the inefficient situation of hundreds of separate pay bargaining units in negotiations each year. I want to consider the private sector. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor are amongst those who are committed to the biggest wave of sourcing in a generation.

I look forward to that national procurement policy setting that out. In the meantime we have seen picket lines and government departments for and government departments for months, as G4S, ISS and OSS fails to meet with the PCS union to resolve pay dispute. My new clause 66 would ensure the Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that any government department of a similar public contract recognises an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining. I hope the government will be addressing this in the near future.

With regard to access, a number of new amendments by the government clarify the process around access including the right to communicate with workers including digital communication. But I remain concerned that the process creates a framework that risks employers are slowing the process rather than providing for effective union access and the proposed model of financial penalties does not provide any remedy for the union. I remain of the opinion that unions should always have a simple right of access to their members.

My new clause 70 sets out how an official of an independent trade union to have the right to enter premises, to meet, represent, and recruit workers and to facilitate collective bargaining. I make clear that such access requires prior notification in writing setting out the purpose of a meeting, and which employees would join such a meeting. I fear the process set out may not work effectively and I hope the government will be open to further clarification in future. On recognition, I note that the government knew schedule two which updates the original clause 51 with additional and welcome provisions on union recognition processes, including preventing employer inflating the bargaining union would transfer the employees ala Amazon where workers were ascribed to a bargaining unit that had no connection with them whatsoever.

And to prevent employers reaching a recognition agreement with a non- independent union to prevent recognition with an independent one. The government has been right to close off the arrangements. More can be done regarding recognition which is why a tabled amendment 271. Where I sought to reduce the need for a ballot and ensure that the Central Arbitration Committee grants automatic recognition in certain circumstances. It would be a simple majority of those voting on the circumstances was I have also sought to lengthen the period for making a complaint against unfair practice in complaint against unfair practice in connection with a ballot from one to 20 working days.

I know the government has shifted it from one up to five, but also the need to remove that three-year barrier to a union which has lost an application for recognition, to substitute three years for three months. It is unjust that the GMB cannot quickly pursue a recognition process at Amazon's Coventry warehouse, to clearly given the antiunion measures deployed whether union lost by 29 votes. It is unjust they should be pushed out for such a long period. I hope the government will remain alive to the need to update that.

In conclusion, I am pleased to have been afforded the opportunity to speak for a second time in this debate. We have in this Employment Rights Bill a momentous uplift in workers rights and protections which does address the balance that us one far too far in the opposite direction. But the appetite remains for yet further improvements, and I commend the government for its work in bringing for this legislation which I wholeheartedly support. And I look forward to further working together on the journey to deliver well-paid

**** Possible New Speaker ****

secure unionised employment. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. While I broadly welcome this bill is its progress through the house, I have caveat it by stating the Labour government should be bolder and must go further in the future in order go further in the future in order for these rights and predictions to become entrenched rather than rolled become entrenched rather than rolled back on. At the second meeting I quoted the Scottish Trades Union Congress who summarised this bill by saying "The Employment Rights Bill is the first stop.

This can be the foundations on which we can build. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agree. I thank the honourable member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for giving way. He may not have had a chance to look at the government's chance to look at the government's website and encounter the document, "Next Steps to Make Work Pay" which sets out a program of continuing work to improve rights at work which will continue to the work to improve will continue to the work to improve parental leave and the review of employment status to come. I'm sure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he will be glad to hear that. Thank you for the intervention I have not had a chance to look at it thank you for raising these clear points. As I have broadly said, I support this bill. But there are reasons why I am bringing up this debate today. Not least because the lack of devolution to the Scottish Parliament. And also at second reading, the Ven Shadow Minister made exquisitely clear these will
15:38
Chris Law Portrait Chris Law MP (Dundee Central, Scottish National Party)
-
-
not be built upon in the long-term as a future Conservative government will simply repeal protections when it declared "Many of the measures will be brought into secondary will be brought into secondary legislation, therefore making it easier for a future government to reverse some of the catastrophic reverse some of the catastrophic changes. " Employment rights for workers in Scotland cannot be dependent on the merry-go-round of dependent on the merry-go-round of Westminster politics. They have seen their rights attacked and diminished by years of Conservative government, by years of Conservative government, and when this bill reverses some of the most excesses of the policies, this must be protected and strengthened in the long term.

It is something Westminster cannot guarantee for the people of Scotland. I therefore propose new clause 77. Amending the Scotland Act to devolve employment and industrial relations to the Scottish Parliament. Back in 2014, when all Unionist parties including the Labour Party were promising maximum devolution for Scotland, as displayed on the front page of a national newspaper, days before the independence referendum in Scotland voted no. But this Labour government has failed to devolve the single power to Holyrood since coming to power in July.

Not a single one. This is despite Scottish Parliament voting for rights to be devolve. And in November they asked for taxation, migration and private law to be devolved. And Scottish Labour's 2021 election manifesto stated " We support further devolution of powers to Holyrood including employment rights. " So here's a question for the Scottish Labour MPs, they respect the wishes of the Scottish Parliament, listen to trade unions... I care about people of Scotland what they say full stop they respect the wishes of the Scottish Parliament, listen to trade unions and deliver on promises made by their party by supporting this amendment or will they continue to follow instructions handed to them from number 10? Silence.

Too scared to stand up the people of Scotland.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. I thank the honourable gentleman four giving way. I note he is advocating that he is a big supporter of workers rights. I wonder if you would like to comment on the fact that for every year of the last eight or nine years when I was a lead negotiator for local government workers in Scotland, they government workers in Scotland, they had to have consultative ballots for industrial action just to get a industrial action just to get a decent pay rise out of the Scottish Government.

Does that really mean that you are standing up for workers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in Scotland? I thought I was asking the question of the Scottish Labour MPs only to be replied with a question. But to respond to your question, But to respond to your question, respond to the member, she will be respond to the member, she will be well aware the Scottish Government works collectively with unions and works collectively with unions and other bodies to make sure the living wage in Scotland is paid higher than any other part of the UK.

I remind the honourable member, but it was Scottish Labour in November 2023 voted with the SNP for employment rights to be devolved to the Scottish parliament. When powers are devolved to the Scottish parliament, interest taken in the interests of the people of Scotland and outcomes improve. Publicly owned rail and water, higher education and health spend, free restrictions and free tuition, and a more humane welfare system and a progressive taxation system. Fair work practices are being delivered already by SNP Scottish Government supporting collective bargaining, achieving a new living wage employment status.

And closing the gender pay gap faster than anywhere in the rest of the UK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. On the point that the honourable On the point that the honourable gentleman has made around collective bargaining, would he agree with me bargaining, would he agree with me that this is an absolute failure of collective bargaining for the Scottish Government to have walked away from the commitments that they away from the commitments that they made within a deal with health service unions two is ago on the reduction of the working week, where reduction of the working week, where they are failing to basically go through with what they agreed and reduce the working week as of 1

**** Possible New Speaker ****

April 2025? I listened with interest but I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I listened with interest but I will refer to the member to have that debate in the Scottish Parliament after we talked about Parliament after we talked about devolution of the powers in the UK Parliament. On collective bargaining, a point that has just bargaining, a point that has just been raised, a framework for this in the adult care sector has been developed by the Scottish care developed by the Scottish care unions. GMP and Unite the Union along with the Scottish Government along with the Scottish Government and care providers, where it was shortly proposed, that the Scottish care unions have said it is the function of the joint Council is preferable.

And should assume the role of the audit Social care negotiating body for England. Scotland already has a 10 year history of joint commitments to fair work, as England is only now embarking on that journey. Furthermore there is a need to extend bargaining to all sectors of the economy, not just adult social. Measures such as greeting a single Status of Workers Bill for all, and to strengthen protections for those in unfair contracts and increasing the living wage to at least the level of the National Living Wage and then in line with inflation, these are all missing from this bill.

These are supported by the SNP. The Scottish Government if employment law is devolved will deliver this and if the government respected the votes of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Labour manifesto. Just as this bill should be the first stop rather than the terminus, devolution is a process not an event. Not only has devolution moved at a glacial pace we live in the world's most asymmetrical political union weight nation has different devolve powers from each other. Whereas Northern Ireland has employment law devolved, why is it the case that Scotland does not? I want to see employment rights continually strengthened rather than a piecemeal process with Labour in power only to be reversed by the Tories.

Therefore the games of this bill makes a workers rights must be protected. It is for that reason that the SNP remains committed to advocating at the minimum for the urgent devolution of employment rights as the best way, short of independence, to protect short of independence, to protect

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I also refer the house to my register of business interest and I
15:45
Baggy Shanker Portrait Baggy Shanker MP (Derby South, Labour )
-
-
register of business interest and I also have been a proud member of Unite the union for over 35 years now, although I know many of you may find that hard to believe given my youthful looks. I welcome the measures in this bill which I know will make a real difference to the lives of working people and their families in Derby and across the UK. With reference to government amendment 163, I want to focus today on how the bill will transform employee access to trade unions, empowering more employees to act as a collective so they can secure better pay and conditions.

Because when I speak to leaders, business leaders across small and large employers, they will all say that their best asset is indeed their people. The Conservatives can harp on as much as they want about trade unions but in practice, the best solution is when employers working with employees and trade union reps create the best working conditions for businesses and the individuals to succeed. And the importance of trade union membership is something I know firsthand as well.

When I left school at the age of 16 and began work as an engineering apprentice, I joined the union on day two. I knew how important it would be in supporting me and my colleagues at work. And much later colleagues at work. And much later on, when campaigning in Derby last year, I saw how hard Unite amongst other trade unions fought to secure jobs at the lit Church Lane facility. They stood up for working people in the local community when it mattered most.

But employees can't access the benefits which union membership can bring if they don't know about the support offered

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by trade unions in the first place. I congratulate him on his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I congratulate him on his youthful appearance. With my friend agree with me that much like agree with me that much like businesses are about employers, trade unions are actually about members and membership, and it is members and membership, and it is about giving those members rights, not the rights of the union but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

individual members. He is absolutely right. This is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He is absolutely right. This is about individual members coming together to do what is right for themselves, their trade unions, the companies and businesses that they work for. So I welcome the bill and it will introduce the right of access for unions to meet with workers. Government amendment 163 introduced today expands union access so that unions can communicate with workers digitally as well as by entering the workplace. I urge that these digital access rights are implemented meaningfully to enable direct conversations between unions and workers as would take place during an in-person meeting in the workplace.

When they work together, they get more done. It is important that workers have access to union representatives so they know how adjoining the union can support them in the workplace. I welcome the measures outlined in the bill to expand this access which will further strengthen the rights of working people in Derby and beyond. working people in Derby and beyond.
15:49
Sarah Bool Portrait Sarah Bool MP (South Northamptonshire, Conservative)
-
-
There are 5300 there are 5310 businesses in Northamptonshire. Of these, many of these are small businesses. This bill among many of the government policies is a calamity for these small businesses. Not only are many of these raw meaning they will be affected by the family farm tax but as the chair of the Federation of Small Businesses is has said, these SMEs will struggle to adapt to the 28 major changes that this bill makes to employment law. First, it was their job start, then it was there cuts to hospitality businesses, and now they are smothering them with red tape.

Analysis published by the Department for Business and Trade says this will impose a cost on businesses of billions of pounds for year, but this is not something that many businesses can afford. This is why we on this side of the house have called for small businesses to be exempt from parts of this bill that would take unsustainable cost for them. Why this is government seem to hate small businesses so much. Maybe because there is zero understanding of what people would understand in my constituency.

We learned this week that for the first time since records began in 2012, the number of companies registered at company house has fallen. Growth forecasts have been downgraded. The number of vacancies have declined, all this as a result of the choices the government has made and continues to make in this bill. With all of this, the UK risk becomes competitive when countries like the US are slashing costs. This amendment would ensure that when the Secretary of State was making regulations as a part four of this bill, he would have to have regard to growth in the medium to long term, and I joined the minister in calling for him to support new clauses 89 and 90 and I joined the minister in calling for him to support new clauses 89 and 92 ensure this growth.

Our economy is already struggling under the weight of Labour's tax rises. Why are they opposing our efforts to make sure they consider how burdensome

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regulation might impact businesses. I think the answer to that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the answer to that question is because the trade unions have funded members opposite. The have funded members opposite. The honourable member who just spoke who is talking from a sedentary position received more than £27,000 in the latest year of declarations and didn't think it appropriate in this didn't think it appropriate in this debate even to mention that number which may well have influenced his thinking and led to the dire outcomes which my honourable friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is explaining to the house. These are powerful points, and I think all neighbours must reflect on think all neighbours must reflect on this because we do need the public to understand why this legislation is going through. The government has is going through. The government has also seen fit to table 87 of its own amendment which is indicative of how uneasy it must feel over the spell. uneasy it must feel over the spell. We even told by the media that the Treasury has warned the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State about the consequences of enacting about the consequences of enacting these laws on the economy yet they seem to have ploughed through seem to have ploughed through anyway.

As per usual, this is Labour paying lip server to growth while sticking with their ideology. I wasn't born in the 1970s but it appears that I'm going to live the equivalent of that in the years ahead as the benches opposite play out this 1976 hit money, money, money for their trade union

**** Possible New Speaker ****

paymasters. I refer the house to my register

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I refer the house to my register of interest. I have been supporting the Labour movement with the
15:53
Zarah Sultana Portrait Zarah Sultana MP (Coventry South, Independent)
-
-
the Labour movement with the cleanest level of profit, which Labour can't save themselves. For over a year, Swedish Tesla workers have been on strike demanding the basic rights of collective bargaining. Their struggle has inspired solidarity across industries, postal workers, electricians, cleaners and workers have all launched secondary action in support. Denmark's largest trade union has also joined the fight preventing Danish workers and drivers from handling shipments bound for Sweden. This level of solidarity is possible because trade unions are not shackled by restrictive laws designed to suppress collective action.

