Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting)

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Welcome back, and happy new year. The debate on Government amendment 204 to schedule 7 has already commenced.

Schedule 7

Transitional and saving provision relating to Part 5

Amendment proposed (this day): 204, in schedule 7, page 148, line 28, at end insert—

“10A (1) Where—

(a) a slavery and trafficking prevention order requires a person to notify the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in accordance with section 19 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (‘the 2015 Act’), and

(b) immediately before the day on which paragraph 53 of Schedule 6 comes into force, that requirement has not been complied with,

that requirement has effect, on and after that day, as a requirement to notify the Secretary of State.

(2) On and after the coming into force of paragraph 54 of Schedule 6, the reference in section 20(2)(g) of the 2015 Act (as amended by that paragraph) to a slavery and trafficking prevention order made on an application under section 15 of that Act by the Secretary of State includes a reference to such an order made on an application under that section by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.

(3) In this paragraph ‘slavery and trafficking prevention order’ has the same meaning as in the 2015 Act.

10B (1) Where—

(a) a slavery and trafficking risk order requires a person to notify the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in accordance with section 26 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (‘the 2015 Act’), and

(b) immediately before the day on which paragraph 56 of Schedule 6 comes into force, that requirement has not been complied with,

that requirement has effect, on and after that day, as a requirement to notify the Secretary of State.

(2) On and after the coming into force of paragraph 57 of Schedule 6, the reference in section 27(2)(g) of the 2015 Act (as amended by that paragraph) to a slavery and trafficking risk order made on an application under section 23 of that Act by the Secretary of State includes a reference to such an order made on an application under that section by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.

(3) In this paragraph ‘slavery and trafficking risk order’ has the same meaning as in the 2015 Act.”—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment contains transitional provision to ensure that, once the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 have been transferred to the Secretary of State, that Act continues to operate as intended.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Government amendment 204 is crucial to ensuring that functions currently performed by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 continue seamlessly after the powers are transferred to the Secretary of State. As part of the broader restructuring outlined in the Bill, those functions will be absorbed into the newly established fair work agency, which will take on the role of overseeing labour rights and enforcement activities.

It is essential that the transfer of these powers does not lead to any gaps in the enforcement of laws relating to modern slavery, human trafficking and labour exploitation. The GLAA has played a pivotal role in investigating and combating labour abuse, particularly in high-risk sectors such as agriculture, horticulture and construction. By ensuring the smooth continuation of these functions under the fair work agency, we are reinforcing our commitment to protecting vulnerable workers and ensuring that modern slavery offences are actively pursued.

Moreover, the amendment will guarantee that the dedicated focus on tackling labour exploitation is preserved even as responsibilities shift. The fair work agency will now serve as the central body for enforcing these laws, and it is critical that its operations are fully equipped to carry forward the work done by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, particularly in investigating and preventing cases of modern slavery.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister for a more detailed assessment of how the creation of the fair work agency will enhance our ability to identify and prevent modern slavery offences. Given the increasing complexity of labour exploitation and the fact that modern slavery offences often take place in hidden, clandestine environments, the need for a robust, dedicated enforcement body is more pressing than ever.

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz, and I wish you a happy new year too. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I will not detain the Committee long, as I think the support from Opposition Members for the amendment is clear. Before lunch, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked how this measure will make things more effective. I refer him to the evidence given by a number of stakeholders, including the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, Margaret Beels, who explained that the current fragmented system makes it difficult to ensure that intelligence is shared correctly. The hon. Member for Bridgwater used the word “clandestine”. A lot of the people engaged in labour market abuses are operating under the radar, and therefore anything we can do to ensure that intelligence is shared and resources are combined has to be a good thing, so that these abuses are stamped out.

Amendment 204 agreed to.

Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

New clause 48 introduces the schedule to be inserted by new schedule 3, which in turn amends the Seafarers Wages Act 2023 to give the Secretary of State power to make regulations specifying conditions relating to the wages and working conditions of seafarers who work on ships providing the services currently covered by that Act. Those conditions are enforceable in the same way as existing provisions of the Act. Amendment 208 is consequential on new schedule 3. Amendment 207 states the extent of the new chapter to be formed by new clause 48 and new schedule 3, extending it United Kingdom-wide. Amendment 206 is consequential.

New clause 52 inserts into the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations to give effect to the maritime labour convention, adopted on 23 February 2006, to the work in fishing convention, adopted on 14 June 2007, and to future international agreements that relate to the employment of masters and seamen.

Let me turn to the substance. As I said, the maritime labour convention was adopted on 23 February 2006, and the work in fishing convention on 14 June 2007, so the first question is why the then Labour Government did not see fit to introduce provision in legislation in the first place? Will the Minister explain why it is necessary to legislate to give the Secretary of State sweeping powers to

“by regulations make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of giving effect”

to those two conventions? Precisely what regulations are needed?

Will the Minister give the Committee specific examples of the regulations that the Government intend to make under this power, and justify them? I do not think it is good enough for us to be in this position. Notwithstanding the usual comments the Minister makes about not predetermining consultations and about talking to stakeholders at a later point, this is one of those areas where we need concrete examples of where he expects to go.

A key reason for my asking is that article IV of the maritime labour convention, on seafarers’ employment and social rights, states:

“1. Every seafarer has the right to a safe and secure workplace that complies with safety standards.

2. Every seafarer has a right to fair terms of employment.

3. Every seafarer has a right to decent working and living conditions on board ship.

4. Every seafarer has a right to health protection, medical care, welfare measures and other forms of social protection.”

Will the Minister explain which of the rights I just outlined are not already enforceable under United Kingdom law? Is there difficulty with implementing any of the implementation and enforcement responsibilities in article V?

Will the Minister further explain whether any of the provisions of the work in fishing convention are currently unenforceable under United Kingdom law—I seek just one example—and if so, what specific changes would be needed to enforce them? I ask because I do not think that is clear from any of the new clauses, the new schedule or the amendments that we are considering in this group.

New clause 52 also takes sweeping powers for the Secretary of State, who can make regulations that

“may make provision in respect of the checking or monitoring of compliance with any provision of the regulations, including (among other things) provision for—

(a) the making and keeping of records and the keeping of documents;

(b) the issue of certificates;

(c) the furnishing of information.”

What on earth is encompassed by “the furnishing of information”? That seems like a very vague term to be put on to the statute book. To what intrusive or burdensome use is the Secretary of State planning to put this power? Precisely what does the Minister mean by it?

To convince the Committee that these powers are necessary, can the Minister name one occasion on which the Government’s ability to enforce the provisions of the maritime labour convention has been found wanting, and in what respect? If such an example exists, could the Government better target the powers in proposed new section 84B(4) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to actually solve the problem, rather than allow a Government free-for-all?

