Trade Unions

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the House— and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, as I unfortunately missed part of his remarks—for my late arrival into the Chamber. I congratulate him on securing the debate. I thank the Deputy Speaker who was on the Woolsack at the time for being so understanding in the event of a genuine misunderstanding and for allowing me to speak.

Liberal Democrats value the role of trade unions and we are great advocates of collective action when those in power display intransigence in the face of injustice and when there is a strong desire for change. Being part of something brings many benefits. Achieving change together and just knowing that you feel the same as others is very comforting. That is kind of what political parties are for, is it not? Many Liberal Democrats are members of trade unions. Indeed, many Liberal Democrat Members of your Lordships’ House are or have been trade unionists. The noble Lord, Lord Glasman, mentioned Lloyd George in the context of the ILO. He, of course, was a Liberal. My membership of a trade union was restricted to a brief period with the NUJ, but my noble friend Lord Goddard talked movingly of his more involved experiences and outlined the crucial role of trade unions in health and safety. He was the first of several noble Lords to do so; the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, made a particularly powerful argument in his remarks.

One of the first Bills I worked on when I came to this place was the Trade Union Bill. I remember the shock on reading it and what it proposed to do. I immediately recognised that it was designed to emaciate the trade union movement and take away much of its power and funding. This was something the Liberal Democrats had managed to prevent in coalition, but now we saw exactly what our not being in government was going to mean. Like my colleagues in coalition, I recognise the importance of balance in good, productive industrial relations.

Frankly, I have never understood why industrial relations should be a zero-sum game. Everybody wins when trade unions and employers work in partnership. Both should benefit from increased productivity, facing the future of their organisation together. This lesson was brought home to me when I was MP for Solihull and difficulties hit the Jaguar Land Rover plant around 2006 to 2007. We feared that either the Solihull or Castle Bromwich plants would need to be closed, but JLR did neither of these things. It came to an agreement with the trade unions that workers from both plants would go on short time and that some staff would take sabbaticals. Skills and jobs were not lost and JLR was ready for the upturn without incurring staff shortage problems and damaging extra costs that it could not afford. The upturn came and the company ploughed billions into investment. Everybody benefited.

Why am I telling your Lordships this? It is because the lesson for me is that to get the best for companies and their workforces there has to be partnership, understanding of each other’s point of view, sharing and giving of information, and a longer-term perspective. Most noble Lords in this House have been around long enough to look back to the winter of discontent, Margaret Thatcher’s efforts to bring down the power of the unions and the suffering caused to us all. We cannot live in those days any more. But in the Trade Union Bill in 2016 I detected an echo of those old, tribal, almost visceral rivalries. We all know that that is no way to run a modern economy.

This year, we celebrate 100 years of the ILO. I did not know very much about the ILO before today, so I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, for the history lesson and the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, for his thesis on the nature of tripartism, which I shall read about again afterwards.

The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, spoke about how trade unions, through the ILO, participate in creating more democratic citizenship. That is a valuable lesson for us. Several noble Lords talked about the importance of the role that the ILO has played and continues to play today. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, talked about the importance of the enforcement of basic standards and how we fall far short of ILO standards. The ILO is not just about the past: it is about the future for us all, so I would like to wish the ILO a happy centenary and wish it on its way for the future.

What then should government companies and trade unions do to fit themselves for the future? Many noble Lords spoke about that. The noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, talked about how trade unions do not attract enough young people in a changing environment. Good luck to her in her work. Several noble Lords mentioned the image of trade unions putting many potential new members off. I hope that they will address that. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, talked about dramatic changes in the very nature of work—the poor pay and conditions endured by many in the gig economy and others. I hope that her wish to reinvigorate the trade union movement and to build digital skills will be heeded. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, talked about the need to help more people in the gig economy.

For what it is worth, here is my vision. I want a social contract between everyone in this arena. I want companies taking more responsibility, not just for involving their workforce as prescribed in the corporate governance code introduced last year and not just a mentality of “We’ve got a worker on the board, so we are compliant”. For a modern economy, it has to go far further than that. Companies need to have social contract with their workers, but also with the communities in which they operate. They are not independent entities operating outside the bounds of society. They are part of the fabric of our country and should be good neighbours, have respect for the environment in all senses and leave it richer not poorer for their contribution.

It is incumbent on those in government to create the framework in which companies operate fairly, pay fairly and treat people fairly. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, talked about the importance of the relationship between the Government and the trade unions and I hope that in this and future Governments that will heal and there will be a more co-operative approach.

Today is about trade unions. Trade unions need to abandon their old tribal rivalries. It is not about them and us. They are in danger of becoming an anachronism, with membership numbers nearly halving since their peak in 1979, despite a much higher number of people in work. Yet arguably the need for trade unions in some sectors has never been greater. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, spoke movingly about the plight of the working poor, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, described working conditions for a social worker who was not paid between calls. The Government have now legislated for that, so I am sure that the noble Lord had advised him or her accordingly. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, gave a great insight into workers in the gig economy. They will be hard work for trade unions to represent, as are other low-paid workers on precarious contracts. I hope that we see an important development after the growth of the gig economy and with developments in work. I sincerely hope they step up to the plate and embrace the challenges to come.