Unlike here in the UK, the landscape in Sweden does not act on the interest of organised labour. Almost 90% of Swedish workers have collective workers and make sure that workers have the right to defend conditions without interference. As a result, trade unions are more than a match for a billionaire like Elon Musk. When Tesla refused to share a collective and, it wasn't just the workers who fought back. This is what real industrial democracy looks like, and it is a powerful reminder of what British workers have been denied for too long with some of the legislation in the Western world.

I welcome the repeal of the act in much the trade Union act 2016, the fact remains that many of the worst Thatcher era union laws are still in place. One of the most damaging in the section act makes secondary action unlawful. This isolates action unlawful. This isolates workers, weakens their power to exploitative employers. This is why I have tabled close 31 to repeal this and return power to working people. Secondary action built this as we know it.

It helps to recall the very rights that we all benefit from today but in an era of outsourcing and subcontracting, the band is even more harmful than it was three decades ago. And legislation, to workers performing the same job in the same workplace take action if they are outsourced. Exploiters do this to shift responsibility through complex corporate structures like which we are seeing in my constituency, and undermine union action by transferring work or hiding companies. Workers are even prevented from taking action against parent companies against disputes.

In many ways, secondary action is more essential than ever in the fight for fair pay and conditions. Most nations including Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands allow secondary action in some form. Even those with restrictions stop short of imposing an outright ban. Labour's new deal for working people committed to repealing antiunion laws and ensuring that U.K.'s industrial action comply with obligations including those under international social charter. It has it currently stands, this bill fails to deliver on this business.

International bodies have worked with secondary action. They criticise the UK for this restriction most recently in 2023 after the P&O Ferries scandal where 800 crew members were sacked by a video call and replaced with agency workers. Piano new that they can get away with actions because law prevents other workers from striking and solidarity. I am also supporting those tabled by my friend from Middlesbrough and Thornbury East such as nuclear 61 which we define employment status to end bogus self-employment.

This is long overdue. The two long, employers have exploited gaps to deny workers basic rights. Today in our country, black and Asian workers are disproportionately trapped in slow paid jobs, denied statutory sick pay, holiday pay and protection from unfair dismissal. This two tier system must end. Every single worker demands dignity and respect, and by strengthening this bill with these amendments, we will be taking a step forward towards rebuilding the power of the working class. I urge members across the house to stand on the right side of history and with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

workers who keep this country running. I rise again today to speak on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise again today to speak on the second day of the bill to raise serious concerns about the role that this bill will have in facilitating this bill will have in facilitating unprecedented and dangerous access and destruction of business, especially small business. I'm glad
15:58
Gregory Stafford Portrait Gregory Stafford MP (Farnham and Bordon, Conservative)
-
-
especially small business. I'm glad the Minister is in his seat because yesterday he was challenged to name a small business that supported this bill. 24-hour Slater, he still cannot and that is not down to the assiduity of the Minister but the fact that no small business supports this bill. Yesterday, I have hardly started. He cannot want to intervene just yet but I will come to him in a minute. Yesterday we discovered that Labour clearly doesn't understand business.

And today, we get to what they really do understand which is how they can support their trade union paymasters. And members opposite have given an absolute masterclass in telling us about how to support trade unions. Honourable members have mentioned the 1970s but when I had some honourable member speaking on the other side, especially the member for Blyth and Ashington, the score of John Williams sword in my mind from Jurassic Park, but instead of Geoff Goldblum being savaged by the dinosaurs, the dinosaurs that walk amongst us today will be savaging our economy.

And we know that because the growing influence of the unions within this bill imposes a heavy burden on corporations. Stifling their ability to operate, and as new businesses struggle to adapt to these regulations predicted in the impact assessment which will cost £5 billion, industry leaders cost £5 billion, industry leaders

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have had directions from the chair and I ask for your guidance on
16:00
16:00
Gregory Stafford Portrait Gregory Stafford MP (Farnham and Bordon, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. I returned to what industry leaders are saying. They have shared " Their are saying. They have shared " Their fear of union influence slowing down decision-making and hindering flexibility, make it harder for companies to remain competitive in global markets. " The chartered Institute of develop and found 79% of organisations expect measures planned as part of the Employment Rights Bill to increase employment costs placing strain on further companies having to grapple with National Insurance is, the rise in the minimum wage, while its being likely that these will continue to lead to more strikes, more disruptions, and ultimately less proactivity.

proactivity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable member has referred a number of times to the proceedings yesterday. One of the things I am saddest about is that things I am saddest about is that the honourable member was not able to join us in the division lobbies voting against the amendment and in favour of the bill yesterday. Given that 73% of his constituents support statutory sick pay for all workers statutory sick pay for all workers from day one and 67% of his constituents support banning zero

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hours contracts. I'm sorry that I'm such a disappointment to the honourable Lady. Maybe she will get over it. This is a rollback of the most important changes that we made when we were in government. It is no surprise therefore that the trade unions have warmly embraced this legislation. With over 200 amendments, hastily shoehorned to satisfy those who line the government's pockets. Perhaps it is purely coincidental that their wishes had been granted. One might wonder if the £5.6 million in donations the Labour Party has received since July has something to do with it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. The last Labour member to speak also despite her member to speak also despite her proud membership of trade unions did not mention the more than £9000 that not mention the more than £9000 that she received just in the last year any more than her predecessor any more than her predecessor mentioned the £24,000 that he mentioned the £24,000 that he received. If Labour were truly proud of the way they have been bought and paid for by the trade unions perhaps

**** Possible New Speaker ****

paid for by the trade unions perhaps they could be open about how much they have received? My honourable friend makes a key point. What has been interesting, the change from yesterday to today, yesterday, whilst the clear to declare that they were members of trade unions, only today have they suddenly realised they should be declaring the amount of money they are receiving directly. We heard yesterday from the shadow Secretary yesterday from the shadow Secretary of State that legislation will allow unions to bypass current rules such as opting out of political donations.

It must be sticky fantastic news for the party opposite that Labour will now receive default donations from workers whilst businesses will face reduced notice period. Leading to even more disruption and economic damage. It is clear to me in the hundreds of businesses that hold support this government this is not about protecting employment rights, it is about consolidating union power. Let's look at the amendments. Amendments to hundred and 92 will require them to obtain an annual opt in. The change assures that the unions continue to fill Labour's piggyback locking workers into automatic donations and as they automatically opt out.

It is as much a memory test as an admin task will stop this is not about transparency. It is about keeping money flowing to the political party with the most to gain. Likewise, the amendments which would be introduced transparency around the facilities provided to trade union officials, representatives and equality representatives. These amendments are designed to reduce transparency and accountability for union spending, allowing union officials to continue to benefit from facilities time without proper scrutiny.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does my honourable friend think there is an interesting contrast in terms of the government's approach? It is quite happy to put extra burdens, responsible of these in burdens, responsible of these in work on small businesses and businesses of all sizes but when it comes to any element of transparency comes to any element of transparency or any element of giving members and trade unions a real choice and trade unions a real choice and understanding of where the money is going, they refuse to do that.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

going, they refuse to do that. The disparity, I put it so strongly than that, that my honourable friend mentioned is stark. Anybody watching the proceedings outside this house plasticky agree with me that, on the one hand, they want to put extra burdens, extra regulations on business when it comes to the trade unions transparency goes out the window. As he has said, why is this happening? The answer is simple and clear. Unions have a significant influence over this government.

The deputy list and cabinet colleagues are pushing for changes but they don't even follow them themselves. Key figures including the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary, and Home Secretary are all guilty of hiring interns at odds under these regulations was why would they introduce such a bill when they don't comply with it? It is like that more than 200 Labour MPs who have taken union donations, the deputy promised has her own interest to consider. Yesterday in her opening remarks she proudly disclosed a union member ship conveniently omitting the £13,000 she had taken in donations.

Union influence is driving these changes. For a government who claims to be progrowth, pro-business, and pro- worker perhaps it is time they start listening to the real industry experts, those with practical experience within the sector, not just the trade unions or the confines of Whitehall. That is why the Conservatives have tabled key amendments to support growth in new clause 89 and 90, internationally competitive duty in new clause 87 and a limit on trade union influence and our business economy.

We need to ensure that government policies do not burden our businesses, do not stifle innovation or leads to long- term economic harm. This bill is not just poorly thought out, it is a direct threat to the very fabric of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our economy and we must challenge it for it causes irreparable damage and crushes our already crippled economy. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. Firstly can I declare I am a proud member of Unison and I declare the member of Unison and I declare the house to my Register of Interests. This groundbreaking Employment This groundbreaking Employment Rights Bill will deliver reforms that are pro-business and pro- worker. This bill will establish day
16:07
Allison Gardner Portrait Dr Allison Gardner MP (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)
-
-
worker. This bill will establish day one right such as parental and bereavement leave for millions of workers. This bill will put more money into people's pockets. People who have had to endure low pay, job insecurity, and a cost-of-living crisis created by 14 years of Tory rule. By strengthening protections for the lowest paid workers and preventing exploitative employment practices, this will give our working people the solid foundations to build a better quality of life. I want to briefly comment on a couple of topics debated yesterday as relevant to personal relevance in my constituency.

So I skip it? I will skip it. I did not think I would get away with it. This Labour government, this bill will give a voice to working people by tackling the exclusion of independent unions from workplaces. If anyone has experienced a change in management, which I once did almost 3 weeks into joining a new job which was not fun, or workplace bullying, they will know the value of having a union backing you. I would personally thank Unison who have supported me in my workplace, and I have seen personally, not myself, but the impact on others when they have experienced issues such as workplace bullying.

They have not had the backing of a union or indeed union in that workplace. And the stress and pressures on them have been immense. They have got the choice of either putting up with it, leaving, then you have worker turnover, or going off sick. I've known people to go off sick for quite a period of time and that is of great cost to the company. I have also seen that when a person then turns around and joined the union, the difference that backing has, the advocacy has for them, and the voice that gives them.

And having experienced this as a normal person who once had a proper job and was not union activist but just had that value of unions, this is a comment I take as an observer. The work that they do in working with management and working for the workers to provide a working place that is productive, secure, and if it's the company's as well. It is not in the union interest for businesses to fail. Everyone wants a productive working environment. Finally, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the concerns that many small business owners that have been raised with me in recent months.

They have been worried by this I'm grateful to many businesses who have reached out, and I also want to mention the Chamber of Commerce and Rachel for giving voice to local people. And I regularly engage with them. I note also the comments such as that from Clare Costello, chief of People and Inclusion Officer at the Co-op. It is our belief that treating employees well, a key objective of this bill, will promote productivity and generate the economic growth this country needs.

This comment has actually been echoed to me by local businesses also. To my businesses in Stoke-on-Trent, I will support them and their workers and so will this Labour government in delivering improved productivity and growth. I am sad to see the party opposite do not want to support the working people of this country with their blocking amendments. This bill and the comprehensive impact assessment shows that this bill will have a positive impact on growth. With vital measures like sick pay, boosting connectivity and growth.

Protecting the superrich and relying on the myth of trickle-down economics has failed. It is time for trickle up economics and empowering the working people of this country. Thank you.
16:11
Alison Griffiths Portrait Alison Griffiths MP (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. As has been said many times, yesterday and today, this bill is deeply flawed. The government has ignored the serious concerns raised by business leaders and independent economists. The Federation of Small Businesses warns that the rushed changes will lead to job losses and deter employers from hiring. The Institute of Directors found 57% of business leaders would be less likely to hire because of the additional redtape this bill imposes. Incredibly, the government's own impact assessment fails to account for the real economic consequences.

Simply dismissing them as too too hard to calculate. " Our new clause 90 will ensure that any regulations under part four of the bill but consider international growth and international competitiveness. Yet Labour has refused to accept even this commonsense measure proving that their approach is anti-growth at its core. Prioritising the interests of trade unions over economic stability makes it harder for businesses to hire, grow, and compete. It is no surprise that trade unions have declared victory, as the government has effectively handed them a blank check, at the expense of businesses and workers alike.

Our amendments seeks to restore fairness and balance. Amendment 292 would ensure members would have to be notified annually of their right to opt out of trade union memberships. Labour has critically opposed this measure, despite previously supporting similar provisions in the digital markets bill were they called automatic renewals a subscription trap. It seems Labour only cares about consumer choice when it does not impact on its own funding. The government claims that removing this requirement is about cutting red tape, whilst adding lots of other redtape, for union.

In reality strips away individual choice and accountability. Between 2019 2024, as several of my honourable Friend have already said, trade unions donated over £31 million to the Labour Party. Workers should have the right to make an informed choice each year about whether they want to contribute to political causes rather than being automatically signed up without clear consent. Labour's refusal to support this amendment reveals their true priority, protecting their own financial interests rather than standing up for transparency and worker rights.

Equally troubling is the expansion of trade union access to workplaces including digital access. Under new clauses 163 to 181. Despite 59% of consultation respondent asking for more information or outright opposing this provision. But the government is pressing ahead regardless. These changes hands unions unchecked power, allowing them to disrupt businesses without adequate businesses without adequate This bill is not a modernisation of employment rights but a gift of the trade unions at the expense of economic growth is and business confidence.

The government has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The impact assessment does say that these measures could have a £5 billion impact to the 25 impact of billion impact to the 25 impact of National Insurance contributions, it is my friend agree with me that what is missing is the assessment? Just is missing is the assessment? Just how much will these measures drive of union funding direct to the of union funding direct to the Labour Party as a result of this because we ought to know how many hundreds of thousands or millions hundreds of thousands or millions extract will come to the Labour Party and the members opposite to make them support this growth killing set of measures.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my friend for his intervention and it is a fascinating question and I'm sure we will be waiting to hear from the members opposite. Perhaps even the Minister. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. It is a pleasure to speak today

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to speak today and I draw houses attention to my and I draw houses attention to my interest. I am pleased to speak in today's debate because I want my regular coffee mornings, a
16:17
Gregor Poynton Portrait Gregor Poynton MP (Livingston, Labour)
-
-
constituent of mine came to me to constituent of mine came to me to said I need to be doing more. I'm not sure that making a speech in the not sure that making a speech in the House of Commons fulfils expectation of promotion but it shows me that of promotion but it shows me that of promotion but it shows me that Those in the benches opposite have tried to be much of the number of the government amendments to this legislation, however, they are still the party of the business, and we chose workers.