This is not a trivial matter, as proposed new section 84B(5) allows the Government to

“provide for the detention of a ship in respect of which a contravention of the regulations is suspected to have occurred”.

Will the Minister explain how long such a detention might last? How great an infraction would need to have been committed for a ship to be detained?

As if the Government had not hoarded enough power through this new clause, proposed new section 84B(8) contains the real kicker, stating that regulations may

“make different provision for different purposes”.

Will the Minister explain the limits on this power? That language is far too woolly and loose to be contained in any piece of primary legislation in this country.

I also do not think it is appropriate that regulations to

“make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of giving effect to an international agreement that has been ratified by the United Kingdom, so far as the agreement relates to maritime employment”

should be subject to the negative procedure. The regulations apply to international agreements that have not yet been entered into. Parliament should at least be guaranteed the ability to debate regulations that implementing such agreements. Otherwise, proposed new section 84B(13) is the very definition of a blank cheque.

The Government tabled new clause 52 just in time for debate today; we have been given very little opportunity to scrutinise it. Given the powers it takes for Ministers, I gently suggest that that is discourteous to the House. The least the Minister can do is provide answers to each of the questions I have posed, so that we are able to understand a little better whether the new clause is even necessary and to what use Ministers actually intend to put the powers.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The maritime labour convention, which was adopted on 23 February 2006, and the work in fishing convention, adopted on 14 June 2007, represent significant international agreements aimed at improving the working conditions and rights of seafarers and those working in the fishing industry. However, despite their adoption many years ago, the provisions in those conventions have not yet been fully legislated for within the UK framework.

One must ask why the previous Labour Government did not introduce this crucial provision into UK law during their time in office. The conventions were in existence long before the current Government came to power, and it is concerning that they were not prioritised earlier. What led to that omission, and why has it taken so long to bring them into the scope of our legislation? Given the importance of these rights, we must understand why it has taken so long for the Government to act on these matters.

New clause 52, which grants the Secretary of State broad and sweeping powers to, by regulations,

“make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of giving effect”

to the maritime labour convention and the work in fishing convention, raises several questions. I would like to understand more about why it is deemed necessary to grant such wide-reaching power to the Secretary of State. Specifically, why does this provision allow for the creation of regulations that give the Secretary of State the authority to determine what should be done without offering a clear, predefined set of actions? It is important to explore whether such overreach is truly necessary and what specific circumstances justify such broad powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

This is probably one of the meatier amendments that the official Opposition has tabled—[Interruption.] As bits of the Palace fall down around us, it may be symbolic of the Bill. [Interruption.] I am glad I missed whatever the quip back on that was.

New clause 19 and amendment 116 would require the Secretary of State to consult on the operation of trade union legislation. We have heard a lot during this Committee about the need to consult, but we are missing the crucial bit about consulting on the actual operation of the trade union legislation.

New clause 19 would require the Secretary of State to consult precisely on the operation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the effects of provisions in part 4 of the Bill on that operation. The second limb of new clause 19 is for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament the outcome of that consultation and the Government’s proposals for changes to the legislation. We would like to ensure that part 4 cannot come into force until that has been done.

Why are new clause 19 and amendment 116 needed? We have seen pages of Government amendments tabled in Committee because the Bill was introduced to the House before it was ready and before the Government had done the necessary policy work to determine what should be in it—all in a rush to meet the arbitrary 100-day deadline rashly proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister. It is not often that I agree with the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, but there were reports before the election that even she thought that was an unrealistic deadline, and events have proven her correct. It may embarrass the Minister or make him a little awkward every time I raise this point, but that will not stop me from stating the facts.

Part 4 of the Bill is an enormous expansion of the power of trade unions. These measures have not been consulted on and will have an enormous impact on not just businesses, but the efficiency of private and public sector employers, with all the associated costs. There is a strange doublespeak between the Government’s stated aims for the Bill and its likely consequences. The Government’s impact assessment says:

“The objectives of the Bill are to…Improve industrial relations and reducing the number of days lost to strike action by allowing working people to organise collectively through trade unions and improving the legislative framework in which they operate.”

How can the Government believe that the Bill will reduce the days lost to strike action when part 4 specifically takes measures to make strike action easier? For example, it makes it easier for unions to be recognised by removing the requirement for a union to demonstrate that the proposed bargaining unit is 10% of its membership on application to the Central Arbitration Committee and replaces it with references to the “required percentage test”, which will surely make strike action more likely. Part 4 also requires the Central Arbitration Committee to declare a trade union as recognised for collective bargaining purposes where the result of the ballot shows that a majority of those voting were in favour of union recognition. The additional requirement for the union to have at least 40% support in the bargaining unit has been deleted. That is why this consultation needs to be laid before part 4 can come into force.

We then come to the changes to ballot thresholds, which seem specifically designed to make it more, not less, likely that more days will be lost to industrial action.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Surely not.

[Greg Smith]

From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Bill removes the requirement for at least 50% of trade union members entitled to vote to do so for an industrial action ballot to be valid. It also removes the requirement for trade unions in important public services to obtain the support of at least 40% of members entitled to vote in the ballot for industrial action to be successful and replaces that with a simple majority of those voting, with no requirements for any level of turnout. Can the Minister explain how that will make industrial action less likely?

Surely making it easier for trade unions to gain a mandate for strike action by removing sensible thresholds imposed by the previous Conservative Government will make strike action more likely, which is contrary to the Government’s stated aims for the Bill. That is why it is so important for the consultation in new clause 19 to be laid before the House. That contradiction between the Government’s stated intentions for part 4 and the result of the Bill, which is likely to be the opposite, is the first reason we believe the Government need to enact a proper consultation to prove that the Bill will work, which they should have done before introducing the Bill in the first place.

Employment Rights Bill (Eighteenth sitting)

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. As always, I will start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Following the reference to illumination, I hope to shed light on the advantages of a fair work agency.

We have heard a fair amount of criticism from the Opposition Benches about the suggestion that we set up an advisory board. The shadow Minister asked whether a Member of Parliament could apply to be on it. I do not think that it is entirely clear whether they could. I do not know whether the prohibitions on second jobs for MPs have that scenario in mind, but I imagine that it could fall within the prohibition relating to advising on areas of policy. I also hope that all Members are fully engaged in their day-to-day work of representing their constituents and will not feel it necessary to apply. Indeed, we will play a role here in scrutinising the work of the fair work agency. Given the comments of the hon. Member for Bridgwater, he will not be making an application, in any event.