Companies: Parental Leave Practices

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to issue their consultation on requiring transparency in publishing parental leave practices for companies with over 250 employees.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)]

My Lords, this proposal was announced last October. The department has been engaging with business and those representing employees to gather their views on the proposal and how to make it work. A public consultation on the Government’s proposed measures will be published in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

I am grateful for that Answer and glad that the Government have finally announced that the public consultation will be this summer. I welcome the Government’s aspiration in the initial statement towards an inclusive economy. Does the Minister therefore agree that the requirement to publish parental leave policies would, as with the gender pay gap, shine a light on which companies are inclusive and help potential recruits to make good decisions about the best company for them, without inviting potential embarrassment and even rejection by having to ask about parental leave policies at the interview?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very fair point. The purpose of requiring employers to publish parental leave and pay policies is so that applicants can make an informed decision about whether to combine a job with caring for their families. At present, as she will be aware, applicants must ask prospective employers for details of parental leave and pay policies. Many people are reluctant to do this, which is why my right honourable friend made that announcement and why we are working towards this. As I said, we hope to publish the consultation soon.

Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Enforcement) (Amendment) Order 2019

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support this measure, which will improve the enforcement framework for unsafe consumer products—always a concern of mine because of my background in retail and at the business department. I want to raise two issues. The first is the adequacy of resourcing for trading standards in their important work on product safety. I welcome the new Office for Product Safety & Standards in Birmingham and hope that, through the Minister’s good offices, some of us might be able to visit it on some future occasion. Local authorities are squeezed. I fear that trading standards, which do such an excellent job across the country, do not have the funding they need to tackle product safety and product counterfeiting, which is often a cause of safety incidents in some local authority areas.

The second issue is Whirlpool. I would like an update on the recall of Whirlpool tumble dryers. I am not entirely clear on what this SI adds in the case of electrical white goods, which, as the Minister said, are already regulated, but Whirlpool is mentioned on page 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum and the 10 days of BEIS consultation on the recall are nearly up. What are the Government’s plans in respect of this matter and, even more importantly, of future enforcement of product safety more broadly? What are the criteria for recalls and speed of response, which in the case of Whirlpool has sadly been very slow—I think nearly four years, although I must commend current Ministers for moving ahead on that. Can the Minister clarify the numbers involved? I understand from Which? that the recall will involve 300,000 to 500,000 dryers, which is a fall of about 500,000 in the department’s estimate of the number of unmodified dryers since last year. Yet only some 50,000 have been modified since then, so I do not see how the numbers add up. Can the Minister also kindly advise—in writing if need be, because I appreciate that these are detailed questions—on the number of modified dryers that have caught fire, and on why the Government are comfortable, as stated in Parliament on 17 June, that they are low risk. I hope for all our sakes that this judgment is correct. We should give the owners of modified dryers further comfort if that is possible.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of how the investigatory powers of consumer law enforcers will be consolidated and simplified through this statutory instrument. It seems that these measures are needed in the face of mounting consumer concerns over the safety of the products that we buy.

It seems eminently sensible for the Secretary of State, or the Office for Product Safety & Standards on his behalf, to be able to investigate claims about unsafe consumer products falling within the ambit of the General Product Safety Regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

Again, my noble friend is absolutely correct. I can remember seeing campaigns of exactly that sort. It is important for the consumer, or rather the original purchaser of a machine, to be able to identify what it is, which is why on occasion there have been such advertisements, as my noble friend points out. As I said, I would prefer to write in further detail to her on that issue.

I will now deal with the whole question of resourcing, not only of the new OPSS but of local authorities. As we have made clear, some £12 million has been made available to the OPSS, and we believe that that figure is an adequate sum. My noble friend asked whether she could visit its office, and I am sure that such a visit can be arranged through my department. If she would like to get in touch, we can send her up to Birmingham as soon as the Whips allow such visits to take place, and if other noble Lords wish to take part, that is obviously a matter for them. That money is for the OPSS; local authorities are funded through the general local authority grant, and there is no ring-fenced budget. However, we believe that, whatever difficulties local authorities might have, by giving the OPSS equivalency of investigatory powers, it can certainly support trading standards at a local level. The support of the OPSS, which employs some 300 staff, can be of extraordinary use to local authorities, providing training, for example.

I turn next to the question of EU exit, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. Again, I make it clear that—although this issue is possibly beyond my pay grade—delivering the negotiated deal remains the priority and we continue to make appropriate arrangements in the event of no deal. We have created a new, UK-specific market surveillance database that will allow market surveillance authorities to record product safety and compliance incidents. That database will give the United Kingdom a rapid alert mechanism for dangerous products which will allow for product recall to protect consumers.