With what these amendments demonstrate is a commitment of the Minister and the government to listening and consulting with a huge range of stakeholders across these issues. Delivering the largest upgrade in many decades but doing so in a way that is right by businesses and good employers to ensure they have the conditions environment to encourage investment and create jobs. This bill will support the government's critical mission for growth by increasing productivity and putting money back in people's pockets. We will deliver improvements.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

How will this bill set out to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

improve productivity? For one, improving relations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For one, improving relations between workforces. In the last few years, we have seen strike after strike because the party opposites approach to industrial revolutions. I think that will improve I think that will improve productivity. It will ensure that all workers are treated with decency they deserve and I welcome the vital steps this bill takes from exploitative actions. And strengthen statutory sick pay. As a member of the Select Committee, I have been able to scrutinise businesses who choose zero hour contracts and one thing I have seen revealed that employees can have their shifts change at 24-hour's notice but do not receive a single penny in compensation for that.

This bill is vital for families dependent on zero hour contracts. Over 1 million people will benefit from a guaranteed policy and this will ensure that the government works with businesses who support employers to endeavour to comply with the lawyer. Government amendments under discussion today will also expand and strengthen the powers of fair work to bring several proceedings against employers and employment tribunal for rights and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

underpaying their staff. Given the measures that we are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Given the measures that we are looking at today will give more powers to trade unions, is there a reason why the honourable gentleman reason why the honourable gentleman hasn't felt it incumbent upon him to declare the thousands of pounds specifically that he has received

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from trade unions in the last year? I am proud of the money that I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am proud of the money that I received from unions. I am also proud that entrepreneurs dedicated proud that entrepreneurs dedicated to my campaign, so because I am pro-business and pro-worker, I want to see growth in the economy, and I to see growth in the economy, and I am proud to receive donations from people in my constituency.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is he surprised as I am that there seems to be so much support on there seems to be so much support on these particular benches for donations and transparency in political donations as well?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

political donations as well? That is absolutely the case. I would love to see more transparency would love to see more transparency coming from the party opposite. It is right and proper that businesses is right and proper that businesses contribute to sustainable growth and it is right and proper that we take action against employers that do action against employers that do not. With this bill, the government is calling quits on industrial relations but left the work strike chaos in decades.

A new partnership between trade unions, employers and government will benefit with more cooperation and less destruction. North of the border, this bill signals the largest upgrade in workers rights in Scotland for a decade. It marks an end to 0 hour contracts and fire and rehire practices. It will establish rights for bereavement leave for millions of workers. But these measures will also be beneficial for employers in Scotland, helping keep people in work, reduce improvement costs and levelling the playing field on enforcement.

Pro-worker and pro- business. The SNP have been calling for the revolution of employment law for many years, including the member for Dundee Central in his speech, however they have never explained how those powers would actually be used to improve workers terms and conditions to increase productivity and accelerate economic growth. It also might be nice if they practice what they preached. During the by- election in 2023, the SNP chosen zero hour contracts to deliver leaflets. In government, the same party includes zero hour contracts with description of positive destinations for school leavers.

Financial insecurity, anxiety and stress do not sound to me like a positive destination. The SNP says it wants to transfer Scotland's economy and grow key sectors, but the reality is that Scotland has the highest rate of zero hour contracts among people in employment of any UK nations. However people supposed to plan financially and improve the quality-of-life when they wake up on a Monday morning to find out through text that they will have eight shifts, two ships or no ships at all.

The reality is the Scottish Government already has the powers to introduce many changes to conditions through public procurement they choose not to do so. They will also prefer to blame someone else than actually use the extensive powers they have to improve the lives of ordinary Scots. That is why the bill is of such paramount portents. Across the UK, there will be benefits include people who need it the most, and this column all right the rungs. The tenure of the Labour government is still measured in months and not years, but this bill is another example of it delivering a new direction for workers, businesses and the people of Scotland that the wider UK also deserve.

deserve.
16:24
Louie French Portrait Mr Louie French MP (Old Bexley and Sidcup, Conservative)
-
-
Is any sensible people would know, changes to business regulations need to strike a careful balance to not deter both business investment and job creation, but I am afraid that this bill gets this balance very much wrong, and Labour's weakening of a variety of trade union laws and particularly the threshold for industrial action is a recipe for disaster for both the public and businesses, particularly SMEs. As a London MP, I have had this fairytale before because London has to offer and been paralysed by strikes under the mayor.

Infamously, the London Mayor promised our city zero days of strikes in 2016 but he is comprehensively broken that promise. In his first two terms, there were more than 135 strikes. That is almost 4 times more than the number of strikes than his predecessor, a record that Mayor Khan labelled a disgrace. If 35 strikes are a disgrace, then 135 and Americana is a catastrophe. My fear is that this bill will make strikes even more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

common in London.$$NEWLINE Does the gentleman recall how many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

strikes they were under the last government? As we have seen already, we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As we have seen already, we have this fairytale that if we improve these relations then suddenly there these relations then suddenly there will not be strikes, and if we give trade unions all they want, there will not be strikes, but what is happening in practice is that they are still threatening to go on strike.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

strike. This reads like a Millington wish list. Strike mandates double from 612 months, allowing trade unions to look at strikes without balancing members, polishing minorities calling strikes, removing the requirement for 50% of members to vote and 40% to support industrial actions. Reducing the notice for strikes by four days and giving employers less information, making strikes even more damaging to businesses and disruptive to the public's lives, allowing facility time for trade unions, making the taxpayer and companies pay out even more for trade union representatives at the same time as the Labour government are raising everyone's taxes and cutting public services.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm going to guess that he has never been a member of a trade union or participated in this, but just to or participated in this, but just to say to him, members choose to go on strike once the ballot is gone. No strike once the ballot is gone. No one forces them to go on strike, so when members give up days pay to go on strike, they do so because they on strike, they do so because they are fighting for improvements to terms and conditions.

He is making out that it is compelled upon them. It is a strength of feeling, nothing more.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more. I would have some simply for that argument if the threshold for those voting for strikes were maintained but we are leaving the door open for a minority of militant trade unions to go on strike and cause mass disruption and my experience of trade unions and I have never been a member, my experience of trade union, they live a life that I could never dream of as a working class man, and my history, I learned from a very young age that trade unions and the Labour Party stopped representing working class people many years ago.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to whether he thinks it is fair given his comments about a small number of militant trade small number of militant trade unionists taking industrial action. I wonder if he thinks it is fair that a small militant group of that a small militant group of Conservative party members managed to elect or choose successive prime to elect or choose successive prime ministers with less requirements ministers with less requirements than members of trade unions. Does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he think that is fair? I thank her for her art intervention. It has nothing to do with this bill today, but if more people had chances to vote today, I suspect they would come to a completely different answer that they would come to this year. This Labour government has given every single promise that it made the selection and I can't wait for the public to vote them out, so I am all for people to vote this shocking Labour out.

This bill was written by the trade unions for the trade unions. And why is the government granting this WishList to the trade unions? The simple answer is because the Labour Party will benefit from these proposals, and as I was taught as a young man, follow the money. Over the last five years, the Labour Over the last five years, the Labour Party has received more than £31 million in political donations from unions. This bill would remove the requirement for trade union members to opt in for these contributions.

Instead, they would have to opt out which means more would contribute to political causes they don't support. The amendment would mean the trade unions would not need to renew political resolutions every 10 years and this makes it even easier for trade unions to divert cash to political causes including the political causes including the In short, this bill means more strikes more often, and more money for the Labour Party. Strikes new business to a halt, shutting public services and closing public transport systems again.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

As he noted in my speech earlier, there are problems with the bill we there are problems with the bill we mentioned there are problems on public transport. Does he regret public transport. Does he regret that in 2022 the train unions and the train operating companies the train operating companies actually resolved the dispute but it was the government transport minister at the time who blocks that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreement to resolve the strikes? My experience as an MP out of London is great frustration on train companies constantly going on strike and a small minority of train drivers going on strike. What we have seen from this government was a load of money went straight towards those same unions without the productivity changes that we would like to see. And adapting to the system. My personal opinion on some of this legislation today is it is increasingly likely that automation and the loss of jobs will be a direct consequence of these very rigid trade union laws that are being forced onto more businesses and I expect the only thing that will arise in this parliament is unemployment.

These strikes are costly. They are disruptive and they are damaging to Britain. They ought to be a last resort. But this government's proposals will take us back to the 1970s, when strikes were a political tool for division, damage, and disruption. This is yet more evidence that Labour is not on the side of working people or on serious economic growth, as their own impact assessment, even partial, tells us. Londoners will not thank this government if it results in yet more disruptive and longer running strikes that grind our city down even further than the London mayor has.

Working people will not thank this government for empowering their trade unions to bring our country to a standstill especially as we pick

**** Possible New Speaker ****

up the bill as they fill their pockets. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. I draw members attention to my I draw members attention to my I draw members attention to my I draw members attention to my I draw members to my Register of Interests which you will see IMA proud member of the GMB and might donations included for entrepreneurs and business people alike collectively sick of the party opposite being in government for 14 years. I will not take lessons from a party whose record after 14 years sees none of your contributions today defending any of the
16:33
James Frith Portrait Mr James Frith MP (Bury North, Labour)
-
-
achievements that you made in 14 years relating to this or anything to do with our economy. I will come to do with our economy. I will come to that. The party of F business, of 60% Furneux settlements for Manchester workers, of cash or COVID contracts, of inflation highs, of Liz Truss, of the mini-Budget Liz Truss, of the mini-Budget disaster, of zero growth in the collapse of infrastructure. Public collapse of infrastructure. Public spending power disappearing, the state of our roads, it is for this reason my Register of Interests includes a combination of GMP membership and members and the workers that we represent.

Also of the entrepreneurs that wanted rid of that lot over there. I will make some progress. You have said plenty already. The honourable gentlemen was in only half way through the substantive half of the debate. I am proud to stand here on this side as someone who has founded and run a business. For others, and my own. 15 years ago I made a commitment to be the voice of experience for good small businesses within the proud labour movement we have now in government.

Not least to challenge the claim of the party opposite that they alone represent business interests. I am proudly pro- business, pro-worker. Just as my government is. Fixing the foundations of our economy means fixing the foundations of our employment. Just as this government is strengthening our economic base, it is now laying down stronger employment foundations. Running a business is hard work. It requires an initial leap of faith. The courage to embrace risk, the ability to adjust, resilience to overcome failure, and the perseverance to celebrate success.

The role of government is to improve life and living for everyone in this country. The role of good employment is exactly the same. Small businesses are at the heart of this effort. That is why this government is right to focus on skills, on value for money with public spending, opening up public sector commissioning to SMEs, and challenge companies. And crucially, with this bill, taking employment more positive, rewarding experience. Insecure work leads to insecure living. And neither will improve life in Britain.

We should highlight and support those employers who are already leading the way. Much of this legislation simply catches up to their high standards. The weight of responsibility that comes with creating somebody else's payslip cannot be overstated. It is humbling sometimes worrying, never easy. It requires teamwork, the skills of others, but also leadership. Sometimes lonely leadership. It means shouldering risk. Sharing rewards. That is why the government's ambition for growth is the right one. The focus must be on net growth.

Locking in certainty for those in work but upholding rights for the many while fostering new opportunities that will expand our economy. I want to salute those businesses and entrepreneurs for whom much of this legislation emphasises the good practices they already uphold. In Bury, businesses like the Lamppost Cafe where, declaration of interest, my own daughter works part-time, and other businesses, MSL Solution providers, a bakery, and Hargreaves. These businesses, often family run, are the backbone of Bury and so they build the backbone of Britain.

Rooted in their communities. Providing stability, pride, good honest pay for an honest day's work. Any of them stand ready to do more, to grow, to invest and do more for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opportunities. Could you tell us which of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could you tell us which of that fine list of businesses have said that they support this bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that they support this bill? I have had conversations with the vast majority of them. They support vast majority of them. They support the general emphasis, if the honourable gentleman has been listening, but the argument I am listening, but the argument I am making is that much of this legislation, whether it is giving legislation, whether it is giving rights on day one, whether it is being fair-minded, whether it is making work pay, they are already doing this. The point I am making, I have just named several.

The most recent conversation I had was with MSL Solution Providers. And their argument is around R&D tax credits, and are great I will make in due course. But this claim on being the voice of small business and entrepreneurship from the other side is misguided. It is misrepresented. Frankly it is out of date. Once we have laid these new employment foundations, we must support them in building the businesses further. In particular, for some, this means ensuring AI enhances and expands prospects and prosperity in the employment market and the wider economy.

Lastly, I am proud to have supported, and highlight my support, for extending reason and leave to those who experienced a miscarriage. A compassionate and essential measure type proudly support alongside the member for Luton alongside the member for Luton North. This bill is not just about a legislative process was top it is about our values. It is about recognising that a thriving economy and a fair society must go hand in hand with tackling our inequalities. It is about ensuring that whether employer or employee, the foundation on which our employment is built ensures strength for all.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. I rise as a former member of a trade union, and the harsh lessons I learnt there and what concerns me learnt there and what concerns me about this bill, as a low-paid journalist on the local paper, I'd hope the union would go into bat for hope the union would go into bat for me. Instead it was more interested in socialism and collective bargaining. More concerned about criticising Thatcher's legacy than criticising Thatcher's legacy than the jubilation of a junior reporter.