On the point that academics could also be members of a trade union and could therefore fit into more than one category, anyone in a free society is entitled to join a trade union should they wish to do so. We would not want to make it a condition for job applicants to have to state their trade union membership—that is a slightly McCarthyist road to go down—but members of the Low Pay Commission are already required to declare any interests, including membership of trade unions or political parties. There is an opportunity for transparency in that sense.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield says, the pro forma definitions in the Bill are not novel interpretations. They are tried and tested definitions—I would like to say “trusted” as well, but it is clear that the hon. Member for Bridgwater does not trust us to operate them in the way they have operated in the past—of how people are appointed to such bodies. As has been noted, they have worked successfully for the Low Pay Commission for a quarter of a century.

The shadow Minister was accused of over-egging the pudding, but the hon. Member for Bridgwater broke enough eggs in his criticisms to feed us all for the next month. I think he suggested that we did not need an advisory board at all, which suggests that he does not believe it important that the voice of business have input into the work of the fair work agency. He also said that we did not need more reports, which is one of the roles of the advisory board, and yet only a couple of hours ago he voted for a report into the application of the fair work agency. What he was getting at is that if we have to have this, we need to be assured that there is no jiggery-pokery about who will be appointed to it.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. The point I was aiming to make is that there is no shortage of free advice from trade unions, employers and independent experts, so there is no need to set up a board to pay people to give advice that is freely available. The Secretary of State should simply take political responsibility for the choices he makes, rather than having advice collected together by a board and passed back to him.

[Justin Madders]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but this is about how we intend to deal with industrial relations and the workplace in future—the tripartite arrangement, where we get everyone in the room, so they can agree or put different points of view. As has been demonstrated successfully by the Low Pay Commission, that results in the right balance, which is good for the economy and good for workers. It results in settlements that everyone can agree with.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 177 to 182 and 205.

Government new clause 49—Information relating to the intelligence services, etc.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

On a point of order, Sir Christopher. It is my belief that you have not put Government amendments 91, 94 and 96 to the Committee.

[The Chair]

The reason we have not done that is because we have not yet reached them. We have to do things in order. Government amendment 94, for example, is an amendment to clause 83, and we have not reached clause 83 yet. However, I am always very grateful for advice from hon. Members because nobody in this room is infallible.

Employment Rights Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Would everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on the declaration of interests, as set out in the code of conduct.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Mundell. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I seek your guidance on the status of a document circulated to Members by the Scrutiny Unit. It says it is submitted by a Professor Mitie, but I believe that the document is in fact from Mitie, the organisation, and perhaps we do not know its author. Could I ask that we be told who the author is? It is Professor Somebody Else, I suspect. The document also has tracked changes in it, and I seek your guidance on whether those are comments inserted by the Scrutiny Unit or, perhaps, by the author. It is sometimes difficult to know when documents are circulated at the last minute.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Sir Ashley, for giving notice of that point of order. The issue you have raised is obviously on the record. It will be raised with the Scrutiny Unit and there will be a report back to the Committee on the outcome of that inquiry.

Clause 72

Enforcement of labour market legislation by Secretary of State

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The Minister is talking about granting officials of the state extensive powers currently reserved to police officers. Can he tell us how many additional officials will be granted those additional powers?

[Justin Madders]

What we are doing is transferring existing powers and responsibilities from the existing agency. There are no new police-style powers being created for these officers; it is simply a transfer over to the fair work agency.

Clause 72 is key to delivering the much-needed upgrade to the enforcement of workers’ rights so that it is more effective and fair for workers and businesses. It brings together enforcement functions currently split between several different enforcement agencies and gives the fair work agency the flexibility to respond to a rapidly changing labour market. I commend the clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

I know from my surgeries and casework in Torbay that discrimination is sadly alive and well. I ask the Minister to reflect on some of the evidence from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which talked about the provision leading to fragmentation and the possibility of some of its standard work falling between two stools. What reassurances can the Minister give that the good work will proceed appropriately either through the fair work agency, or in a partnership approach with the Equality and Human Rights Commission?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I want to speak in support of new clause 23 and to ask the Minister whether he is familiar with Parkinson’s law. It states that the number of workers in any public administration will tend to grow over time, regardless of the quantity of work done. The corollary is that work expands to fill the time available for its completion.

Although Conservative Members are in favour of the creation of the fair work agency, there is a risk that, over time, it will seek to have more staff and more power, will consume a great deal more of taxpayers’ money and resources, and will impose more on employers’ time, without great result. That is why a review is necessary. We want to ensure that any new authority is lean and efficient. We also want the Government to take the same approach to regulations.

Unfortunately, the Bill is a hefty document. It will impose £5 billion-worth of costs on employers, which will probably result in fewer people being employed, higher inflation and lower growth. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for the Opposition to ask the Government to reflect after 18 months and ascertain whether they can find anything in this weighty tome that they could do better or more efficiently.

The working time directive is immensely complicated and imposes burdensome record keeping on employers. In the past, it has resulted in retained firefighters in rural areas having to count the time when they sit at home, not doing anything, as working time. It has been a difficult and troublesome measure, and perhaps my party should have done more to simplify it when we were in office, but that is not an excuse for the Government to say, “Because you didn’t do enough, we intend to do nothing.” It is reasonable for us to ask the Government, at the end of 18 months, to take another look and see whether they can do anything to reduce the burden on businesses.

[Justin Madders]

I am beginning to wonder whether the Opposition’s support for the fair work agency is as strong as I thought. They now appear to want to make sure that creating it is the right thing do, despite its featuring regularly in Conservative manifestos and despite the support of the breadth of stakeholders who gave evidence to the Committee. The current Director of Labour Market Enforcement made it clear in her evidence to the Committee that the creation of the fair work agency would make her role much easier and more effective. She spoke about the recommendations in her most recent report:

“The ones that relate to having a better joined-up approach, to greater efficiency and to better sharing of information among bodies are the things that I think the fair work agency will do a lot better.” ––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 153, Q159.]

I think that almost half of the recommendations from her most recent report contained an element of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I hear what the Minister says in his explanation of the clause. Often, advisory boards are perfectly good and useful bodies, but I return to my earlier point that where a power rests with a Secretary of State, the accountable body to which any Secretary of State must submit themselves is the House of Commons, where they are a Member, or the House of Lords, in the rare case that they sit in the other place. Parliament is the advisory body—the critical friend—that the Secretary of State should submit themselves to.

However, accepting that an advisory board is going to be established, I want to ask the Minister about its make-up. While the Bill seems to be quite clear, there are some gaps, and some unanswered questions that the public, businesses, employees and the trade union movement will no doubt wish to have answered.

Probably the clearest definition in clause 75(4) is that in paragraph (a):

“persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of trade unions”.

I think we can all understand that that means representatives of the trade union movement.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

There are 10 of them over there.

[Greg Smith]

There is my first question, prompted by my hon. Friend: does that include right hon. and hon. Members of Parliament who themselves are members of trade unions? Could that be the case?