I turn now to the impact on small business. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, was worried about the lack of an impact assessment. There is no impact assessment because the order gives powers to public bodies and does not place a burden on business itself. A full impact assessment was carried out in 2013, which I can make available to her. It concluded that there was a zero cost to business and a net benefit to business of £5.3 million by consolidating and simplifying the process. There is no reason to assume that those underlying assumptions have changed.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

Before the Minister sits down, paragraph 13.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“This instrument does not directly apply to activities that are undertaken by small businesses”.


I am not sure that what the Minister is talking about is quite the same thing. Perhaps I am getting confused here, but would he have a look at this issue and write to me? I should be very grateful.

[Lord Henley]

I think it is probably best if I write to the noble Baroness about the meaning of paragraph 13. I think it makes it clear that the instrument governs the investigatory powers of the Secretary of State and others with enforcement processes, so there is no specific impact on small businesses. It does not suggest that small businesses are exempt from the effect of the order, should they be making electrical goods, but I had better write to her on that detail if there is more I can offer.

Without the order, we would not be maximising the potential of the new regulator, the Office for Product Safety & Standards, to take effective action against unsafe products. If we did not do that, ultimately, the British public would have less protection from unsafe products and non-compliant businesses. That is not what the Government want. We are committed to making the United Kingdom’s product safety system the best in the world and ensuring that our regulators have the right tools to protect our people. This is a further step towards achieving that goal, and I commend the order to the House.

Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Lords Chamber

With the exception of the quadrupled aggravated breach penalty, the measures I have outlined take effect from April 2020. This gives time for employers to adapt their systems, and individuals to understand the increased transparency and rights. I commend the regulations to the House, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the main provisions in this suite of SIs. I have to say, it is a great pleasure not to be talking about Brexit, and to be talking about improvements in employment rights following the Taylor report. I record my thanks to the TUC for its briefing, although I do not necessarily agree with all its conclusions and comments.

It is very important that we move with the times, ironing out some of the unintended consequences of previous legislation and adapting to some of the issues developing through changes in the ways that we work. The Swedish derogation is one of the unintended consequences. I well remember introducing the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 when I was in another place. We introduced the right for agency workers to receive the same employment and working conditions as permanent staff after 12 weeks of service. The Agency Workers (Amendment) Regulations seek to remedy this loophole, which meant that some employers were getting out of giving full employment rights to agency workers by using Regulations 10 and 11 to waive the right to the same pay as a permanent worker if they signed a “pay between assignments”, also known as the Swedish derogation, which promised to pay in between assignments. Some employers were abusing this regulation, not paying material pay between assignments by keeping their staff on artificial, minimum hours contracts or deducting their “between assignments” pay from their “on assignment” pay. This Swedish derogation is to be revoked on 6 April 2020. Nothing good is lost—businesses will still be able to contract to pay agency workers between assignments after revocation. However, workers will not be able to opt out of equal pay rights after 12 weeks, which is a welcome protection for potentially vulnerable agency workers—so all good there.

The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2019 introduce the welcome reform that employment agencies must give the worker information before a contract is agreed—on pay, benefits, costs, deductions and fees. It must also include the minimum rate of remuneration payable to the work seeker and the nature and amount of any deductions made to their remuneration. It must also include a worked example of a payslip. The first payslip often comes as a bit of a shock to employees, let alone an agency worker, when they see all the deductions. This key information sheet should improve transparency around pay arrangements; it is very welcome.

The final, and also very welcome, SI is the Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019. These increase the maximum level of penalty available for,

“aggravated breach of a workers employment rights",

from £5,000 to £20,000. I am not entirely sure what “aggravated breach” would entail. In his remarks, the Minister talked about the minimum wage. Is it wider than that? I understand that it would persistently be breaching employment law, but how many breaches would there need to be before it becomes aggravated? This opens up the question of how many breaches are happening at the moment. The Explanatory Memorandum says that, since introducing the penalty for aggravated breach, 31 penalties have been issued. Can the Minister confirm that this 31 relates to total time since the Employment Tribunals Act 1996? That would indicate to me that there must have been more persistent breaches of employment law than that. I think it is absolutely fair to raise the limit of fine for an aggravated breach, but this will not be much of a deterrent to an employer if there is very little risk of detection. The Minister may not have the figures relating to how many companies have been inspected since 1996 and what that constitutes as a proportion of the total number of companies, but would he be so very kind as to write to me with the statistics that the Government collect regarding inspections and prosecutions for non-aggravated penalties issued since 1996, or whichever is the correct date of the legislation coming in?