More worried about funding the Labour Party than supporting me. It is why I'm backing amendments such as this would seek to defuse what is called a subscription trap inertia is used to allow political donations taken from members to take up year
16:40
John Cooper Portrait John Cooper MP (Dumfries and Galloway, Conservative)
-
-
in year out. Is this the clean money of which the honourable Member spoke? In the Business and Trade spoke? In the Business and Trade Committee, we have further good relations are possible between ploys and trade unions. Of course they and trade unions. Of course they are. Not all union reps are agitators any more than all bosses are grasping exploiters of the workers. But stripping out the existing protections as this bill does risks tilting the law too far does risks tilting the law too far in favour of the unions.

Making strikes more frequent and more damaging thanks to things such as this. We know the unions are already restive full stop just ask the secretary of state for Scotland, unable to attend an event with ironically enough the Scottish Federation of business industry in his own office because it would not cross a picket line. And he had to cancel at least one other event as the picket strikes on. If a Cabinet Minister is that the unions were see what chance does the general public have? We've heard about positive trade union benefits but it is not always sunny uplands.

One rail union refuses to let bosses use email for rotors, existing on fax machine. I'm one of the few members here that remembers those. And members were ordered not to use a footbridge as it had snow no thicker than on a cake. They must be licking their lips at clauses which remove previous limits to strike action such as that 50% turnout requirement and the 40% support requirement. Is it the public will support amendments which would keep existing benchmarks as modest guardrails, not to crackdown but to limit the damage hotheads might inflict.

This skimpy bill cobbled together with indecent haste bears all the hallmarks of a thank you note from Labour to its union backers. If it passes, the unions were party like it is 1979. The members opposite, pocketing union donations should have a care because the 1929 winter of discontent saw the public lose patience with the Labour prime minister. History does not repeat precisely but this does look awfully familiar.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. This afternoon I want to raise the points that I think we will agree on points that I think we will agree on across this house. And that is that employment rights are quite useless without any sort of enforcement without any sort of enforcement mechanism. I should first of all mention that I'm a member of trade mention that I'm a member of trade unions and refer everyone to my register interest. But to return to register interest.

But to return to the point about enforcement, I am very pleased to see new section 122 of this bill. This reflects an increase in the time to bring an employment tribunal claims from three months up to six months. It is a result of extensive campaigning by
16:43
Sarah Russell Portrait Mrs Sarah Russell MP (Congleton, Labour)
-
-
various organisations including various organisations including those who were aware on behalf of their members of something I used to see as a solicitor which is a lot see as a solicitor which is a lot people who have been badly treated in their product are so traumatised they cannot afford to bring their claim within three months. But also claim within three months. But also that reduces the potential time available for negotiation between former employees and their former former employees and their former employers.

And that is not the best interests of either employees or employers. I think it is really good news for both parties that we are going to see this increase in the amount of time available to bring those claims. The other matter that I'm delighted with in this bill is that Fair Work Agency. We absolutely need there to be accountability for employers who are not paying the national minimum wage. They are few and far between, and those that are not doing it needs to be properly monitored and enforced against to create a fair playing field for all companies.

I am sure that the party opposite would completely agree with me the national minimum wage is a very very fundamental part of our society, and everyone should be paid it. The other matter that I want to draw attention to the adult social Gauthier to body. In my constituency, we have a significant number of people who need adult social but having a stable workforce is so important to that. Lastly I would like to speak about the attitudes towards trade unions that I've seen on the benches opposite today.

When I have worked as a solicitor advising trade union members, what was clear to me was that actually people really needed the advice that they were getting by their trade union. But also that there trade unions would not continue with that advice they did not have claims with reasonable prospects of success. And that's meant that disputes could be settled, and that was in the best interests of both employer and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think she misrepresents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think she misrepresents possibly the intent on the side of possibly the intent on the side of the house which is that we are not anti-trade union but what we are is anti-trade union but what we are is anti the drafting of this bill and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think it is very important to make a clear distinction between the two. I would thank the honourable lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would thank the honourable lady for her point. I think it is very difficult distinction to make to say that you anti things that make it difficult for trade workers. But returned my point, access to trade unions means access to good quality advice. It means quicker resolution of disputes and a reduction in mitigation which can make life very difficult for well-meaning employers. Every single thing in this act will be good for workers but it is also good for employers and I am very pleased to vote for it later today.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I refer to my register of interest and declare my of interest and declare my membership. Although I am also an X solicitor and I will address the solicitor and I will address the government amendments relating to enforcement. Rather than trade union
16:46
Jayne Kirkham Portrait Jayne Kirkham MP (Truro and Falmouth, Labour )
-
-
enforcement. Rather than trade union rights. We have a large demand for social care in Cornwall as the honourable member also did. Our population tends to an older demographic, and with many people retiring to Cornwall, the availability of care is very important. Our social care is down to fragment a system. Skilled care work is chronically underpaid, often at minimum and we struggle to get an retained care workers. This bill has retained care workers. This bill has many provisions which will with protection from unfair dismissal from day one, including family friendly rates, flexible working, measures to tackle zero hour contracts including agency workers and umbrella companies as well as employees and strengthening redundancy rights.

But the bill also gives respect for social care agreements and the reinstatement of the school support staff negotiating body. This will be a game changer for those workers, mostly women, who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

work in care and schools. Next week there will be a debate on the contribution Bell where there on the contribution Bell where there will be a debate about whether health and social care providers should be excluded from contribution. Would she care to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contribution. Would she care to comment on whether or not those benches will support that amendment? I thank the honourable member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for her intervention and of course her intervention and of course government funding, local government funding will be increasing to take that into account and funding is rising and will rise further in the next three year settlement. To return to my speech, we have also seen the rise of care workers coming from other countries to work on sponsorship Visa schemes. Often these workers are in a precarious situation which increases their dependency. Some have been charged by employers for travel or training.

In some cases, they receive a salary below Minimum Wage Act make up the costs of their flight to the UK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I refer to the members interest. My honourable friend is making My honourable friend is making excellent speech on her own county for to she agree with me that this is a national problem for all of us is a national problem for all of us in our constituency. It is certainly the case in Berks and Redding that we need better care for care workers we need better care for care workers with the pressures on the valuable work.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

work. I do agree with the member. This is something that crosses the entire is something that crosses the entire country and I know that Unison do have a campaign about migrant care workers so I do agree that this is a national issue. In Cornwall, those workers are given the early shift with no flexibility. Some are sitting on benches stranded in Cornish visitors waiting for their morning shift to their first evening shift. Many health and social care workers on sponsorship visas are afraid to raise concerns about their employment and living conditions.

Employers in turn can be aware of this and some even use it as an explicit threat, so that is where I come to the enforcement provisions in this bill. The enforcement of employment rights is poor in the social care sector. Pay enforcement relies on individual workers reporting breaches. HMRC investigate fewer than 1% of care providers per year. International workers and those from minority backgrounds are particularly vulnerable. For individual rights to become a reality, a collective voice in the workplace and effective enforcement are key.

The Law Society reports that the tribunal cases stand at 34,000 which is 18% higher than it was in 2023. This backlog needs clearing, and investment made in tribunals. The new fair work agency will have a crucial role to pay in reducing the burden of the tribunal system by providing a focal point for enforcement and the government enforcement, enabling disclosure of information and to 12 and taking on some of those enforcement powers under government clauses 57 and 58 on behalf of those workers.

Those powers should help migrant workers who don't have access to funds or union representation to enforce their rights or for dismissal if they do so. Government amendment to 49 will allow the fair work agency 49 will allow the fair work agency to investigate and combat fraud so tackling the kind of modern slavery we have seen recently of international workers in the care industry in clause 60 will also give the fair work agency the power to recover the costs of enforcement which will help with the funding of the system.

However, real investment will need to be made for the new powers to have teeth with the timeline resourcing a fast track procedure for the new fair work agency and I welcome the government's commitment to this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I give a brief reminder that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I give a brief reminder that we are talking to the new clauses and amendments on trade unions and and amendments on trade unions and and amendments on trade unions and Can I say that dealing with amendments eight and nine with regard to the recognition of POA's right to strike, so I can also say
16:52
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Independent)
-
-
that I am a member of the POA. I would not even get a south facing cell or extra pillow. What these amendments do is restore the amendments do is restore the fundamental rights of prison fundamental rights of prison As organisers of a trade As organisers of a trade union, As organisers of a trade union, it has never taken any form of industrial action which is in danger of the wider community. And had that long history.

There was that history of industrial relations as a climate, but that period which negotiations took place and disputes resolved, but in 1994, the criminal justice act made it a crime to induce any prison to work-to-rule, so the trade union was told very clearly that this would be a criminal act organising a work-to- rule that can be prosecuted. What the government then did was that they then planned increases with extensive salary cuts and cuts in staff numbers.

And there is no way the union could work to protect members. At one point, some members recall the POA faced fines, six- figure fines, and when they took action on health and safety with metres of members, they were threatened with legal action and they were threatened with imprisonment. Ironically, there is a question of who would lock them up but that is another question. When the police had the right to strike taken away from them, they were given covenant.

They were given very specific commitments around how they would be protected with pay and pensions and conditions of work. That was never offered to the POA. There was never a negotiation like that were in return for the loss of that they were given some security. They never were. So, what the POA has done, they took the government to the European to human rights in 2024 and the case was accepted. And the court then urged the government to engage with the union in good faith over what remedies would be available to them.

The government then refused to engage and are still not engaging. One of the reasons for putting this clause down is to get them to engage with the union and them to engage with the union and this issue. They want to be treated like humans, and there has been no strike action sense. Not to conflict but to negotiate problems out where there is no alternative to take part of industrial action. And often, the industrial action as most people know in public services is not a strike but work to start negotiations off, and every union I have been a member of, a trade union officer et cetera, every union I have known where there is any form of industrial action that in anyway involves a public service, it always puts in place negotiation arrangements to protect people and that isn't just life and limb protection but often ensuring that there is a standard of service that is still acceptable to people.

I am urging the Minister to get back round the table with the POA. Can I just that there was a debate in the committee on this and it angered people and it angered me. It showed a shameful disrespect for prison officers, and ignorance of the role that they play and what they work in. There are references to screws and guards and things like this, and how if this was restored, the union would allow the prisoners to run amok and put the whole community at amok and put the whole community at risk.

There is a rack of understanding about what we are putting up with at the moment. Prisoners are dealing with mental health issues, drug problems, and health problems overall, and the levels of violence at the moment levels of violence at the moment about record levels. So the disrespect demonstrated that as part and parcel of demoralising even more of our workers within those key of our workers within those key roles. Get back to the negotiating table and recognise that this is an issue which will not go away.

These members want the basic trade union rights back again, and if necessary, they will go back before the European courts and I believe they will win and unnecessarily, we will go through another period where workers continue the demoralisation because of the lack of respect that people have for the basic trade union rights, and at the moment, we have a real problem with recruitment and retention, so I urge the government to take that one step

**** Possible New Speaker ****

back negotiating table. I rise today in support of new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise today in support of new clause 57 and new clause 58 tabled by this government. From the outset, by this government. From the outset, I refer members to my interest as a proud trade union member. I would
16:59
Becky Gittins Portrait Becky Gittins MP (Clwyd East, Labour)
-
-
proud trade union member. I would ask the opposition to consider their comments today in what has proved to be very ideological driven debate on I feel somewhat as if I have been transported back in time to a previous reforming Labour government last upgrade to employment rights, the minimum wage debate. Reminiscent of this is the fear mongering about proactivity, growth that we have seen this afternoon. We also have seen some crossover in some of the personnel who were part of both conservative oppositions.

The member currently for Chingford and Woodford Green, whilst he was then conservative shadow Secretary of State for work and pensions said that the minimum wage will negatively affect not hundreds of thousands but millions of people. Unless the opposition has since developed a policy to repeal the national minimum wage, and let's face it under the current leadership anything is possible, I must say to them that progress is coming. Work that pays, dignity and job security. And I would invite them to get on board with the upgrade to rights at work now.

Rather than spending the coming decades attending that they were on board in the first place. were on board in the first place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her four giving way. She will recall that in 2017, when the Conservative party announced the Employment Bill that was never Employment Bill that was never produced, they said that it would represent the biggest upgrade of represent the biggest upgrade of workers rights by any Conservative government ever. Would she get a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government ever. Would she get a speck late on why they set their ambition so low? I thank him for the question. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for the question. I think it has been made by some of the comments on the opposition benches today made very clear to the benches today made very clear to the public what they think about people's rights at work. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She is making a very passionate and inspiring speech and spoke passionately about the national minimum wage. What you wear that just last year the leader of the Scottish Labour Party admitted that his own family business were not paying the living wage to members of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

paying the living wage to members of staff. She think that is rank hypocrisy? I thank the honourable member for his question. I think everybody his question. I think everybody should be on board with the national should be on board with the national minimum wage and also the living wage and hope we can encourage all members of all parties to get on board. I'm pleased to hear the commitment and concern from the Reform Party, unexpected but I respected. I welcome this legislation at second reading as a central tenant of this government's policy to put working people at the heart of our economy and to Make Work Pay.

I'm delighted to see this bill returned to the chamber and pay tribute to those that served on the Public Bill Committee. This bill modernises the U.K.'s outdated employment laws bringing in over 30 much-needed and welcome reforms including day one rights of employment, banning exploitative zero hours contracts and abolishing fire and rehire. Establishing bereavement leave, increasing protection from sexual harassment, introducing menopausal action plans and strengthening rights of pregnant workers and establishing the Fair Work Agency. As part of the scrutiny process I'm pleased to see that the government has brought forward amendments to strengthen protections of low paid workers.