We are less clear on paragraphs (b) and (c). Paragraph (b) states:

“persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of employers”.

That is a far less easily defined body of people. On the one hand, I can hear some potentially arguing that that is the representative bodies that gave evidence to the Committee, such as the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors. That would be a legitimate answer, until somebody came forward and made a compelling case that, as an individual employer, they should be considered to sit on the board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

I am concerned about the heavy weather that colleagues on the Opposition Benches are making of this. For me, this measure is about driving a positive culture in employment, and the board’s balance is entirely appropriate. I welcome the clause.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

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

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

[Michael Wheeler]

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

[Sir Ashley Fox]

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

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

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

[The Chair]

Mr McCluskey is now a constituent of mine.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Mr Mundell, you are as fortunate as Mr McCluskey.

I am sure that those are just the independent experts that the Secretary of State will be considering appointing to this board. This highlights another crucial point: the Government designation of independent experts is incredibly vague. The Government define “independent expert” as anyone who is neither a trade union representative nor an employer representative. There is no requirement in the Bill for someone to have any particular expertise; they just must not fall into one of those two categories. Nowhere does it say that that expert cannot be a member of a trade union; nowhere does it say that they cannot be a former leader of a trade union; nowhere does it detail what qualifications or experience these experts are expected to bring. Let us not forget that these experts will be paid substantial sums of money—potentially hundreds of pounds per day—and the Government want us to take it on trust that they will be appointing the best people for the job.

As is often the case with such bodies, it is not a risk, but a total certainty that the advisory board will be appointed disproportionately to represent one end of the political spectrum. I suspect the Government will make every effort to ensure that those appointed align with the views they already hold—or, if we have a board of nine, that at least eight of them are firmly in the camp of the Labour party. The most likely outcome in my view is that this board will be packed with individuals whose perspectives on labour markets are perfectly aligned with Government policy and with the trade unions that this Government represent. It might be more straightforward for the Government simply to ask the TUC for instructions on how to go ahead, rather than to go through this cumbersome and expensive process. It would certainly cost the taxpayer less, and I would argue it would be more honest too. The fact is that this board’s purpose seems more to provide a cover for a Government agenda that is already in place than to genuinely provide diverse input. It looks like an expensive way to present the façade of consultation without delivering anything meaningful at all.

If the idea of this surplus of readily available advice was not bad enough, we have not started to talk about the cost of setting up this quango and the board. Having served on two public bodies, I know that advisory bodies are expensive and time-consuming ventures that require significant administrative resources in terms of staff, time and finance. Not only do the members of those bodies need to be compensated—perhaps the Minister will advise us whether they will be paid £300 a day, or £400 or £500 a day—but there is also the cost of setting up the selection process, conducting interviews and managing the day-to-day operation of the body. We are talking about at least nine members being appointed—probably more—which will consume considerable amounts of civil service time and taxpayers’ money. The selection process alone will involve a long list of procedures: advertising positions, longlisting, shortlisting, interviewing, and ultimately appointing the individuals—all, inevitably, to end up with the appointment of the nine people that the Secretary of State wanted to appoint in the first place.

What will this board ultimately do? It will advise the Secretary of State on drafting a strategy. We all know how these things go: the result will be a glossy document full of attractive photographs, distributed widely to people who will never read it, and it will have little or no practical impact on the ground. It will be yet more time and money wasted by this Government. We do not need more reports or strategies; we do not need an advisory board. Labour market rules are already there and they need to be enforced. The person responsible politically is the Secretary of State. He should take responsibility for the political decisions he makes in enforcing those laws, and not hide behind an advisory body.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Anna McMorrin.)

Employment Rights Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling]

I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman is taking a Panglossian approach that all in the world is perfect. It is far from perfect, which is why I welcome large tracts of the Bill, as long as we are supporting employers on the journey.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher.

I rise to speak in support of Opposition amendments 113 to 115 and new clause 18. These are modest proposals to ameliorate the additional costs and burdens that the Bill is will place on employers and the public sector. It seems extraordinary that the Government want to introduce this new facility time without any thought about what the cost will be. It strikes me that the measures the Government are bringing forward are simply a bung to their trade union friends to provide extra money to employ extra trade union officials to do work that genuinely does not need doing.

The law is clear and should be enforced. We do not need the state to impose further burdens by employing trade union officials to effectively double up as Government inspectors. I shall therefore support the amendments and vote against the Government’s new clauses. A pattern is being followed through this Bill, whereby Ministers rise and say that each individual proposal is reasonable and modest, yet each one is an additional burden on the taxpayer and/or employers. The net result is £5 billion in additional costs, which will make this country less competitive, efficient, and effective.

[Justin Madders]

I will respond briefly to some of the points that have been made. I was asked why we need to put equality representatives on statutory footing. I think the hon. Member for Torbay gave just one example of the ongoing issues of discrimination in many workplaces up and down the country but, of course, this Bill also seeks to expand family friendly rights. Anyone who takes cognisance of local authority matters—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield does so more than most—will be aware that equal pay is still a huge issue in many local authorities. This is over 50 years since the Equal Pay Act 1970 was brought into force, so there is a strong case for allowing equality reps to bring their value to the workplace.

The amendment on performance targets is particularly unfair. In effect, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire is seeking to punish trade union members for the failings of their employer if they do not hit performance targets. None of those targets have been specified in the legislation. Perhaps it is a reflection of the fact that under his party’s Administration, most public services did not meet performance targets, and he was hoping that if they got back into power he would be able to use that to deny facility time to all trade union representatives.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does the Minister really expect us to believe that his Government has not costed these proposals? Does he believe that providing additional facility time to trade unions will improve public sector performance? What we have said is that in cases where Departments are not meeting their targets, the Department should use taxpayer money to meet those targets before granting additional facility time to trade union officials.

[Justin Madders]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point but I refer him to the impact assessment, which sets out the cost of these individual measures and their cumulative impact. For facility time, the amount is very small indeed. It has been green-rated by the Regulatory Policy Committee, and studies by the predecessor Department of the Department of Business and Trade showed that facilities time did lead to significant savings and reduced dismissals, reduced employment tribunals, reduced voluntary exits and enhanced productivity. We are talking about figures in the region of hundreds of millions of pounds here. I accept that it is an old study, but the principle remains the same. We heard repeatedly during evidence that strong engagement from trade unions is a good thing for employers, because it helps to engage the workforce and improve productivity. Therefore, I do not accept the premise of his argument.