A second welcome part of this SI is the extension of the right to a written statement to “dependent contractors” as well as employees. Here I would appreciate some clarification from by the Minister. I am taking “dependent contractor” to include individuals in the gig economy, but I was hoping for a little more in the explanatory notes. I would be grateful if he could write to me, or point me in the right direction, to help me understand a little better the issues facing dependent contractors. I do understand that the Government are consulting on employment status, and that there has certainly been a lot of controversy over the employment status of employees in the gig economy. Could the Minister inform the House what progress is being made on this?

The third provision was to lower the percentage requirement for a valid employee request for the employer to negotiate an agreement on informing and consulting employees, from 10% to 2% of the total. In his remarks, the Minister said that it was important to consult. I agree, but can he give a little bit of context on this, please? I am not sure if this is a very minor issue or, potentially, a big one. Could he give any examples of what employees might need to be informed and consulted on which they are not at present? The 2004 regulations, which originally imposed this application, related to employers with at least 50 employees. I presume that the same threshold number of employees would apply to this amendment. Can the Minister confirm this?

In conclusion, although the TUC felt that many more protections and issues should have been covered in these SIs, I think there is some good stuff in here. There is always a balance to be drawn between all the partners in any enterprise. More can always be done, and, as the economy develops, more will be needed, but I believe we are at least headed in the right direction.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, I raised the issue of care agencies earlier, regarding carers who do one hour in one place, one hour in the next and so on, all of them potentially quite far apart. There was a court decision, at a very high level, that they must be paid for their time travelling between places. I have followed this up, and have been told that, in general, they are not being paid. It is local authorities that pay for carers, but they do not seem to be paying them for this, which is very wrong, as there has been a court decision. Where in these regulations will this be covered? It seems highly relevant. I have had a great deal to do with the people who are not getting this money; when they point it out, their companies say they have no intention whatever of paying it. This is wrong since there has been a trial case. I hope the Minister can tell me where it will be covered in these regulations.

Holiday Accommodation

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I am very grateful for the advice that the noble Lord is passing on to us. He is right that there is no legislation that insists that food standards advice should be put up. There is consumer regulation in this field: I refer him to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Payments) Regulations 2013, which he probably remembers from his time as a Defra Minister.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, food hygiene ratings exist to help raise food safety standards in business, and consumers welcome the “scores on the doors”. However, in England—the only nation in the United Kingdom where it is not compulsory to publish these ratings—only 28% of food businesses that score between nought and three display them. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that standards will not improve until businesses are made to display their ratings and literally clean up their act?

Unpaid Internships

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, pupillages at the Bar have changed considerably since the noble Lord’s day and even since my day—which is also a very long time ago. In those days they were unpaid. I will take advice from my noble and learned friend sitting beside me, but I think the noble Lord will find that most pupils are paid now.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, in 2016 the Social Mobility Commission said that any work placements lasting more than four weeks should be classified as internships and that those doing them should receive at least the minimum wage. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has progressed through the Lords unamended, so it is clearly the will of this House that it should pass. Will the Minister have a word with the usual channels in the Commons to get the Bill tabled there as soon as possible?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we will leave the last point to the authorities in another place. I appreciate that my noble friend’s Bill went through this House unamended. The Government set out their views on it. As they explained at that time, the problem with the four-week rule was that it might risk giving employers the impression that all shorter unpaid internships are legal. We want to make it clear that this is not the case. The length of the internship is not an indication as to whether it is or is not work. It is the nature of the internship that matters.

Brexit: Protection for Workers

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I first thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place and especially for his kind words about Lord Bhattacharyya.

The crux of the Government’s announcement is the two amendments they will table to the implementation Bill. We are told that these seek to ensure there is no regression of workers’ rights, and that Parliament will be given an opportunity to consider how rights in the UK tally with those in the EU. These are noble aims which I am sure this House can get behind. However, I am afraid that on this side of the House we have considerable concerns over whether these amendments will achieve and deliver this.

I remind the Minister of the comments that Frances O’Grady of the TUC made yesterday in response to the announcement:

“In the face of a government determined to reduce rights, these measures would in no meaningful way compensate for the loss of the protections that currently exist”.


The TUC and various unions have been clear in their response to the proposals, saying that they are not good enough and fail to protect workers after we leave the EU. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I agree with those statements.

I turn to specifics. I am interested in the Government’s process of getting to this announcement. Can the Minister detail his department’s process of consultation with the different unions and the TUC? The issue at the heart of this announcement is that, even if a Statement by the Government notes that legislation would in fact lead to a regression of rights, there is no power to stop the Government proceeding with their intended course of action. Can he explain how these amendments would stop a Government reducing workers’ rights if they wanted to? If he thinks I am being a bit unfair, I remind him of the working time directive. It was a Conservative Government who sued the European Commission, claiming that there was no legislative basis for the directive since working time had nothing to do with health and safety at work. Luckily for workers in the UK, the Government lost.