Including three statutory sick pay. What the totality of these measures will mean in real terms is that 1 million people on zero hours contracts benefit from the guaranteed hours policy. 9 million people who have been with their employer for less than two years will benefit from day one unfair dismissal policy. And because of their Fair Work Agency, holiday pay will be enforced for the very first time. Today sets out the strengthening of the Fair Work Agency. New clause 57 will enable the Fair Work Agency to bring proceedings against a non-compliant employer and an employment tribunal in place of the worker.

New clause 58 enables the provision of legal advice or representation for those that may have become party to civil proceedings relating to employment or trade union law. Whilst it is certainly the case that many employers, the vast majority in fact, killing hundreds in my constituency and across the country, obey the law, there are still those that sadly do not. As the Citizens Advice bureau report states, higher paid workers are 50% more likely to bring an employment tribunal claim compared to lower paid individuals.

Despite lower paid individuals being more likely to have their rights violated. As Unison points out, leaving the burden of challenging workplace injustice to individual workers seeking redress at tribunal compound inequalities of power within the UK labour market. Low Pay Commission's figures highlight some of the key reasons for the implementation of these important measures. For example, we know 20% of workers paid less than the minimum wage in 2023, and nearly 1 million workers who did not get paid any holiday pay. The agency will bring together existing state enforcement functions and will be a single place where workers and employers can turn for help.

I am also pleased that the agency will aim to resolve the issue upstream by supporting M lawyers that want to comply. I understand from evidence gathered during committee that there was considerable support for a single enforcement body in place of what is currently quite a fractured system. In terms of accountability, the bill requires an annual report on the Fair Work Agency's enforcement actions will allow Parliament to monitor progress in protecting workers rights. I am encouraged to hear that the approach of the Fair Work Agency in producing its strategy will consult with an Advisory Board made up of trade unions, businesses, and independent experts.

It is vital that we continue our collaborative approach in developing employment legislation and policy that is pro-business, pro-worker, and ultimately progrowth. I welcome both of these new clauses, as I welcome the bill new clauses, as I welcome the bill as a whole. It is an important part of this government's strategy to move our economy forward, to improve work security and ensure greater proximity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. Speaking in support of this government Employment Rights Bill, I government Employment Rights Bill, I wish to declare that I am a member of Unison. To date this bill and government amendments will deliver government amendments will deliver real life improvement for working people across my constituency and people across my constituency and across Scotland. He amendments will strengthen protections for the lowest paid workers in my constituency. Extend protections
17:07
Douglas McAllister Portrait Douglas McAllister MP (West Dunbartonshire, Labour)
-
-
from exploitative zero hours contracts, and boost the voice of working people in the workplace. From strengthening statutory sick pay, 80% from the first day of sickness, extending sick pay to 1.3 million of the lowest earners across the country. And of course greater protection from unfair dismissal. 9 protection from unfair dismissal. 9 million people will benefit from day one protection for this is a real change we promised to deliver. Benefiting real people, people in my constituency of West Dunbartonshire working on public services, frontline staff, service industries, essential utility companies, Social care, transport, health, the date of exportation are now over.

The Labour Party are doing what we do best, and what we will always do. Detecting working people, promoting decent pay at work and delivering the need for change for so many. Putting power in the hands of working people. The government is committed to growing our economy, built on rebalancing the rights at work full stop and raising living standards in every part of the country because they also are interwoven. Today's amendments from the government will do just that. Boosting enforcement of rights, giving the new Fair Work Agency the power to bring civil proceedings against non-compliant employers who seek to underpay staff.

One in five workers in 2023 were paid less than the minimum wage. That's.. Almost 1 million workers did not receive holiday pay in 2023. That will stop. Digital access to important agreements allowing independent unions to apply for recognition and stopping the practices of employer lockouts. A 20 working day window for employers and unions to negotiate access. The new rights for unions to access the workplace. This has the potential to be transformational, giving workers a fair voice to help improve their pay and conditions.

It is time to turn the page from the competition and unproductive approach adopted by the past governments, and to modernise the industrial relations framework. This bill and amendments support a much-needed reset of industrial relations across Great Britain. This government has a clear mandate to deliver real change that working people in my constituency can see and feel. That change can't come soon enough. Employment Rights Bill is the crucial first step on that path, and it is a first step full stop but it is the biggest uplift in workers rights in a generation, and I'm proud to vote and support it today.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to be called twice over the report stage debate, and I
17:10
Laurence Turner Portrait Laurence Turner MP (Birmingham Northfield, Labour)
-
-
over the report stage debate, and I draw attention to my declarations in the register of interests. The membership of Unite the Union and I'm chair of GMB poetry group. I start by making comments that had not been planned at the bidding of this debate but much has been heard about registers of interests. As that Shadow Minister who is in his place said at the end of the Bill's committee, Labour members have been "Assiduous" in drawing attention to their membership of trade unions and fair registers in the declaration of interests.

I believe that the honourable Member for Meriden and Solihull East was the first Conservative member to draw attention to his own donations without being challenged first. Much of the tone of this debate has focused not on the substance of the bill in front of us but on ascribed motivations which I believe has been demeaning to the standards and courtesies expected of this house. There is much to welcome in the government amendments in front of us today. I wish to concentrate my remarks on new clause 40 and new Schedule 2.

In respect of political fund balance, the 10 year requirement dates to the Trade Union Act 1984. The requirement does not apply to any little funds that may be maintained by employers associations, nor does successful associations, nor does successful ballot in any way infringe upon the rights of trade union member to withdraw payments from a political fund at any time. I think we can be confident about that policies intention full stop it was about trade union time and resources.

And it was successful. These ballots are a massive abstraction of resources, that get in the way of trade union and trade union members core business of representing people at work. In 40 years, not one union members has voted to discontinue a political fund. Trade unions are democratic organisations. If there is discontent within a union, a critical fund expenditure, then any member is entitled to expense accounts and that expenditure can be adopted in whole or in part by existing democratic structures.

There is I think a contradiction when this house, which is a representative democratic institution, may seek to instruct other organisations that they must make decisions by referendum. To those who have suggested trade union political expenditure is somehow illegitimate, I would like to remind members that trade union critical fund expenditure is not synonymous with party political donations. In fact many important campaigns which have won cross-party support in this place were only made possible because of that trade union political fund expenditure.

I draw attention to ONE Campaign which is proud to be associated with, which was the protector's campaign, which resulted in the starting of campaign work with GMB members and Unison members in the ambulance service and resulted in the emergency workers protection act. If the measures being put forward here was successful in restricting the political fund activity, it would be harder to deliver that legislative change on behalf of working people in this place. Much has been said and I do not wish to duplicate, but I wish to say a few words about the situation at Amazon in Coventry.

Much trade union work in the private sector in recent years has focused on the warehousing where increasingly intensive workloads and workers employment terminated on the basis of unaccountable and untargeted targets. I'm contributing to the high rate of people out of work in the wider economy. And this has been a focus on trade union activity. When that GMB, in response to approaches from its members initially contacted Amazon to seek voluntary recognition at that site in December 2022, the company reported there were 1040 people working at the site.

The company refused to engage meaningfully with the people at the union or work with Acas to resolve the situation. It has been said that number people at the site was increased dramatically by 93%. Some of them were temporary workers transferred from other sites. It has been reported that others were new workers on student visas who were worried about the potential indications for their studying and immigration status if union recognition was voted for. As a consequence of that increase the union could still meet that 10% membership threshold it could not have meant the requirement that 40% of the group will be likely to support recognition will stop new Schedule 2 mac remedies this floor by freezing the bargaining unit from the start of the application.

Similarly the schedule bars the use of unfair practices from the start of the process. This addresses a loophole in current statutory code of practice which was exploited to The union described the lack of equality of access, contrary to the principles of this house that has already been endorsed. The ballot failed by 29 votes and I would like to pay tribute to the GMB officers and members who led that campaign. They came so close in the face of a They came so close in the face of a concerted union busting campaign.

As one worker said, I don't want a boat, I don't want a rocket, I just want to live. The opposition argued 1922 Committee that we should not legislate in response to individual cases but I disagree. Once it has been proven that a system can be exploited, then more will follow. Actions at Coventry are clearly something with the regime 26 years ago. Freezing that bargaining unit is incredibly important as is the extension of the code of practice. I wish I could say in a time that is available more about the trade union right of access which builds upon successful international systems, particularly in Australia where it has become an accepted and constructive part of their industrial relations framework and has survived and been enhanced under multiple changes of governing party.

The digital right of access which is included in the amendments brought forward today is important for those employers who do not have a traditional workplace. It is important that the digital right of access must not become the default when applications are made and I'm sure ministers will keep that in mind as these measures are implemented. If I may close, what may be the last debate that backbenchers can contribute on this legislation, it is part of the reason that we come to this place to provide more freedom, more comfort at times of hardship, more protection against abuse to our constituents, and that is true everywhere.

Of course, there will always be causes, other measures and changes that we individually would like to see, but for me, this bill and the changes made to it tonight are the reason why our constituents sent us here to this place. It has been said that this legislation represents the biggest advance on rights of the legislation that is the biggest step forward since the traitors act of 1906. What we will do tonight is historic and I will be proud to join those who vote for it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My interest clearly states that I am a member of the GMB. That is
17:18
Jo White Portrait Jo White MP (Bassetlaw, Labour)
-
-
am a member of the GMB. That is where I want to begin my contribution to this debate. My father, a proud member recruited me to his union the very first day that I had a proper job age 16 during a pay packet and a payslip. I had stepped up into the grown-up world. I was brought up to believe that a union has got your back and can help with issues like unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment or bullying. And as an MP, when I am approached by a constituent, my first question is are you a member of a trade union.

In Bassetlaw and organisations like Cargill, cinch, autism East Midlands and the Royal Hospital have good partnerships with unions like the GMB and I welcome that. Also, as a small business woman, I served as part of a merged SMF. This is why I look at my values at a trade union as a force for good in the workplace. Where partnership working with the employer serves to increase productivity, pride, and shared understanding. Such partnerships mean that many of the key employment measures have already been adopted by many major adopters who regard good employee regulations as part of their success in the markets they operate in.

When people go to work and have no certainty of the hours they work or what their income will be, it is unfair. When people go to work, there is a fear that they may be sacked tomorrow for no reason, that is unfair. When people are paid below the Minimum Wage Act for a days work, that is unfair. And when people are ill and face three days without pay, it is unfair. This bill is about putting fairness back into work and putting pride into our workplaces.

We need to end the zero hour contracts, and higher and rehire, deliver one-day protection for unfair dismissal and extend rights to sick pay to 1.3 million people.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am a member and have found them useful in the past was back and see the benefit of unions but I am the benefit of unions but I am concerned about first-day sick pay. This could make it more difficult for those with a disability to get a job. Talking to a local business in job. Talking to a local business in my constituents which makes it difficult to work for long periods of time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is what good strong partnership is about. It's about ensuring a worker has interventions ensuring a worker has interventions that they need in order to work, so that is why am supporting the that is why am supporting the benefits bill that is coming in the future because that will ensure that future because that will ensure that workplaces are open and accessible for people with disabilities. It is so important that we have the capacity to work when we need to.

This bill is backed by constituency want to work hard but also want want to work hard but also want fairness in the workplace. Tonight, I will be voting for strengthening work for millions of British people. We can all stand up and be counted for those who deserve justice and fairness, and former MPs who are no longer here, supporting the status quo is a betrayal for millions of British workers. We all have constituents who need better workplace rights and this is our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chance to deliver change. For the record, I am a member of
17:23
Andy MacNae Portrait Andy MacNae MP (Rossendale and Darwen, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the record, I am a member of the union, but I rise to make my perspective of a business owner and employer in response to comments made. These are personal perspectives and I know many businesses large or small share this point of view. Before coming to this place, I have been running businesses for 11 to years. I had many businesses and I have been about a bit. Throughout this time, whatever the business, the critical success factor is always the skill, drives and quality of the people that we contract.

We must attract the best possible people. I have always felt this selection process was key, so we will always argue that great businesses by which I mean those with sustained success will always be good employers, and when I look at the measures in this bill, all I see other things that good employers are already doing. We know that support for employees pays off in the long-term. We know that giving employees job security increases their commitment and productivity. We support people when they are sick and we know that taking holidays is vital.

We don't dismiss whether someone has been with us for one day or many years. We have rigorous processes and make clear that employees meet with jobs during probationary periods. We pay as well as we can to feel valued and deliver for businesses. Up until now, good employers have always felt the risk of being undercut by unscrupulous and short-term disruptors looking to make a quick buck. This is a real and serious issue. I have experienced it in businesses and many have raised it with me.

Businesses doing the right thing should not be disadvantaged, yet it has left them exposed. This levels the playing field. Good employers can keep doing what they plan to do. The bill is good for good businesses and good for workers. It is good for growth and good for society that put money in people's pockets to deliver real and tangible benefits for working

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people. I draw my attention to the register of interest which includes register of interest which includes GMB, Unison and physiotherapy. When I spoke in this house during the second reading of this bill, I welcomed the environments it would welcomed the environments it would make the protections of pregnancy and values of fairness in the bill. and values of fairness in the bill. I now support clause 47 and 48. It is only right that if someone has is only right that if someone has done a fair days work, and if a business fails to pay them, the
17:26
Sonia Kumar Portrait Sonia Kumar MP (Dudley, Labour)
-
-
Secretary of State should have the authority to give notice of underpayment. No one in Britain should go home from an honest day should go home from an honest day pays work and be worried about pays work and be worried about paying bills. I believe core practice in the workplace should be practice in the workplace should be called out we also need fair work called out we also need fair work agency. The agency should be agile enough to tackle issues upstream by supporting businesses who want to comply with the law as well as having enough resources to tackle meaningful non-compliant businesses.

On the Business and Trade Committee, we had from several businesses that summer great employers and others are unable to justify malpractice with evidence of modern day slavery in their supply chains. We can't have companies getting away with poor practice where workers can't use the toilet, not entitled to breaks or a failure to get their fair pay. Transparency, accountability and enforcement is key. We must remember that most businesses do their best by workers. Since the second reading, I have met with businesses, owners and several sectors from scaffolders, restaurant owners and retail, and during my visits, both workers and employers often tell me they want the same thing.