Regarding the general thrust of what is coming from the Opposition about the use of facilities, the Trade Union Act 2016 was designed to make it more difficult for trade unions to perform their duties by increasing the amount of investigation and focus on their time, but the reported figures in terms of the percentage of the public sector pay bill were the same at the start of the reporting requirements as they were at the end, which was 0.07%—007; we are back to James Bond again. That shows that the requirements of the 2016 Act were simply burdens that added nothing. I therefore urge hon. Members to reject the Opposition amendments and to support the clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 51 and 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53

Blacklists: additional powers

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

Employment Rights Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I wish all colleagues a happy and prosperous new year.

I welcome these proposals. Only this weekend, I was speaking with a constituent in Torbay who told me that the unit he worked in had transferred out of the NHS and been taken over by the private sector. He was gravely concerned about sharp practices that he saw being undertaken by the new employer. My best advice to him was, “Have you engaged with the trade union on site? How can the trade union help you? If I can do anything to assist the trade union, I stand ready to help.”

Trade unions are a force for good in the workplace, and many of the proposals that we will discuss today will put us mid-range in the OECD on trade union rights. Far from the extremism that the Conservatives are painting us into a corner with, these measures will actually put us back on an even keel as a nation in our relations with trade unions, rather than something like third or fourth bottom among OECD countries in the rights that we give unions.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and I wish you and other colleagues a happy new year.

I want to follow on from the comments made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, and emphasise that the clause is completely pointless. Of course all workers have the right to join a trade union and the right not to join a trade union. Will the Minister outline the consequences for a small employer of not complying with the clause? Will there be a penalty? Will the employer be taken to a tribunal that can make a protective award? If there will not be a penalty, surely the clause is only performative, and just more evidence that the Government are doing what their trade union masters are telling them to.

Time and again in the Bill, we see measures that are small and inconsequential individually, but in total mount up to £5 billion of additional costs, most of them on small and medium-sized businesses. We see from surveys of business confidence that businesses are reeling under the imposition of additional taxes and of these rights, and the Government’s business-unfriendly stance. While the Minister talks about growth, the actions of his Government point to the very opposite. They believe that somehow they can regulate their way to growth. We start this new year with more regulation from the Government, none of which will contribute to the wealth and prosperity of our citizens.

[Justin Madders]

There was a mix of responses there. We heard from the hon. Member for Torbay that the Liberal Democrats welcome the clause, I think the shadow Minister was generally supportive, albeit not explicitly, and then the hon. Member for Bridgwater was fairly critical. I will address the points made by all three individuals.

The shadow Minister made a fair point that the frequency with which employees will have to be notified is important. That will be determined by the responses that we get to the consultation. Clearly, we do not want to make this measure too onerous, but we believe that it is important as a matter of principle that employees are aware of their right to join a trade union, for all the reasons that have been amply set out over many months and years.

On making it clear within a notification that the employee is not obliged to join a trade union, I am sure the shadow Minister is aware that the closed shop principle was abolished quite some time ago—possibly not even in his lifetime. [Interruption.] Well, possibly not; perhaps his rest over the Christmas period has made him look more youthful than he is. The precise wording of the notification will be set out in secondary legislation. I am sure it will not be worded in a way that indicates that there is a compulsion on individuals to join a trade union, but it is important that people know of the right.

In reference to the comments from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, I too have had many conversations with constituents who have notified me of issues with their workplace. I hope most Members respond with the question, “What has your trade union said about this?” When I ask that, quite often I get the response, “My employer doesn’t allow us to join a trade union.” That response is far too common for my liking. Evidence has been submitted to the Committee, particularly by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, about the lack of awareness of employees’ right to join a trade union. In a free society, we should be ensuring that people are aware of their rights.

On the points made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater, the consequences for not notifying an individual of this right will be the same as they currently are for failure to provide a statement of terms and conditions under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. It is not a free- standing claim on its own; it can be put on top of another employment tribunal claim, and the penalty can be between two and four weeks’ pay.

On the administrative burden, there is already prescribed in legislation a long list of matters about which the employer must notify the employee when they join in a statement of terms and conditions. Really, we are just adding this to that list. We think this is an important measure.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I think this comes together with day one employment rights. Take the example of a very small businessman or woman who takes someone on with no written contract, and within a week or two the employment does not work out and the employee is fired. They might be within a—what is the word for the period of time in the first few weeks of employment?

[Justin Madders]

Probation.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Probation period—thank you. It is early in the new year, Mr Mundell. That member of staff might be within their probation period, but if that is not specified in a written contract, that dismissal would be procedurally unfair, according to the Bill. If that same small businessman or woman has not notified the employee of their right to join a trade union, the Minister seems to be saying that the employee will get a protective award of another two to four weeks’ salary on top of that. Can he not see that for microbusinesses, the array of sanctions becomes threatening—many weeks’ wages, for a very short contract that did not work out—and that he threatens to make it very difficult and onerous for them to take on new employees?

[Justin Madders]

I understand the point the hon. Member makes. I do not think it is helpful to get into hypotheticals about what might or might not happen under the statutory probation system, given that we have not really fleshed out the details. That will happen in due course, but it is already the law that statements of terms and conditions are required to be presented to employees, I think within the first month. There is not an additional burden of extra paperwork that has to be delivered; this is already built into the system, in terms of ensuring that employees receive their statement of terms and conditions when they start employment.

On that note, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46

Right of trade unions to access workplaces

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

I think we have all followed with interest, and perhaps some entertainment, the shadow Minister’s embrace of red tape and pettifogging bureaucracy in as much as he wishes to apply that to trade unions. It is of course important to state that each trade union member has opted in to the political fund, has the right to opt out at any time and has a means of recourse, through the Certification Officer, if there is a complaint about any attempt to opt out that is not successful.

The comparison drawn by the shadow Minister was completely ill-founded. The amendment not only seeks to inform trade union members of their right to opt out of the political fund—that is already well understood—but requires them to continue to opt in annually. Throughout the history of the Conservative party’s relationship with trade unions, it has repeatedly sought to apply punitive legislation in respect of the political fund. That is what the amendment represents: it is nothing more than a transparent attack on the funding of the Labour party and on the wider political activities of trade unions.

Let us not forget that many trade union political funds are directed towards not only party political activity but welcome campaigns, including some taken up and implemented by the previous Conservative Government. I draw attention to one: the campaign to introduce the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. Had the amendment been in force, that Act would have been much harder to accomplish, and paramedics, prison officers and police officers assaulted in their line of duty would have had less recourse to legal protection.

I am sorry but, to return to the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles, this is a ridiculous amendment. Were it to be implemented, we would have to look closely to ensure that there was not a two-tier approach to donations made by other entities, such as publicly listed companies. Should there be a requirement for shareholders to be informed of, and be able to veto, any donation in furtherance of a political activity? What about other civil society organisations? That is an enormous can of worms that is not particularly pleasant to smell once opened up, and it is a naked and transparent political attack that should be given short shrift.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

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

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

[Michael Wheeler]

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

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

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

Employment Rights Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

They are.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

But some are more memorable than others.