On the process of adopting future improvements in EU legislation, the proposal is equally lacking. The only means of challenge is through Parliament, not the courts, and thus subject to any Government’s majority—not material facts that could be legally tested. Furthermore, these proposals apply only to changes to primary legislation. Any other forms of legislative change would not be covered. Given that the bulk of UK legislation to implement EU law is secondary legislation—the Working Time Regulations, TUPE and health and safety regulations, to name but a few—would the examples given above be covered under the new proposals? As we have seen recently, Commons procedures may not permit sufficient amendments to actually deal with all the problems at hand.

The Statement uses the words “standards” and “reduction of standards” and I seek clarification from the Minister on this. In speaking against Amendment 3 on the Trade Bill last night, the Minister said:

“First … The term ‘standards’ does not have a single legal definition which can easily be called upon … Secondly, on the notion of ‘reducing’ standards, how the Government would prove that they were or were not reducing them would be problematic”.—[Official Report, 6/3/19; col. 631.]


The Government cannot have it both ways. Either the use of the terminology “standards” and “‘reducing’ standards” is correct and proper or it is not.

The Statement provided today is not good enough. The comments made at its beginning suggesting that the Minister’s party has suddenly assumed the role and mantle as a champion of workers and working people is baffling. Annual earnings are more than 3% lower than they were in 2008 and nearly 4 million people are now in insecure work. If the Government are serious about workers’ rights in the UK, they have a long way to go to prove it.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

I agree with the Minister that we have a proud record of protecting workers’ rights. As he said, in many cases they are stronger than in European law.

I welcome the enforcement measures announced by the Secretary of State yesterday on existing rights. We all know that it is pointless introducing legislation unless someone intends to enforce it, and enforcement costs money. We on these Benches will look closely at the forthcoming spending review to check that the Secretary of State has been as good as his word.

What we see in the Statement yesterday and the Opposition’s response is a playing out of the traditional distrust between the two parties. The Government seek to assure the Opposition that they will not dilute workers’ rights post Brexit. However, I agree with Labour that the Statement does not provide all the protections that would guarantee that workers’ rights will not fall behind those enjoyed by workers in the European Union.

In the Commons yesterday Opposition spokesperson Rebecca Long Bailey, and the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, this afternoon, made the telling point that the promise given by the Government does not apply to secondary legislation, which could allow each existing EU-derived right to be watered down with ease. This latest move has been described as a cynical attempt to buy off wavering Labour MPs from leave constituencies so that they can justify voting with the Government on the EU withdrawal and implementation Bill. We on these Benches will not fall for it and the Government have a long way to go yet to satisfy a distrustful Labour Party.

The arithmetic does not yet stack up in the Government’s favour and, as things stand, they are destined for another whopping defeat in the Commons next week. The only way to guarantee that British workers’ rights keep parity with those of European workers is for Britain to remain within the EU. Why do not Labour and the Government realise that it is in the interests of all the people they represent to give them a say and back a referendum on the deal?

[Lord Henley]

I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, that we have had a referendum which quite clearly stated that the people of this country wished to leave the EU, and there is no point in trying to readdress that question.

My right honourable friend made an announcement about how we will continue to protect workers’ rights in the future, and I am grateful that the noble Baroness took, to start with, a reasonably positive approach to this, agreed that we had a proud record in this area and welcomed his announcement about enforcement. I note what she said about examining carefully any future announcements about the level of resources. No doubt we will come to that in future business.

I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, took—probably under orders—a less positive approach to my right honourable friend’s announcement. I do not accept a lot of what he said or the somewhat negative remarks that I also heard the general secretary of the TUC, Frances O’Grady, make on the radio yesterday morning. I think she and the noble Lord are being very negative. I give an assurance that there have been considerable discussions with MPs on his side of the House and with trade unions, as the noble Lord knows. He will know that my right honourable friend has regular meetings with individual unions and the TUC. He has committed to bring forward legislation to hold the Government to account for non-regression on these rights.

The noble Lord thinks there is no guarantee of no reduction in rights. He seems to have very little faith in Parliament being able to achieve those things. He might prefer to leave these matters to the European Court of Justice or to what is going on in the EU. I stressed that our rights here go well beyond anything that has ever emerged from the Commission. We will continue that, and we have set in place a process that will allow Parliament to provide proper scrutiny of the processes and the rights of workers, taking into account the needs of employers and of those who are not working but are seeking work to make sure that the labour market works for them and provides them with jobs.

The noble Lord also wanted to know a little more about the scope of these measures and what will be included. I assure him that TUPE will be covered and make clear that the equality framework directive and other equalities directives, where they relate to non-discrimination, equality and work, will also be covered. Working time and holidays, including the working time directive, will be covered. Directions providing protections for part-time, fixed-term and young workers will be covered, and I could go on. My right honourable friend has made it clear that we want to cover all employees and provide protection for them, and to allow Parliament appropriate scrutiny of these matters.