They both want stability. Stability to grow and have the fiscal government cares about them and their future. Stability is not a zero-sum game. Research shows that businesses look after their employees and create a more loyal and productive workforce, strengthening businesses and helping them grow the economy. In 2023, Deloitte found that fostering trust opportunities for growth and employee well-being is our key factors to increase retention and satisfaction. To reassure businesses, we know that limitations of this bill will be in phases.

This approach promises to allow step-by- step upscaling of professionals, up-to-date practices to be taken one step at a time that will not be expected until 2026. Therefore, I asked the minister to employ a roadmap of future consultations within the timeline for businesses. A roadmap would help ease growing pains, allowing small businesses time to plan the necessary ministration upscaling and resources that the work agency. Both workers would benefit greatly from this ability and I wholeheartedly support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this bill. I thank you and I rise to support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you and I rise to support this bill. In particular, this this bill. In particular, this afternoon, to support government new schedule two. And at the same time,
17:29
Steve Yemm Portrait Steve Yemm MP (Mansfield, Labour)
-
-
schedule two. And at the same time, I must draw the house's attention to my entry in the register of financial interests and to my membership of both the GMB and Unite trade unions, but I should also make the house clear about my employment history, both as a Chief Executive Officer and managing director of companies in the United States, in the UK, and in Israel, and also, my record as a company founder and I am also very of having been a union member since my first day at work when I joined the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staff and I can add a few years to the membership of the honourable member for Derby Shows.

I'm proud to be supporting this bill and the amendments tabled by the government to table reforms that benefit businesses and workers. We want to put more money in people's pockets and have real life improvements. Key amendments will strengthen protections for workers, extend protections for exploitative zero-hours contract and protection for people in Mansfield. I want to welcome the amendment of Schedule two which will update frameworks for trade unions, reflect on what practices, and rebalance industrial relations.

Part of the amendment will freeze the workplace bargaining agreement. A recent example when the amendment made to supported workers was Anderson when my union, GMB, applied for a statutory recognition. There are reports that there were 1400 employees working at the site and refuse to have any discussion about trade union recognition. The Amazon workers were truly facing a fight like David against Goliath, having to prove it had support. The bill and the amendment will simplify this.

The amendment freezes the bargaining unit at the point of application and we want to be able to bring that practice and good employers to our constituencies. While I would happily speak further in support of so many amendments... I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In 2023, a company based in my constituency were named for not paying 130 workers the national paying 130 workers the national minimum wage, 130 of the Lord's paid workers. Ultimately, they did make workers. Ultimately, they did make payment. Read my honourable friend payment. Read my honourable friend agree it is wrong and that no one should be paid less than the minimum should be paid less than the minimum wage and will be new amendment guarantee that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree and see spells out why enforcement is important and I would happily support so many of the amendments today but I am acutely aware that we are at the end of the debate. In concluding, I want...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I wanted to say that I think he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wanted to say that I think he is right about the reckless behaviour of corporate businesses behaviour of corporate businesses who disregard the interest of workers signed that year his view about trade unions but does he recognise that there is a world of difference between the burden be placed on the organisations who can happily deal with them and the fact that some, perhaps unintentionally, that some, perhaps unintentionally, would have on small businesses. And the fear that it will cause among the small businesses.

There is a real distinction and there are the hard-working SMEs in his constituency and my. Speak of course, as a business phone, someone who has founded and run a small business, I recognise the reason for balance and I'm grateful to him for raising that but I want to put on record arm of GMP and Unite further worked they have on this groundbreaking legislation and I will be voting with praise to support the bill.
17:35
Justin Madders Portrait Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)
-
-
It has been an excellent debate. I'm conscious we have to move on. Apologies if I do not address every single contribution today. I start with that of the chairman of the Select Committee and his amendment, clause 82. The bill requires the Secretary of State to produce an annual report and enforcement strategy every three years. Documents will be laid before Parliament for Parliamentary scrutiny and we are giving the Fair Work Agency the resources that it needs to do its job effectively and I agree when he said the number of prosecutions for minimum wage violations had been pitifully small in recent years and we should never tolerate breaking the law in the business world.

We should ensure responsible, good-performing businesses are never undercut by minimum wage violations. Turning to amendment 2A.2 - this would be with rates of workers accessing workplaces part the government has already committed to modernising and moving away from a reliance on ad hoc access arrangements. We recognise the importance of digital right of access in addition to the physical access the bill already provides and that is why we have amended the bill to expand access rights and allow for access agreements to include communication with workers, other than means of physical access, into a workplace such as digital means.

My honourable friend, the member for Middlesbrough, talked about procurement and his new clause which would I be Procurement Act 2023 to ensure any contract entered into by a government department, and executive and the government, or a non-ministerial department must comply with certain requirements relating to the recognition of trade unions. We recognise recognising trade unions for collective bargaining was an important feature of the previous arrangement and this bill will reinstate and strengthen the court with regulations and destructive record.

I assure the House the government is committed to collective bargaining rights. I will turn to new clause 77 in the name of the honourable member for Dundee Central which would change the Scott Quin Act by removing employment law from devolved matters and putting it in the remit of the Scottish government. -- Scotland act. The government has no intention of devolving employment law to the Scottish parliament. Previous acts have already created the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world and there were considerable SNP members in the last Parliament and there was a 10 minute rule and they could not get a majority of their members to support itself I would be supportive now? I do not know.

-- Sulphide which we support it? I turned to the clause in respect to the rate of prison officers to strike and I thank the honourable member for his contribution. They are prevented from acting under the current legislation that hides the independent Peabody review process which acts as a compensatory mechanism for the restriction and there is limited contingency for industrial action and the reliance industrial action and the reliance is on the police and army in limited circumstances, creating operational risk and is not sustainable.

My honourable friend referred to the debating bill committee on this and it was classed as this is two prison officers during the debate and put it on record that there was no disrespect from the state of the House value and respect the work that prison officers do and I know that my honourable friend will continue to pursue the matter and I suggest you contact the Department of Justice you will have the remit and I hope we can engage on the matter in future.

Turning to some of the Liberal Democrat amendments. The honourable member for St Albans spoke to new Clause 19 which provides for the Secretary of State to state that can define regulations body to represent employees in disciplinary and grievance meetings. It is not clear where the demand would come from and although I expect it would benefit some businesses who have raised the prospect of successive governments, what is clear is that expanding the type of organisations could represent workers at discipline and grievance meetings could lead to the requirement of legal representation for the worker and the employer, increasing the cost, escalating matters, and potentially decreasing returns amicable resolution as they become embroiled in dispute.

We believe the measures are already in place to enable them to deal with that. The honourable member for St Albans both also tabled new clause 411 in relation to legal aid for employment disputes. -- 111. I'm committed to ensuring workers can enforce employment rights and we are working closely with the Ministry of Justice and looking closely at what further improvements we can make with ACAS an employment tribunal. Moving to the Fair Work Commission will make it easier to get legal aid and I hope that gives us some assurance that we are looking seriously at that issue.

She moved clause 110 which would have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State to publish a review of the impact of part four of the bill on SMEs within three months of the act. In the impact assessment, the government set out the plan for monitoring the evaluation of the bill and secondary legislation. I say this with the greatest respect, the honourable lady has put forward some concerns about the business cord but if we accepted all the amendments yesterday, it would have added several million pounds to the cost for businesses and so I there to the Liberal Democrats that they have to decide if they are in favour of workers rights are not.

Turning to amendments from the official Opposition. I meant 297 six to increase from seven days to 14 days the period trade unions had to adhere to notifying employers of the plan to take industrial action. We sought views on the notice period for industrial action, recognising the repeal of the Trade Union would reduce the notice period to 14 -- reduce the notice period to 14 -- seven days from 14 and it was stated that seven days would not be enough in transport, healthcare, education with potential impacts on other services and the government believes employers should have sufficient time to mitigate against the effects of industrial action and acknowledges the response that argued seven days notice was insufficient.

We had seven days between 2010 and 2016 under the previous Tory government and it shows the lack of understanding of the bill. We were told the bill would take us back to the 1970s but would take us back to the 1970s but it will take us back to 2015 when the bill was introduced. The view is that 10 days is the appropriate balance in allowing employers the ability to mitigate industrial action and avoid the knock-on impact of strikes while respecting the right to strike.

Turning to Opposition amendment 291 which seeks to remove clause 52 on political funds. We have had the most heated debate on that and it is noted when it comes to reducing Tory rated, it's only trade unions who do not have the same benefits that everyone else does. There's been a fundamental misunderstanding of a trade union and that is a member- based organisation designed to protect those parts of it and comparisons with Netflix subscriptions and insurance companies are bogus because they are not the same.

Membership of a trade union is not the subscription that you signed for a fixed period but membership of a democratically organised trade union which you are free to leave at any time. The members have control of the organisation because it is democratically organised and they can decide the union for that to have a political fund at all. You cannot email the chief executive at Netflix and demand program starring your favourite actor but if you are unhappy at the trade union you have the opportunity to get involved and change it and it should be noted that in the 40 years we have had political fund balance, no union has that affiliated from the Labour Party as a result and it has been no closure of political funds and so it is clear this is read tape.

And it is not just about the Labour Party because nearly 50% do not have affiliation with the Labour Party who have a political fund. If the members opposite are concerned, they should read the bill before them because they clause they want to remove states that in subsection 8 members can opt out of the political fund and said you can do it by post, email, electronic means. Some of the patronising comments we have had that people will be attracted to something they do not wish to be and does not reflect the reality of the situation or the ability of trade union members to make up their mind and exercise their democratic rights and if anyone opposite had ever been and if anyone opposite had ever been And I have to say, I think the repeated insinuations from members opposite that IR anyone else on these benches have brought this bill because we have been paid by the trade unions to do so is both offensive and wrong in equal measures.

They might think money buys you the chance to write the law, but this is far more about their approach to legislation than ours. On these benches, we do these things because we believe in them. We believe everyone deserves fair treatment at work, and this bill delivers on that. It is delivering on our values. So in conclusion, this is a generational shift in protection, a long overdue reinforcement of workers rights in this country, and tangible proof of how a Labour government can bring meaningful benefit to people's lives.

For many fans, is fundamental as to why we are in the Labour as to why we are in the Labour Party, so now is not the time to shy away from our efforts, now is not the time to talk about what might have been, but it's a time to be bold, to be loud and proud that this Labour government is delivering by putting fairness and dignity and security back into the workplace.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that new clause 30 9B read a second time. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of
17:47
17:57
None Portrait Division - EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS BILL REPORT GOVT. NEW CLAUSE 39
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lock Lock the Lock the doors.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Harder, Harder, harder. The The item The item actually The item actually raked The item actually raked my The item actually raked my 337. The item actually raked my 337. The The item actually raked my 337. The The item actually raked my 337. The The item actually raked my 337. The The eyes -- the ayes, 337. The noes, 98. The ayes have it. The question is the new clause be added to the bill.

As many as of that opinion say, "Aye." To the contrary, say, "No." The ayes have it. I called the Minister to move clause 40 formally. The question is that you clause 40 be read a second time. As many of that opinion say, "Aye." To the contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. The question is that clause 40 be added to the bill. The ayes have it. We come to new clause 41.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister to move formally. Move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Industrial Action Ballot Support Threshold. As many of that opinion, say,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As many of that opinion, say, "Aye." The ayes have it. The "Aye." The ayes have it. The question is that clause 41 be added to the bill. The ayes have it. We come to new clause 42. Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move formally. The question is that new clause 42 be read a second time. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye." To the of that opinion say, "Aye." To the contrary say, "No." The ayes have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. The question is that new clause 42 be read a second time. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye." many as of that opinion say, "Aye." To the contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. We come to you clause 43.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister to move formally. Period after Which Industrial Action Ballot Cc to Be Effective. Action Ballot Cc to Be Effective.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As many as opinion say, "Aye." The ayes have it. The question is that clause 43 be added to the bill. As many as of that opinion say, As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Burrowed to give notice of underpayment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

underpayment. Requesting is that clause 44 be read a second time. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have contrary say, "No." The ayes have contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. The question is that clause 44 be added to the bill. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. We come to clause 45. I called

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Minister to move formally. Calculation of the Required Sum.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is clause 45 be read a second time. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. The question is that clause 45 be added question is that clause 45 be added to the bill. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. The say, "No." The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We come to clause 46. I called the Minister to move formally.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move formally. Period to Which Notice of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Underpayment May Relate. That clause 46 be read formally. As many as of that opinion say, As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. The question is clause 46 be added to the bill. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. We come to clause 47.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. We come to clause 47. Move formally. Speak about the question if clause 47 Speak about the question if clause 40 7B read a second time. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. The question is that clause 47 The question is that clause 40 7B added to the bill. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary
18:05
None Portrait EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS BILL REPORT GOVERNMENT AMDTS.
-

say, "No." The ayes have it. We come

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to new clause 48. I called the Minister to move formally. Move formally. Penalties for underpayment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Penalties for underpayment. The question is clause 48 Iraq a second time. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. The question extract new clause 48 be added to the bill. As many as of added to the bill. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have contrary say, "No." The ayes have We come to the new clause 49. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We come to the new clause 49. I called the Minister to move formally. Move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Further provision for penalties. The question is clause 40 9B read the second time. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. The question is that new clause 40 9B added to the bill. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. We come to new clause 50. I called the Minister to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

formally. Suspension of penalty where criminal proceedings have been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

brought. The question is that clause 50 is read a second time. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. The question is that clause 50 be added to the bill. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have contrary say, "No." The ayes have contrary say, "No." The ayes have We come to government new clause 51. I called the Minister to move properly.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Appeals against underpayment. The question is clause 51 B read a second time. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. The say, "No." The ayes have it. The question is that new clause 51 be added to the bill. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. We come to government new clause it.