[Greg Smith]

Some are definitely more memorable than others.

Amendment 168, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches, would change the matters that are within the remit of the school support staff negotiating body in relation to academy staff, limiting it to the creation of a framework to which academy employers must have regard in all but “exceptional circumstances”. I am sure that Government Members will agree to a moderate amendment in the spirit of what they seek to do.

As I said in the debate on clause 28, which introduces schedule 3, in 2010 the then Conservative Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, rightly abolished the school support staff negotiating body. The Conservative Government had a clear and principled reason for that: employers should have the flexibility to set pay and conditions locally, rather than having a top-down, centralised framework imposed on them. Instead of giving employers the flexibility to do what works best for them, this Government are establishing a national terms and conditions handbook on training, career progression routes and fair pay rates for school support staff.

These things can sometimes get taken out of context, so I want to be clear: we are not advocating for a race to the bottom on pay and conditions for school support staff, but we believe that the current arrangements are working well and have allowed for innovation that is beneficial for pupils—real children up and down the land receiving their education. Our worries about the re-establishment of the school support staff negotiating body are principally that we believe that school employers must retain a degree of freedom and flexibility to recruit, develop, remunerate and deploy their staff for the benefit of the children in their community—their setting—to achieve their particular aims from a school improvement and inclusion perspective.

Children with special educational needs and disabilities rely on schools’ ability to deploy staff to meet their individual needs, and stifling innovation in staffing to meet those needs would be the greatest barrier to reforming the SEND system. In particular, ensuring that mainstream provision can meet the needs of SEND children requires, in its very essence, an innovative use of support staff resource.

As I have said in previous debates, I salute all support staff, whether they support children with SEND or other- wise. They are great assets to every school who do an enormous amount of good work for every child they work with on a daily basis—I am thinking of the example given earlier by the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield, and the way in which they interact with and support my own children in their schools in Buckinghamshire. They are hugely important, but this is about ensuring local decision making, local flexibility and the local ability to shape what is right for children’s education, development and future life prospects.

For those reasons, we believe that the statist approach created by the Bill is fundamentally misguided, and that children, particularly those with additional needs, could be worse off because of it. All school employers operate in a competitive market to attract and retain staff. I accept that in the education world it is currently particularly difficult to recruit teachers and support staff—there is no doubt that that has been a challenge for a considerable number of years—but, particularly in relation to support staff, schools compete with other local establishments, including in the private sector, and employers in local markets. Incentives to attract and retain staff are needed.

Our concerns with the re-establishment of the school support staff negotiating body do not end there. Academy trusts sign a funding agreement with the Secretary of State that gives them certain freedoms, among which is the ability to set pay and conditions for staff. What the Government are trying to do with the Bill is therefore to unpick a clear, established and positive freedom that academy trusts have. To take that away from them would be a retrograde step. The Bill explicitly overrides that contract. As for school support staff, it states:

“Where the person is employed by the proprietor of an Academy, any provision of the Academy arrangements relating to the Academy has no effect to the extent that it makes provision that is prohibited by, or is otherwise inconsistent with, the agreement.”

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition worry that this is just the start of the Government’s longer-term mission to unwind academy freedoms, and that it shows that they fail to understand how to support educational excellence.

The data on key stage 4 performance recently released by the Department for Education shows that academies and free schools tend to perform better than other types of school. We therefore believe that it would be counterproductive to unwind one of the key tenets that has led them to where they are today. There is always room for improvement, but when things are travelling in the right direction it is foolish to put barriers up. Our amendment would change the SSSNB’s remit so as to create a framework that academies must have regard to but are not compelled to follow. That seems a reasonable compromise, and I ask the Government to consider it carefully.

In this context—we are all creatures of our own experience—I think particularly of examples from my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire and the county of Buckinghamshire more widely. I think I brought up this example in relation to other sectors in earlier Committee sittings. Because the county of Buckinghamshire borders London boroughs, rigid pay scales make recruitment an even greater challenge, because of the London weighting issue. Many teaching assistants, school support staff and, frankly, staff in any sector—we will come to adult social care later in the Bill, and care workers are equally affected—who live in Buckinghamshire and perhaps want to work there feel compelled to go and get the extra money that the London weighting would bring by applying for a job in, say, the London boroughs of Hillingdon or Harrow. Nobody can blame them for doing that, but it creates a recruitment challenge for Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Essex, Kent, Surrey and other London-bordering counties.

The amendment seeks to correct for what the Government are trying to do with schedule 3, and so to maintain the freedom that allows academies in Buckinghamshire and those other counties to dynamically adapt their pay and offering for school support staff and counter those challenges. It would mean that schools in Buckinghamshire that want to employ people who want to work in Buckinghamshire can get them on board, rather than there being a false incentive that forces people to take jobs in one of the London boroughs and secure the London weighting that goes with them. That is one practical example of why I believe that academies, and free schools for that matter, should have that core freedom and flexibility to get it right for their children.

Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman says that the great educational experiment has not worked, but would he not acknowledge the significant improvement in our children’s ability to read, write and do mathematics over the past 14 years? Scores in the programme for international student assessment show that standards of reading, writing and mathematics have improved enormously in England—although they have regrettably fallen in Scotland, for reasons we can imagine. I am really proud of the achievements of the coalition and later Conservative Governments in improving educational standards. The freedom granted to academies—the freedom to innovate and to employ staff on the terms and conditions that they wish—has been critical in that, but the Government are rolling back those freedoms. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the educational achievements of the past 14 years?

[Laurence Turner]

That was quite a generous amount of time for an intervention. The hon. Member may wish to go back to the record, because the point I made was that the experiment over pay and terms and conditions has failed. The challenge to the Opposition was: do they recognise that there is a serious problem with school support staff remuneration and contracts? If they do, what are their proposals to fix it? I would be willing to take a second intervention on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Uma Kumaran]

The school support staff negotiating body—to stick to the Bill—is an important part of the Bill and will help to ensure standardised fair pay and employment terms across the board, addressing not only local but regional disparities.

School support staff make a massive contribution to the running of our schools. Just last Friday, I visited the Odessa school in Forest Gate in my constituency, which has an above-average intake of SEND pupils, and I saw at first hand the contribution the support staff made. That is why the Bill, and this clause, are so important—because those staff, too, deserve to have their contributions properly recognised through a negotiating body. At present, their job profiles are out of date, opportunities for professional development are poor and the work they do often goes largely unrecognised or unnoticed. The SSSNB can play a major part in tackling the recruitment and retention crisis across our schools.

I do not think anyone could look at our current approach to school staff and say it is a functioning system—that is certainly not what I hear from teachers when I visit local schools. Local support staff have told me the hardships they are under, and the TUC has shared a report with us showing that one in eight workers use food banks, a quarter take second jobs and half are actively looking to leave their role because they cannot make ends meet.