Brexit: Small Businesses

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the preparedness of small business for a no-deal Brexit.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have provided ample communication setting out the steps that businesses need to take to prepare for a no-deal scenario. As we set out in Implications for Business and Trade of a No Deal Exit on 29 March 2019, published last week, there is little evidence that businesses are preparing in earnest for a no-deal scenario; evidence indicates that readiness of small and medium-sized enterprises is particularly low.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, the Government’s own no-deal impact assessment last week revealed the bleak picture that only 17% of small businesses that trade exclusively with the EU had signed up to the necessary identification to continue trade in Europe. Small businesses are far less able to prepare for a no-deal Brexit. They lack the legal and regulatory expertise to do so, and the cash and the space to stockpile. They, and we, are staring disaster in the face. Should we not put a stop to this madness now, halt the Brexit process and give everyone whose livelihoods and futures are at risk a say on the deal?

Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2019 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, I am a vice-president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. The other interest I declare—as it is pertinent to the remarks I want to make—is my chairmanship of the government-appointed national accreditation body, the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, or UKAS. In that role, I welcome the work that has gone into this statutory instrument in respect to the transposition of the EU regulation on accreditation. I also welcome the consultative approach taken by BEIS and the Office for Product Safety and Standards with UKAS and other relevant stakeholders and the engagement surrounding that consultation. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, I thank the Minister and his officials for the briefing we were offered on this statutory instrument.

I recognise that transposing EU regulations to make them operable under UK law necessitates some changes. None the less, the reassurance that there has been no change to government policy is important. Therefore, UKAS is generally supportive of the way that the accreditation regulations have been transposed. We are reassured by the Government’s continuing commitment to maintaining the United Kingdom’s regulatory standards for product safety and the conformity assessment activities required for demonstrating compliance. We welcome the fact that UKAS’s position as the sole national accreditation body has been retained.

However, there are one or two potentially negative impacts from the amendments to EU Regulation 765/2008, the accreditation and market surveillance regulation amendment. My one question today relates to what measures are in place to prevent a competitive and possibly profit-driven rather than a not-for-profit accreditation market developing for United Kingdom-based conformity assessment bodies. Have the Government considered what else they might do to safeguard UKAS’s position as a not-for-profit national accreditation body and to prevent other accreditation bodies offering accreditation in the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for conducting a consultation on this “minor” piece of legislation last week and for his explanatory letter to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which has been passed on to me. However, after the meeting last week I have rather more questions now than I had in the first place.

In the event of a no-deal Brexit, this SI creates a new independent regime for checking product conformity, initially mirroring EU product-safety standards. The Government have combined 38 measures into one, creating a piece of legislation over 600 pages long. The concerns that I outlined at the meeting—which were subsequently outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, as well—regarding the breadth of industries and the number of sectors covered by this instrument remain. It makes it difficult for Parliament to read and scrutinise let alone those organisations to which it actually applies. Any company, small or otherwise, looking at this piece of legislation would be daunted, and I do not accept the argument that the repetition over all the different sectors covered will be reassuring and ensure consistency of treatment between different areas, as was mentioned at the meeting last week.

I also do not think that the 241,000 businesses which will be covered by this instrument will thank the Government for making them wade through so much paperwork to find what they need. Surely one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society is that people should be able to know what the law is and easily understand how it applies to them. Today’s SI has the potential to undermine that principle.

We know that there is a premium on time before 29 March, and we certainly have plenty of SIs to get through, but the Government could have laid each of the measures separately and then grouped them together in smaller debates. Companies, and consumers, will not thank them for this tombstone of an SI.

At the meeting last week, I also raised the costs of implementation, which have been calculated at a total of £25 million. The analysis and evidence summary talks of a corporate manager or director taking an average of three hours to familiarise themselves with the new legislation. The £25 million is supposed to cover an estimated £54 billion-worth of GVA and £63 billion-worth of goods from our exporters to other EU countries, with about £104 billion imported from EU countries.

The impact assessment does not include the wider impact caused by the separation of the UK and EU product safety regimes. It is surely here where the biggest costs to businesses of a damaging no-deal Brexit would lie. No assessment that I can see is made of the cost of relabelling products—removing the old CE marker and substituting the new UKCA one. The manufacturers’ organisation Make UK told the BBC that,

“thousands of companies are going to have to spend millions of pounds collectively on changing all their markings to comply with the new mark”.

It does not include the cost to British exporters of having to seek approval from two notifying bodies: one based in the UK and one based on the EU.

My first question is: what assessment have the Government made of those costs to UK businesses and what knock-on effect will they have on consumer prices? Is this not another reason why the UK would be foolish to leave on 29 March without a deal? That is a rhetorical question: the Minister and I both know the answer to it.

My second question, to which I would appreciate an answer, regards the impact of a no-deal Brexit on our 176 notified bodies operating in the UK which provide more than 4,000 jobs between them. If the EU does not allow UKCA-marked products to be sold in the EU, there will be no incentive for foreign manufacturers to have their products certified in the UK. They will go to an EU-notified body to receive the CE mark and then import the products into the UK. Does the Minister agree with that assessment? In the light of it, are the Government seeking assurances from the European Commission that it would accept UKCA products in a no-deal scenario?