We come to government new clause 52. I called the Minister to move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move formally. Withdrawal of notice of underpayment. Speak the question is that clause 52 be read a second time. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. The question is that clause 52 be added to the bill. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We come to new clause 53. I called the Minister to move formally. Move formally. Replacement notice of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Replacement notice of underpayment. Speak the question is underpayment. Speak the question is amendment 53 be read a second time. As many as of that opinion say, ayes have it. The question is that ayes have it. The question is that clause 53 be added to the bill. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes The contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. We come to government new have it. We come to government new clause 54.

I called the Minister to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move new clause 54 formally. Effective replacement notice of underpayment. The question is that new clause 54 be read a second time. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. The question is that new clause it. The question is that new clause 54 be added to the bill. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have contrary say, "No." The ayes have it.

We come to government new clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

55. I called the Minister to murder. Move formally. Enforcement to pay sums due to individuals. Speak the question is individuals. Speak the question is clause 55 be read a second time. As clause 55 be read a second time. As many of that opinion say, "Aye." The many of that opinion say, "Aye." The question is clause 55 be added to the bill As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have it..

We come to clause 56. I called the Minister to move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

formally. Move formally. Enforcement requirement to pay penalty. But the question is clause 56 As many as of that opinion say, "Aye." be read a second time.. The contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. The question is that clause 56th be added to the bill. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. We come to clause 57. I called the Minister to move clause 57 formally. The question is that clause 50 7B read a second time.

As many of that opinion say, "Aye." On the contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. The question is clause 57 The ayes have it. The question is clause 50 7B added to the bill. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. We come to clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

58. I called the Minister to move. Move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

, to provide legal assistance. The question is clause 58 be read a second time. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. The say, "No." The ayes have it. The question is that new clause 58 be added to the bill. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. We come to government new clause 59. I called the Minister to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

formally. Recovery of court of legal assistance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assistance. The question is that clause 59 clause 50 9B read a second time. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. The question is that new have it. The question is that new clause 50 9B -- 59 As many as of clause 50 9B -- 59 As many as of that opinion say, "Aye." -- 50 9B added to the bill.. The contrary say, "No." The ayes have it.

We come to clause 60.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move formally. Power to recover the cost of enforcement.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enforcement. The question is that clause 60 B read a second time. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. The question is that clause 60 B added to the bill. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". The contrary say, "No." The ayes have contrary say, "No." The ayes have New clods 110 has been selected for a separate decision. I called Davie Cooper to move formally.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move formally. Review and give the impact of small businesses. Speak the question small businesses. Speak the question is that new clause 110 As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". B read a second time. The contrary say, "No."
18:13
18:24
18:25
None Portrait Division - EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS BILL REPORT PAGE 71 AMDT. 291
-

The The question The question is The question is as The question is as on The question is as on the The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." Tellers for the ayes mac Paul Rose, Jerome Mayhew, tellers for the noes Mac Anna Turley, Akkadian. --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The Allies to the right, 364. The noes to the left, 324.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left, 324. The ayes, 164. The North have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes, 164. The North have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes, 164. The North have -- 'The As many as of that opinion -- 'The As many as of that opinion say, "Aye." I called the Minister to move formally. The question is that move formally. The question is that move formally. The question is that I meant 186 to 281 be made. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". To the contrary say, "No." The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I meant 297 selected for a separate decision.

I called the Opposition spokesperson to move formally. The question is that I 297 be made. As many as of that opinion say, "Aye.". To the contrary say, "No." Division. The The question The question as The question as to The question as to us The question as to us on The question as to us on the The question as to us on the order paper. As many as of that opinion Lock Lock the Lock the doors.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order Order order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order order. The ayes to the right, 167. The noes to the left, 328.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left, 328. The ayes were 167. The noes were 328. So the noes have it, the noes 328. So the noes have it, the noes have it. Unlock. Order order. And the order of the House of 11 March, I must now put the question necessary to bring proceedings on consideration to a conclusion. I call the Minister to move amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

202 to 239 formally. Move formally. The question is that government
18:50
18:51
18:52
19:03
Angela Rayner Portrait Rt Hon Angela Rayner MP, The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Ashton-under-Lyne, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that the bill be read a third time. I refer members to my register of interests and the clear I am a lifelong private trade unionists. I begin by thanking honourable members on both sides of the chamber for positive engagement in recent months and in particular I want to thank the superhuman work of want to thank the superhuman work of my honourable Fran. In stealing this bill through its Commons stages and the bill committee for full scrutiny.

When this government took office, we promised the biggest upgrade to workers rights in a generation. Nothing less than a new deal for working people. We said we would introduce a bill to do that within 100 days and have heard from those opposite who said we should not and they are aware of those who said we could not be dead. Today the House has taken another giant step towards making work pay. Too many working people have had to wait far too long for a change.

Over a decade, wages flatlined and in-work poverty grew and growth strangled. We inherited a failing economy that no one. Today, a government of working people, for working people, is telling the time. The land bill is progrowth, pro-business, I put millions back into work. Almost million employees will be protected from unfair dismissal and up to 2 million bill received the rate to bereavement leave and those on zero-hours contract will get the security they deserve.

In three weeks time, over 3 million workers will see one of the biggest wage rises on record. We said that we would make work pay and the government meant it. Our vision is backed by the many of the best businesses like the members of the Good Business Charter and FTSE 100 businesses. They have proven if you treat people well, you get the best out of them and being a good worker as a launchpad to success and that is why this bill takes the best standards from the best businesses and extend them to many more workers.

That is why we proudly say that this is a pro-business and pro-worker Bill. We know that this will represent change and I understand many businesses want to work with the government to get the details right and are committed and in the weeks and months ahead is to in the weeks and months ahead is to do just that. My message is clear, this transformative package is a huge opportunity. It is a once in a generation chance to reach a the world of work and drive a race to the top standards and deliver growth and build an economy that works for everyone.

We know that the Tories, Party will fight this. They did the same with the minimum wage two decades ago and said it would destroy 2 million jobs are now they are queueing up to vote against every measure in the bill. The truth is that they were wrong then and are wrong now. The only thing that they are consistent on is that every time they have had the chance to deliver basic fairness for workers, they have voted against it.

We know that they cannot be trusted to stand up for working people but this Labour government will. Far too long, people in Britain have been overlooked and overvalued and our plan changes that, with jobs that plan changes that, with jobs that are more secure and family-friendly, women supported at every stage of life, with a genuine living wage, sick pay for the lowest earners, further and faster action to close the gender pay gap, rights enforced, trade unions strengthen. In July, after 14 years of failure, the country voted for change.

We promise to deliver a new deal and today this Labour government delivers on the promise with a once in a generation transformation to build an economy based on fairness and raise living standards and drive growth and deliver a better Britain for working people. I commend this bill to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill be read for the third time. Shadow Minister Andrew Gribben.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Andrew Gribben. Before I summarise the opposition view, I pay tribute to those who contributed including my honourable friend whose held the government to account at the report states committee. He was joined by the committee. He was joined by the members for West Darfur, -- West Suffolk, and the members for Dumfries and Galloway showed great service. Also acknowledged the work of officials in the Department and Parliament. There are job cannot have been easy, given the haste in which this bill has been produced.

And while we disagree on much, it be churlish not to represent that this churlish not to represent that this is a personal victory for the Deputy Prime Minister. There is no doubt who has been in the driving seat while the Chancellor lays low. He is here now. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is...
19:10
Andrew Griffith Portrait Andrew Griffith MP (Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)
-
-
Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is... Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We welcome him to his place. File... At least the Deputy Prime Minister is honest in unwavering Minister is honest in unwavering support for the trade union agenda and is proud to work in the and is proud to work in the footsteps of Neil Kinnock, Michael foot. A conviction politician in the foot. A conviction politician in the foot. A conviction politician in the proper sense of the word. It makes a proper sense of the word. It makes a welcome change...

It makes a welcome change from a Prime Minister who pretends that this bill is about growth. It is not easy for the right honourable lady and it is awkward to be at odds with your boss. He says grow, you say slow. He wants fewer regulators, you create new ones. In 2021 she was a victim of fire and rehire by a bad boss. Wait until the rehire by a bad boss. Wait until the ceasefire that until he sees the higher unemployment and lower growth.

Higher prices and lower growth in this bill. No wonder the right honourable lady is in favour of making it harder to be stacked. -- sacked. This is a sad day for business and a bad day for Parliament. Business will have watched the last two days with dismay and will watch this with dismay as well as they struggled with the job tax of the Chancellor and the business rate hike about to hit. The RCN hundreds of pages of red tape heading the other way.

They would have seen the Minister asked to name a single small business to support the bill and reel of two large ones, one of which did not support it anyway and another was a chief inclusion officer at the Co- op. My honourable friend put it well when he said this government plans to increase the number of small businesses by starting with large ones and making them smaller. No one who cares about Parliament who cares about Parliament No one who cares about Parliament legislating well would be proud of how we got here.

It was a rushed bill, introduced at half the length to which it has drawn and an impact which was described as not fit for purpose by the regulatory body. Over 200 pages of amendments, few of which scrutinised the committee and speeches heavily in support of trade unions who stand to gain so much financially from the bill. My final financially from the bill. My final word goes to the real victims. They do not want to hear it, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The real victims of this bill, faced with this legislation, employers will take fewer risks on new employees. As a result, this bill bill disproportionately young people the hardest. They do not have the track record to rely on someone giving them the chance. The first step into the world of work. Unlike many opposite whose first job was at a comfortable desk in Trade Union Congress, mine was at the supermarket. The company was able to take a risk on a young Andrew Griffith with no career experience and took the chance because they knew that I could not start in the knew that I could not start in the morning and file an employment tribunal later in the afternoon.

It is not excuse the vindictive attack on the next generation. The truth is that Labour do not understand business. They don't understand what it takes to grow. They never have and never will. Every Labour government had left office with unemployment higher than when they started and that is why we cannot started and that is why we cannot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the Bill be now read a third time. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of
19:16
19:27
None Portrait Points of Order
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jonathan Reynolds, point of order. On a point of order, it has come

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On a point of order, it has come to my attention that in the speech I to my attention that in the speech I gave on 20 April 2014, column 614 on the Hansard on the subject of High Speed Rail, made a reference to my experience of using our local transport system in Greater Manchester when I worked as a solicitor in Manchester city centre. solicitor in Manchester city centre. I should have made clear that specifically was a reference at the time to be a trainee solicitor.

This time to be a trainee solicitor. This wasn't an invert in error, and although the speech was over a decade ago, as it has come to my attention, I would like to formally correct the record, and I seek your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

advice in doing so. I think the right honourable and learned member of giving advance learned member of giving advance notice of his point of order and for placing it on the record. I now come to employment training. Minister to to employment training. Minister to me. The question is on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it, the "No." I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

Motion four and local government, minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move formally. The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Motion number five on delegated legislation Church of England General Synod measures. Mr

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move. Move formally. The question is as on the order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it, the "No." I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Motion number six on delegated legislation Church of England General Synod measures. Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move formally. The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." Anything the ayes have it, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ayes have it. I beg to move the House to our journey. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. Kim Johnson. Thank you. This month marked the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. This month marked the 40th anniversary of the publication of the groundbreaking Swann Report, of the groundbreaking Swann Report, education for all, the first of its kind. The report was commissioned to kind. The report was commissioned to examine disparities in education attainment and experiences among
19:30
19:30
Kim Johnson Portrait Kim Johnson MP (Liverpool Riverside, Labour)
-
-
school. A mixture of policy and school. A mixture of policy and racist attitude was responsible for the shocking discrimination. The 1960s was a time of rising 1960s was a time of rising immigration with the post-war British Empire invitation to the Windrush generation to workers from the Caribbean and other colonies to the Caribbean and other colonies to be billed Britain. It was a time of significant racist backlash with Enoch Powell and notions of racial superiority that traction in the clinical mainstream and these ideas worked their way into education policy with the aim of creating and maintaining a labour force that is to tear and are deliberately undereducated black population to undereducated black population to fill the menial jobs white British people did not want and the miscarriage of justice took place in the 1960s and 1970s.

Hundreds of black, mostly Caribbean children, were wrongly sent to schools that were meant for pupils with severe physical and mental disabilities. These schools had existed through the 1940s due to be 1944 Education Act. Provision of appropriate Act. Provision of appropriate schools for children with mental and physical disabilities. By the late 1960s, almost 30% of pupils in ESM schools in London black immigrant children compared to mainstream schools. It is clear the decisions were being made by teachers, educational psychologist, local education authorities to place the children in the ESN schools for reasons other than mental and reasons other than mental and physical disabilities.

The parents were aware that their children were being forced to struggle against the racist system but most were isolated, not given the information that they did to make informed decisions on their child bots education and it was not until an inner London report was leaked that revealed the true extent of this issue. A Grenadian educator took the initiative to write a groundbreaking pamphlet on how the West African child is made educationally subnormal and making the accessible accessible to parents and communities.

Mass community mobilisation as a result of the pamphlet inspired parents and community organisations to campaign against the now undeniable institutional racism in British schools that forced the government to respond and these schools were eventually shut down in the early 1980s. Published in March 1985, the Swann Report confirmed the court analysis that the persistence of analysis that the persistence of racist stereotypes, biased IQ test, a deep misunderstanding of culture and language, biases in teacher expectations, disciplinary practices, curricular content were creating significant barriers to education for black children.