The attitude—which some may call neglectful—that we have had towards school support workers due to the approach taken by the last Government has sent a clear message that they simply are not valued. By re-establishing the school support staff negotiating body, the Bill will change that. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. We are discussing clause 28 and schedule 3, and the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield asked what the Opposition’s proposal would be. Well, nothing needs changing—the clause and schedule are completely unnecessary. I say that because it is my belief that the way the education system in England is delivered—mostly by academies—is a successful model. The Government’s proposals will harm our education system because they will take freedom away from schools and academies. There is a fixed amount to be spent on education, and the governors of schools and academies are best able to decide where those resources are allocated.

The hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield told us it was unfair that some teaching assistants have lower pay than others and that their terms and conditions are not identical. He also said it was difficult to retain and recruit teaching assistants. If that is the case, the governors of a school or the leaders of an academy can pay more to recruit the staff they need.

What we see from the Government is a belief that Whitehall knows best. They intend to centralise terms and conditions and will try to specify how much each teaching assistant in each school will work, because that suits their political agenda and the agenda of the trade unions that pay for their election campaigns.

[Laurence Turner]

Why does the hon. Gentleman’s argument against central direction-setting not apply to teachers? Is he arguing for the abolition of the School Teachers Review Body?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Teachers are different because teaching is a profession that should certainly agree not to strike on pay and conditions, in return for the provision of the pay review bodies, which should play an integral part in ensuring that children’s education is not disrupted by industrial action. I would be happy to grant academies the freedom to pay a little more or less for scales, although perhaps that is not currently possible. I want the maximum freedom granted to academies and schools because, fundamentally, I believe they are best able to allocate the limited resources.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire said, if the Government really wanted to raise pay and improve conditions for teaching assistants, it is in their power to increase substantially the amount of money available for schools. They choose not to do that, but instead say that schools must stick to certain parameters on pay and conditions that will not enable schools to deliver the best education for children.

It is important that I talk briefly about the enormous improvement in educational standards for our children, which has been enabled by the freedom that academies have been granted. Clause 28 and schedule 3 start to roll back those freedoms. My fear is that this is the start of a process in which we will see educational standards in England deteriorate.

[Laurence Turner]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. He describes a picture of extraordinary success. Classroom-based support staff spend the majority of their time supporting SEND learners. Does he regard the SEND system as a success?

[The Chair]

Order. We are starting to stray back into a wider debate.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am trying to think of how clause 28 and schedule 3 relate to SEND education, and I am struggling. I do not believe that the SEND system is a success, and I do not think that more central control is the way to solve that. In fact, one of the problems is that every time there is a problem, we in Parliament and Whitehall think, “The solution is a directive from above. That will sort out the problem.” That is precisely the model that the Government are adopting in clause 28 and schedule 3: “There’s a problem with low pay, so we will set up a process in London that will help matters.” That is not true at all.

I hope we can all agree that the purpose of spending money on education is to improve the life chances of our children. How are resources allocated? Are they best managed on a school basis or an academy basis? Or are they best decided in London? I argue that they are best decided on a school or an academy level. As I say, I fear that clause 28 and schedule 3 are the beginning of a process in which we will see more and more central control exerted over schools, and that that will lead to worse outcomes for our children.

[Justin Madders]

I will respond in the strict terms that you have directed, Mr Mundell. I also point out to Members that an education Bill will be presented today. So there will be an opportunity for the wider debate that Members are keen to have, when that Bill gets its Second Reading in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Of course, the Bill has not been published yet, so we cannot stray into that. We may be able to get on to it this afternoon, but we are trying to help some of the most poorly paid people in our society, who do such an important job. My hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge, for Birmingham Northfield and for Stratford and Bow all talked about how important teaching assistants are, particularly in supporting those with special educational needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield was right that it is shameful that the Low Pay Commission has now deemed teaching assistants to be part of the low pay environment. We are determined to address that, which is why the reinstatement of the SSSNB is an important step.

Let us reflect on some of the evidence that we have had—for example, the GMB evidence. Andy Prendergast said:

“we see increasingly more pupils with special educational needs go into mainstream education, and they need that additional support.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 132, Q136.]

Some of those staff do detailed things such as phonics, supporting pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, and help to deliver classes.

I take the point that has been made about the NJC being an inappropriate way of evaluating and assessing job value. It is clear—indeed a number of other pieces of written evidence have supported our assertion—that the NJC is not the right vehicle for assessing teaching assistants’ pay. We believe that the SSSNB is the way ahead.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater talked about this being a centralising move. Of course, the SSSNB will comprise mainly employers and employee representatives. It will not be a Whitehall-dominated machine.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

But to the extent that the SSSNB will decide the terms and conditions of assistants in Bridgwater, Mid Buckinghamshire and Birmingham Northfield, and those conditions will apply to all teaching assistants, regardless of the school’s or academy’s view on the subject, it is a centralising measure, does the Minister not agree?

[Justin Madders]

It is a necessary measure because, as we have seen, teaching assistants and school support staff have suffered in recent years. The point that the hon. Member for Chippenham and several other Members made about funding is correct. It will, of course, be incumbent on future Governments to ensure that any proposals that come forward are affordable. It should be noted that the recent Budget put some additional funds into special educational needs.

Let us look at why this measure is needed. We know that there is a chronic issue of low pay, a lack of career progression and damaged recruitment and retention among school support staff. A survey of teaching assistants found that 27% were considering leaving education altogether—surely we need them to stay—while 60% cited low pay as a reason for leaving, and 40% said that lack of opportunities for progression was. Eighty-nine per cent of schools said they found recruitment difficult, particularly in respect of teaching assistants, and 78% said they found that group hard to retain. There were similar figures in terms of the difficulties with the recruitment and retention of teaching assistants with SEND specialisms.

We are setting up this body to recognise that these people do a critical job in our education system and that they are not properly represented at the moment. They do not have a proper voice, and they do not have a proper mechanism to ensure that the valuable work they do is properly measured, remunerated and recognised. That is why the SSSNB is so important.

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

Employment Rights Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

While this is a probing amendment, I gently suggest that it would be entirely counterproductive to the core purpose of the measures, scuppering them completely. I appreciate that it probably will be withdrawn, but I want to gently push back because it is not related to the core thing here, which is preventing fire and rehire.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Ms Vaz. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has explained that this is a probing amendment to find out the Government’s intentions, but I put it to the Minister and Labour Members that each of the Government’s proposals seems to be based on the premise that we need to legislate against the worst possible outcome.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles referred to P&O, and that was in fact a scandal. But the problem with this approach, of course, is that a regulatory burden is imposed on each and every other employer, and the labour market is made less flexible and employing people is made more expensive. Therefore, every time the Government see a problem with one employer and say, “We have to regulate for everyone,” the whole labour market is made more expensive and less attractive to foreign investors—less like Britain and more like France. As we look across the channel, we see a country with a similar-sized economy, but an unemployment rate approximately double our own.