On the subject of the CE mark, I should like to ask a question on behalf of the charity Electrical Safety First. It is concerned that although the UK Government have created their own mark, it will not be a consumer mark widely recognised by the public. What plans do the Government have to raise awareness of the new mark among consumers? What are the timings and what transition plans are there? Electrical Safety First would like the Government to work with it and industry to raise awareness of the UKCA. That sounds like a fair offer to me. How does the Minister respond?

Next, I should appreciate some clarification on the expiry of the CE mark. The Government have decided that they will continue to allow products imported from the EU that bear the CE mark to be sold on the UK market and that this will happen unilaterally, regardless of whether the EU agrees to allow UKCA-marked products to be sold to the EU. At the meeting with the Minister, he referred to a transition period of 18 months using the existing marks for importers, and to one of 90 days for cosmetic product imports. We discussed that earlier today. But there appears to be no sunset clause on the SI. I presume the Government will have to change the law to ban CE marked-products from being sold in the UK should they ever wish to do so. Can the Minister clarify whether that is correct?

Finally, I will mention market surveillance. The UK will lose access to RAPEX—the EU’s rapid alert system—and ICSMS, the Information and Communication System on Market Surveillance, which we will replace with our own databases for market surveillance and public protection to help remove unsafe or non-compliant products from the UK market. The charity Electrical Safety First is unsurprisingly exercised about counterfeit goods as well, particularly those sold online. What plans are there to prevent more counterfeit and substandard electrical goods from being sold, particularly online, after Brexit?

I am sorry for the length of my remarks and promise to make it up to the Minister in the next SI, but this is, as I have mentioned, an inordinately long one. I appreciate that I have asked a lot of questions, so will the Minister undertake to write to me on any he may not manage to answer today?

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for organising the meeting held last week on this SI—as has been said, it was very useful in covering a lot of the ground that otherwise would have needed to be raised today. It is interesting to have had the experience of going through such an extraordinarily large tome with so many details; it took me into areas of public policy where I did not think I would ever have to go. I particularly enjoyed, and of course immediately read first, the intoxicating liquor order 1988, which was closely followed by the strawberry regulations. Both were of immense interest and, for those who have not yet managed to get that far through the document, worth the journey.

I will not raise many of the points which have been made, but I will come back to a point raised during the meeting which has not yet been properly answered. There is substantial additional work implicit in the change in regulations, which has already been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and my noble friend Lady Donaghy, for the United Kingdom Accreditation Service and the Health and Safety Executive. It is not yet clear that the additional resources that may be required will be funded and that support will be offered. Could the Minister confirm that that will be the case? Additional work will clearly be required; it may be of a short-term and temporary nature, but I suspect that it will be continuing. Assurances need to be given that the additional work will be properly covered, or we will lose.

On that same theme, the Minister said as he introduced this that it was really all about consumer confidence and product safety. Of course, that will be only as good as the body and individuals which have to police it. That will largely fall to trading standards—we have already discussed some of the issues that are raised in this. I asked at the meeting, and ask again: what will the financial arrangement be for this? Clearly we want good product safety and consumer confidence, but will get them only if we pay for them. In the past it has been assumed that the additional work can be picked up by those responsible for trading standards, which are largely local authorities. When primary legislation has gone through this House in the past, we have also asked these questions and had assurances that substantive new additional work applying from primary legislation—such as the recent Bills going through this House—would be funded. Indeed, mechanisms for that have already been described and put in place. Can we again have some confirmation that the additionality implied in these regulations will also be funded?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

I will certainly write to the noble Baroness on that and I hope that we can give further and better particulars, as they say in the law. She will then know exactly whom we have spoken to and I hope that she will feel content that we have gone out largely to the right people.

The impact on business was raised by a number of noble Lords. I explained what was behind the impact assessment, which was published on GOV.UK. We found the impacts as being de minimis; they are largely costs of familiarisation. I dare say that, because we are trying to replicate what already exists, familiarisation should not be too much of a problem. As is always right and proper, the impact assessment was shared with the Regulatory Policy Committee. I hope that the smooth arrangements we have put in place will help businesses in understanding that some of the new administrative requirements will make life easier and ease the impact of exiting the EU.

The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, asked about the cosmetics database and whether I could guarantee that no consumer would be put at risk. She is right to emphasise the importance of this, because cosmetics can have a detrimental effect if not properly policed and supervised in the right way. The SI includes a requirement that all cosmetic products must be safe for human health. Each cosmetic product has a responsible person to ensure that it is safe before it is placed on the market. I assure her that preparations for the UK database are well advanced and trading standards has the power to take action against unsafe products.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

Can I take the Minister back to the costs of labelling and of having to register with two separate bodies? Has any assessment been made of the cost of that? It is an issue that was raised by others who know a lot more about this than I do.