It challenged the racist myths that black children were less intelligent than white counterparts and recognised the structural racism embedded in the British educational system was disadvantaging them. An adequate support for pupils with English as a second language and the lack of diversity in the curriculum and significant discontent between schools and parents from ethnic minority backgrounds were identified as the barriers to black children achieving full academic potential. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I commend the honourable lady for bringing this debate forward. I had spoken to her earlier and asked spoken to her earlier and asked permission to intervene. I checked up on this and there is a clear case up on this and there is a clear case and does the honourable Lydia not and does the honourable Lydia not agree that the strides that have been taken since the report are substantial but the learning must substantial but the learning must continue as we strive to continue to continue as we strive to continue to ensure each of us receive the best education, incorporating our own ethnic background that the rich cultural heritage that we all have.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Things are better but there is still a lot to do. I thank the honourable member for the intervention. As I will say the intervention. As I will say the intervention. As I will say later on, while he thinks things have improved, I will say they have not for lots of black children in not for lots of black children in the education system. The report produced several key recommendations including the pacifying and decolonising the curriculum, more diversity in teacher recruit, diversity in teacher recruit, antiracism training, more resources for language support, better data collection and monitoring, a better approach to working with parents and community to build trust, encourage active participation in the education of pupils.

Predictably, the Thatcher government did little to progress these recommendations, however, the mixed Labour government took some of the lessons learned as a framework for the Race Relations a framework for the Race Relations To include schools to promote racial equality. We barriers exist in education with disparities, education attainment, the school to prison pipeline, the issues with making black pupils adult, the need for an antiracist curriculum. Today's patterns of racism, segregation, exclusion in education have the right from the politics and attitudes that drove the ESN scandal and the closure of the skills led to a dramatic expansion in the use of exclusion and began to see higher numbers incarcerated in prison and numbers incarcerated in prison and the expansion of the use of sets and Phil denied the opportunity to progress, and call and going to university.

The Pupil Referral Unit is recognised as another method of systematic exclusion from education and the use of PRUs are a symptom of a failure of the education system. An education system that does not respond with care and support as an education system that is broken. The number of exclusions have soared in recent years with children as young as five kicked out of school and Draconian behavioural policies impacting disproportionately poor children and those living in care and those from black, Caribbean, and those from black, Caribbean, mixer, Gypsy Roma back.

The recommendations of the Swann Report are more important today and we must take this opportunity to update the lessons learned and apply them to the current system. The societal impact is still relevant today, as it was in the 1960s and 1970s. Lessons must be learned on the 40th anniversary of the Swann Report to put an end to the systemic discrimination. Evidence of this with children forced needlessly into the ESN schools is scarce but we know misclassification has impact on survivors and some of them are joining us today in the gallery and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for all of their work in exposing the scandal and campaigning to raise awareness of the racial injustice that they have suffered.

This has already been a huge difference. They have my commitment to keep fighting for the just assigned dignity that they deserve. We heard from some of the survivors at the event I held in survivors at the event I held in parliament, from now -- Noel Gordon who was diagnosed as being educationally subnormal applicant was diagnosed with sickle cell and he was viewed by children and Abbey from still and his mother fought tooth and nail to get him out of detention but to no avail.

He has achieved several qualifications since, including a degree. We heard from natural creative who described how she needed support with academic how she needed support with academic skills and her stutter that those resources were systematically denied to young black children. She was a victim of the system then and now and she told us that if you receive the proper education, she might have resumed her dreams and migrated to Jamaica. She was wrongly classified as educationally subnormal.

Renee as educationally subnormal. Renee Stevens was expelled from a mainstream secondary school after being assaulted by his teacher and sent to a school which neglected his academic development and left school with no qualifications. Deprived of an education and support, she is -- he has now spent 18 years in the criminal justice system and forced to abandon his dream of being the head chef at the Savoy hotel. He says he continues to struggle with this title discrimination as a direct consequence of being denied secondary education.

Another victim described how in her innocence as a young girl she realised her school was different to other schools and members challenging her educational psychologist and how the experience now helps as a children's social worker to help children in similar positions who are vulnerable. This is a historic injustice. Most who went direct left school at 16 or earlier, unable to read, write, count, denied the opportunity to thrive and achieve full potential. Survivors of ESN have issues with self-worth and problems obtaining meaningful and well-paid work after being denied an education.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the member of giving way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the member of giving way and for the excellent speech he is giving. Would she recognise that giving. Would she recognise that many brave black parents in the late 1960s earlier that that recognised 1960s earlier that that recognised the abominable way that they were treated and people who led the campaign against the policy in campaign against the policy in Haringey, and at that time those children were unfairly treated and classified in the way that she has described, and we should pay tribute to the brave work because those families suffered abuse because they stood up for their rights.

This is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

testament to the effort that they put in all of those years ago. I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for the intervention and I agree in terms of the amazing work that all of those families were involved in of those families were involved in to try to seek justice and to enable their children to fulfil their full potential and that needs to be recognised. Problems accessing well-paid work denied and the well-paid work denied and the financial hardship they continue to face because of barriers to better face because of barriers to better education and the impact this has had on their families.

A few have succeeded in the face of adversity, dealing qualifications and better jobs, but this is a testimony to their strength and determination and they should never have had to struggle in this way. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise those whose campaigning help to get us here today as well as the incredible campaigners who were misclassified as ESN who are fighting for justice and my thanks go to Bernard Cord, who pioneered this campaign and the educator Gus John and to all the parents and communities who organised and fought for change for children to receive fair and equal treatment and to thrive achieve their full potential.

And the incredible group who shone a light on the interstices on the current system of exclusion and challenging the racist policies and educational segregation that was driving the school to prison pipeline. I want to recognise the work of Francis Swain in the pursuit of justice for survivors and to the Professor Bradley Thomas, and Professor Christine Callender for pioneering work in the area as well as the incredible work of journalist and producer Natalia and Steve McQueen for exposing this with the BBC documentary, 'Subnormal Colon British Scandal'.

We have seen just how crucial film and television can be in bringing miscarriages of justice to life and I hope the city will prove to be true here and that the momentum from this campaign and these drummers will secure justice for -- dramas. Your justice for those impacted and prevent the same races sapling today and I hope the Minister will join me in recognising the role that was done to the the role that was done to the survivors of ESNB.

A public inquiry is necessary to secure justice for the victims of these discriminatory policies and also for us to understand how systemic racism and discrimination take hold in the current education system and how we The survivors are calling on the government to give due consideration to a public enquiry. And for decades on from the first public report into racism in education, to learn the lessons of the past and secure justice for all whose lives were impacted and continue to suffer.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Thank you. And I congratulate the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. And I congratulate the honourable member for Liverpool Riverside in securing this important
19:47
Catherine McKinnell Portrait Catherine McKinnell MP, Minister of State (Education) (Newcastle upon Tyne North, Labour)
-
-
Riverside in securing this important debate and indeed timely on this 40th anniversary of the Swann Report. The report is a really important and stark reminder of the unacceptable treatment of young people, the majority of whom were from the Caribbean, inappropriately placed in so-called educationally subnormal schools during the 1960s and 70s. The honourable lady spoke passionately, sharing the experiences of Knoll, Maisie, Renee and Denise, ensuring that their voices are heard. The report also serves as a timely reminder to us serves as a timely reminder to us all of the mistakes that were made that must never be repeated and that we must never be complacent.

No children or young people today should suffer from the structural barriers and entrenched racism that held back many in previous generations. And that legacy prevails today. Let it be clear that there is no place for hate or prejudice in our education system, and this government is determined to root out structural inequality as well as direct discrimination to create a genuinely level playing field. We cannot reflect on the Swann Report without acknowledging the history of so-called educationally subnormal schools.

We owe it to the campaigners who expose this and refuse to accept that these children were somehow less capable but rather the victims of racism. People as the honourable lady mentioned like Bernard Court and more recently in this period it has quite rightly perceived renewed attention through the work of the filmmaker Sir Steve McQueen whose documentary subnormal, a British candle shed light on the impact of these policies. It's also sparked important conversations about the ongoing challenges faced by black and ethnic minority students in our education system.

Britain has made strides in tackling overt racist discrimination over the past half- century, but despite progress, there is no room for complacency or indeed self-congratulation, and that is why this government wants to ensure that whoever you are, wherever you come from, Britain is a country that will respect your contribution and will give you a fair chance to get on in life. And that's why we have our opportunity mission, which is to build opportunity for all by setting every child up for the best start in life, helping them to achieve and thrive at school, building skills and opportunity and growth and building family security too.

I will work on the opportunity mission will focus across government attention and collaboration on ensuring every child and young person truly believes that success belongs to them. And we are more committed to tackling the disparities in educational outcomes that persist than ever. The picture of education achievement across ethnic groups is complex, and different social economic and cultural factors contribute to this. Rental income levels, parental career and educational achievement, geography, family structure, and attitudes towards education within the family and wider community.

And while overall the outcomes of some ethnic groups now compare positively with national average outcomes, some groups, outcomes are significantly below average or worse than other groups throughout the education system, and that includes black Caribbean children. But one of the most significant factors affecting people attainment which cuts across all ethnicities is economic disadvantage. International studies show attainment has broadly improved or remained stable over the last 30 years. However we no disadvantaged pupils consistently perform significantly lower than their peers at all stages of education, and there is considerable attainment by region and ethnicity.

It's just not acceptable, and it's why this governance opportunity mission or breakdown barriers and that unfair link between background and success. We are determined to help all children achieve and thrive. High and rising standards of the heart of this mission, and the key to unlocking strong outcomes and will deliver these improvements through excellent teaching and leadership, high quality curriculum that seeks to deliver a rich and broad and inclusive and innovative curriculum that readies young people for life and for work, that reflects the issues and the diversities of our society, ensuring all children and young people are represented.

New rice teams and a system which removes the barriers to learning that hold far too many children back. The Department for Education acknowledges that some groups of children have a greater likelihood of exclusion than others. And though local context means that there are different patterns across the country, we are determined to get to grips with the causes of exclusions to ensure that every child, no matter their background, can succeed. And that's why before they commit to providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school.

We want to see early intervention in mainstream schools for all pupils, particularly those at risk of exclusion. And we are absolutely committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools and strengthening accountability by reforming OFSTED to enhance the inspection regime by replacing that single headline great with the report card system telling parents how schools are performing and providing pupil attendance and also of rolling.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One of the lessons that has been learned through the work that people have done with regard to the ESM have done with regard to the ESM scandal is the role of unconscious bias. And what we are hearing from bias. And what we are hearing from parents and from teachers and parents and from teachers and education psychologist is that unconscious bias of the same causes the exclusion themselves, one of the reasons for inquiries to look at the lessons from that that can be taken on board by OFSTED and other agencies in how we support and then address individual schools at the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moment in their practices. The honourable gentleman raises

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable gentleman raises an important point, and I think we have learnt a lot in the last 40 years about unconscious bias and its years about unconscious bias and its impact. And I will come unto the specific point he raises about the specific point he raises about the public enquiry, and also development that we've seen over the years that that we've seen over the years that have put the protections in place that we need to work to enforce. I that we need to work to enforce.

I want to first of all touch upon the challenges in the special educational needs and disability system today because we do have a clear commitment to addressing these, and we are prioritising early intervention and inclusive provision in mainstream settings because we know that early intervention is what will prevent unmet needs from escalating. It will support all children and young people to achieve their goals. It will prevent the gap in achievement from growing and really get that support the children at the very earliest stages so that the issues don't escalate in the future.

But underpinning our ambition to create a fairer society is the Equality Act 2010. Which enshrines in law that schools must not discriminate against a pupil in a number of respects because of their protected characteristics. Specifically part six chapter 1 prohibits schools from discriminating, harassing or victimising pupils in areas such as education, access to benefits, facilities, services, exclusion and other detriments, ensuring the fair treatment for all pupils. Additionally, the public sector duty equality duty requires schools to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations among all characteristics.

This is what will underpin the improvements that we need to see.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for giving way. And I thank my honourable friend from the thank my honourable friend from the side for the debate. She has made some important debates. I think there will be voices of people affected 30 years ago who have never affected 30 years ago who have never been heard. Does the Minister agree been heard. Does the Minister agree that the poverty and deprivation talks about the challenges that brings the educational standards also often prevents challenges in terms of having your voice heard terms of having your voice heard where there are problems, and on top of the Equality Act, she grew with me that one of the things we must make sure in making a system varies

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the voices can be heard where there are problems so people can speak out and know they are heard? The magenta embraces a really important point, and that's one of the reasons why we are so focused on early intervention. Particularly where children have experienced a more disadvantaged, socio-economic disadvantaged start to life. To help disadvantaged start to life. To help children find their voice so that they can speak up and can be part of they can speak up and can be part of the national conversation, which we the national conversation, which we bond for every child in our education system.

I'm conscious of time, and I wanted to address the specific point the honourable lady races of the public enquiry, and the races of the public enquiry, and the government doesn't currently plan to establish a public enquiry into the policy four surrounding the placement of children in schools for the second educationally subnormal in the 1960s and 70s. The 40th anniversary of the Swann Report, it really is a timely reminder to reflect on that progress that has been made, but also to ensure that mistakes made at that time must never be repeated.

To remind us that there are always ways in which we must go further to ensure that no children or young people today suffer from the structural barriers and entrenched racism that helped to many of our young people -- held too many back in previous generations. And I want to reassure that we are not complacent. We firmly believe that every child should know that success belongs to them, and that's what we must break down the barriers to opportunity for that we are committed to changing the school system so that every child can achieve and thrive, and I look forward to continuing to work with the honourable lady.

I will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. I think I maybe have a few seconds. I just wanted to ask my honourable friend whether you could provide some rationale in terms of why the government has not decided

**** Possible New Speaker ****

why the government has not decided to go down the route for a public enquiry. I think we're out of time, but I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think we're out of time, but I know the honourable lady, we are supposed to meet next week, so we supposed to meet next week, so we can discuss this in more detail when we have more time, but I do continue, look forward to continuing continue, look forward to continuing to work with the honourable lady to redress race disparities and to work

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on these issues that I know she is incredibly passionate about and rightly so. The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it,
10:59
None Portrait Oral questions: Wales
-

20:04
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page