Combine that, for example, with the proposal on unfair dismissal, and employers could be less likely to employ that marginal worker. In this case, as Matthew Percival from the CBI said, it becomes more attractive, perhaps, for employers to make their workers redundant than to try to renegotiate terms and conditions.

I ask the Minister to consider the cumulative effect of each and every one of his proposals. It is easy for him to stand up and say, “This proposal on its own is modest and reasonable and good,” but the whole Bill will add £5 billion of costs to industry, and the majority of that falls on small and medium-sized enterprises. My fear is that the Minister, through the very best of intentions, will end up with unemployment higher at the end of this Parliament than when he started.

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz. For the benefit of the Committee, I again refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions.

It has been an interesting debate. I think we are on the opposite end of the spectrum from where we were in the earlier debate about where the balance lies with our measures to end fire and rehire. I think that the fact that we have two arguments from other ends of the spectrum suggests that we are in about the right place—but if the shadow Minister expects us to believe that cows queue up to be milked in the morning, I just say to him: pull the other one!

[Sir Ashley Fox]

They get worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I have a couple of brief questions. I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification that the clause does not provide for a consultation of the whole workforce. That was a legitimate concern for many as they looked at the drafting of the Bill. The clarification will be welcome.

My bigger question is about the practicalities where an organisation has in excess of 20 employees. For example, a small chain of five or six pubs could easily have that volume of employees across bar and kitchen staff—chefs—cleaners and perhaps security, but in that sort of setting it is very rare for staff to be unionised, or even organised among themselves. In that scenario, where a smaller business employs that number of people across multiple sites, how does the Minister expect the requirement for the involvement of a trade union or employee organisation that does not exist to be engaged with? What is the mechanism for that? I appreciate that many Government Members would quite like everybody to be in a trade union—

[Sir Ashley Fox]

They all are.

[Greg Smith]

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

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

Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

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

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

The shadow Minister has posed some questions that underlie amendment 156, which seeks to include redundancy as one of the reasons for dismissal to which the lighter-touch standards will apply during the statutory probationary period. As he has rightly identified, the Bill sets out that the reasons for dismissal to which the lighter-touch standards may apply are the statutory grounds of capability, conduct, illegality and some other substantial reason.

It is important to note that those four areas relate to the individual employee, which is why redundancy is not included. Redundancy can affect entire workforces, whereas the other areas are included because of the overlap between the potentially fair reasons for dismissal in the legislation, particularly suitability for work, and the sorts of issues that might come up in a probationary period. A redundancy situation would not ordinarily come up within a probationary period, because it would be about the wider business condition rather than the individual employee’s performance or suitability for the job. I hope that explains why redundancy has not been included.

I turn to the shadow Minister’s more general points. We are trying to strike a fair balance between strengthening employee protections against unfair dismissal and maintaining businesses’ ability to hire, assess and dismiss new employees. The Government are committed to ensuring that businesses retain the confidence to do so. We do not wish the new procedures to undermine existing fair dismissal processes for redundancy, which already provide a robust, straightforward and fair process for employees facing redundancy.

We will work closely with ACAS, in consultation with businesses and trade unions, to ensure that there is clear, straightforward and easy-to-follow guidance on how to carry out a redundancy process under the new measures. It will be an easily accessible process. One of our concerns about including redundancy is that if an employer decided to make a significant number of their workforce redundant, it would be an additional administrative job for them to identify which employees they did not need to include within a redundancy process because they were part of a statutory probationary period, and which would be subject to the wider process. That would lead to unintended consequences and possibly risk of discrimination claims.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Can the Minister give me an assurance on how microbusinesses will be affected by the change? A very small business might choose to take on one person, and there might be nothing wrong with that person, but within a couple of months the business might realise that it is not working from an economic point of view. The employee would then be effectively redundant, because that small business cannot sustain their employment. Can the Minister assure me that if that small business cannot dismiss that person for the reason of redundancy during the probationary period, there will not be a separate, complex redundancy process to follow?

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Member may be conflating two slightly different issues. I say to him very clearly that existing laws on redundancy will not be changed as a result of the Bill. We expect employers to follow the same processes, regardless of the length of service of the employee. In that situation, I do not imagine that there would be a particularly lengthy process if it involved only one individual and a small employer. There would not need to be a pool for selection, for example, or selection criteria. We would expect the employer to comply with the law in those circumstances.

Amendment 157 questions whether regulations should be able to set steps that an employer must follow for a dismissal to be considered fair when prescribing lighter-touch standards to apply during the statutory probationary period. We have set out clearly our intention to have a light-touch process, and we know that around 9 million employees will benefit from that. The intention behind setting out those steps in regulations is to ensure that we take account of further consultation, which we will undertake not just with employers but with trade unions and civil society, to ensure that we have the right balance of process and fairness in a statutory probationary period. We will be developing that in due course. As is often the case with the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures, there are already lots of examples of really practical guidance out there, which we intend to replicate. I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Conservative Members know what they left behind, and I have not heard any of them offer an alternative. The specific answer to the right hon. Member’s question is that employment allowance was doubled in the Budget and the threshold was taken off. That is why 1 million, mainly smaller, businesses are paying less or the same in national insurance contributions as they were before the Budget. She should tell the House how the Conservative party would pay for the infected blood scandal—the victims of which we are all committed to compensating—Post Office compensation, support for the steel industry, and the advanced manufacturing plan that we inherited, because none of that was in our departmental budget. We are fixing the foundations with long-term public investment and an agenda based on higher business investment and better, stronger economic growth in every part of the UK.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The Government have raised national insurance charges on employers and introduced a family farm and a family business tax. The Employment Rights Bill will raise business costs by £5 billion, predominantly for small businesses. As a result of those changes, does the Secretary of State believe that SMEs will employer more or fewer people?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I have absolutely no doubt that the Government’s agenda is one for employment, business investment and growth. Some of the things that this country needs the most could only have been delivered by a change of Government. I simply do not believe that the Conservative party is capable of reforming the planning system or having a long-term industrial strategy, fixing our relationship with the European Union, and all the rest of it. Yes, there have been challenges, but the Conservatives know what they left behind. They knew what they were doing. There is a reason the Conservative party had no spending plans for the next financial year. We have had to confront that reality, but we cannot have the kind of success that this country needs unless we are willing to fix the foundations and focus on the long term. The Chancellor did that in the Budget, and the agenda of the Department for Business and Trade is extremely attractive for the future.