[Lord Henley]

That is not a direct cost of the SI; it is a cost of leaving the EU. That is why it was not part of the impact assessment. I will, as I am planning to do for one or two other questions she raised, write to the noble Baroness on what the extra costs are likely to be for registering both here and in the EU.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the uncertainty of the loss of access to the product safety database and what effect it will have on consumers. The new product safety database will be available to all market surveillance scientists from exit day. The new service will give the UK national capability to collate information on unsafe and non-compliant products, share information and rapidly alert market surveillance authorities. In addition—as was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, who talked about RAPEX—the UK will retain access to any publicly available information on RAPEX.

National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this statutory instrument and the increases outlined by the Minister. As he knows, next month will be the 20th anniversary of the introduction of the national minimum wage, and I had the honour of being one of the founding members of the Low Pay Commission at the time. The recommendations we made impacted on and benefited 1 million women—and, incidentally, the world did not come to an end, which some forecasts had said would happen.

I am pleased that successive Governments have upheld the principles laid down by the original committee, and I hope that that will continue. Obviously, this was before the national living wage was introduced. However, one omission from our very first report in 1998, before the implementation, was the issue of accommodation offset. We were asked as a committee to look at that again, because we had not seen the significance of it.

I well remember being taken with the committee down to a convent in the middle of the Devon countryside to be gently lobbied by the Mother Superior and a number of nuns about the importance of having an accommodation offset. The Minister will know that it might have been gentle lobbying, but, my goodness, we were in absolutely no doubt whatever about the strength of feeling involved. The experience we had on the committee is a memory I will take with me for a long time. We were conscious that we were creating history, and I am very glad indeed that this is still here for us to admire.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I will fulfil the promise I made to the Minister on the previous statutory instrument and be brief. It is also a great relief from Brexit to be discussing something that is current and not contingent on anything else happening.

The statutory instrument talks about the national minimum wage amendment regulations, but the table refers to the national living wage. It does not take much to confuse me. I just want to explore that difference for a minute or two. The uplift of 4.9% for over-25s to £8.21 is very welcome and I accept and welcome the comments from the Minister on the progress that the Government are making to get to 60% of median earnings by 2020.

The concept of the national living wage was introduced by the Government in 2015. I appreciate the Minister’s comments on how the amount has increased but my understanding is that it is not a national living wage because it is not based on actual living costs. The Living Wage Foundation currently calculates it—although presumably it is due for an uplift as well—at £9 per hour and £10.55 in London. It says that the living wage is what people need to earn to live. Citizens UK says that there is a moral imperative on employers to pay that if they can and 4,700 businesses and 104 local authorities do.

We know that 20% of all low-paid workers are in the public sector. Can the Minister say what percentage of public sector workers are in receipt of the living wage? It was very good to hear the Minister’s comments on enforcement. Can he tell me how many companies have been found to be paying below the minimum wage and how many of these have actually been prosecuted?

In conclusion, I hope that we will be moving towards the living wage very soon. It is proven to be good for business because it improves staff morale and retention. It is good for society and for the Government’s coffers too, because 35% of those earnings will go to the Treasury.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as one of my children is an apprentice aged over 19. He is in the first year of the apprenticeship and so would benefit from the figures that we have in front of us today. I have not discussed it with him but I am sure he will be delighted to hear that there is more money on its way.

My noble friend Lady Donaghy’s comments were well made and it is astonishing that we are 20 years into what was seen at the time as quite a revolutionary policy and which is now, in the words of the Minister who introduced the order, settled between all parties as a feature of our working environment. It is a good thing as it works for all sections of society, particularly those at the lower end of the pay spectrum.

This is the fourth consecutive year that I have been reviewing this order, so I took the change of looking back to last year’s Statement, when the Minister was also responding, although that was only his first time. I will repeat some of the things that were said then because I think that the issues are still relevant. There are two important points to put on record. The document in front of us is an excellent piece of work. Again, I congratulate the team responsible for it. It reads very well indeed. It is a bit scary to go back to what we learned at university about the economics of wage policy and the impact of living and national wages but, nevertheless, it is important to see it all there. The document itself is good but also it plays back to the work done by the Low Pay Commission, in place for 20 years now, but doing fantastic work. It is very good to see its ability to move from the national minimum wage conditions when it was set up in 1998 to now, with the national living wage, which progressively moves the lower paid on full rates up to 60% of the median wage. The commission has adapted and continues to do its work in a way that is important and effective for society as whole.

Three points were made last year which I think have been picked up in the current document. One concerned whether the approach that has been taken to calculate the impact of the national minimum wage has stood the test of time. It was good that the department decided to take external advice from an expert body, and it is good to read the report and evaluation, which goes some way to answer some of the points I raised last time. That gives us a good basis on which to go forward.