Employment Rights Bill

Chris Law Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I hope that the hon. Lady will pass on my sympathy and encouragement, and that of the whole House, to her husband, who has shown tenacity and resilience. I will come to the relevant part of the Bill shortly but, in summary, we feel that putting the onus on employees to request, rather than on employers to deliver, such contracts would alienate several categories of workers, particularly younger workers and those with vulnerabilities. I will come to that in a minute, and it would be a delight to take any further interventions that she might have then.

Technical changes include clarification of how zero-hours contract provisions apply to agency workers; reinforcement of the guaranteed hours provisions in relation to workers with annualised contracts and interaction with unfair dismissal; refinement of the right to payment for short-notice provisions, in relation to when payments and notices of exemptions are due; and expansion of those provisions to staff employed by both Houses. Together, these amendments strengthen the legislation by ensuring it is fair, proportionate and clear.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

On short-notice periods for zero-hour contracts, there was an opportunity in the House of Lords to support the Liberal Democrat amendment that would require employers to give employees at least 48 hours’ notice. Labour peers voted against that amendment and the Government have not come forward with an alternative, suggesting that it will take until 2027 before there will be consideration of those measures. Will the Minister explain why we will have to wait nearly three years before we can get a response to that?

[Peter Kyle]

The powers that the hon. Gentleman refers to are strident powers. We have firmly committed to consulting on those powers and to reporting back, based on the outcome of the consultation, and that shows that we are listening. We will learn from the consultation and, if necessary, we will act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

The amendment speaks to those sorts of figures. I am making the point that that sort of notice is simply not acceptable.

People cannot live structured lives and be able to plan for their futures under such a dreadful regime, and I reject it wholeheartedly. That is not reasonable notice; it is a transfer of cost and stress on to the worker. USDAW’s evidence shows that, in many sectors, workers already get four weeks’ notice of shifts. The risk here is that by lowering the standard, we drag conditions down across the board. That is why the Government have rightly committed to setting notice periods through consultation, not through arbitrary amendment.

[Chris Law]

The challenge is that we are waiting years before we have any response to what the numbers might be. Does the hon. Member find that reasonable? In the meantime, we have no protections whatsoever for these people who we are all trying to protect.

[Andy McDonald]

We want to get through this consultation as quickly as possible and to get this Bill on the statute book so that the position is clear, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. We need to move on these issues as a matter of urgency, and he is right to point that out.

Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120 propose to reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months. We cannot support that halfway measure. Our manifesto is clear: Labour will deliver day one rights. Accepting these amendments risks entrenching insecurity and delaying meaningful reform. Workers should not have to serve a probationary period of six months or two years before being protected from arbitrary dismissal. We will fully consult on probationary arrangements to get them right, but we will not compromise on our principle of security from day one.

I must urge the rejection of Lords amendment 62, which seeks to retain the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. The threshold was a deliberate barrier imposed by the Trade Union Act 2016. No other democratic process in this country faces such a hurdle—not parliamentary votes or local elections. This House was elected without such restrictions. Trade unions must not be uniquely singled out. Removing the threshold restores fairness, strengthens industrial relations and honours our commitment to repeal draconian Conservative legislation.

Finally, Lords amendment 121 would permit academies to deviate from pay and conditions agreed through the school support staff negotiating body, which risks entrenching inequality. It could mean teaching assistants in the same trust being on wildly different terms, creating a postcode lottery in education and exposing staff to equal pay disputes. Instead of undermining sectoral bargaining, we should be expanding it, ensuring fair, consistent and collectively agreed standards across the board. Let us be frank: after years of pay erosion, school support staff truly need a pay restoration deal that values the vital work they do.

In every case, the Lords amendments before us risk weakening rights, not strengthening them. Our task is to make work pay, end one-sided flexibility and ensure fairness and dignity for every worker. If this legislation does not go far enough to meet union demands for sectoral bargaining and a single worker status, Members of this House will rightly call for a second employment Bill this autumn. We cannot sustain this anathema of fragile, insecure work for so many millions of people in this country; they need that security to plan their futures, and they need to have the protections that those in employment enjoy. In addition, were they to be brought into that architecture, the Treasury would benefit to the tune of more than £10 billion per annum, opposite the uncollected tax and national insurance contributions.

Working people have waited long enough. It is time for us to deliver the stronger rights and protections that they truly deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

Let me also thank some formidable campaigners, for this is not a sole campaign; it has gone through generations. I thank Myleene Klass, MBE, one of those formidable campaigners, and I thank the other Sheffield MP, my hon. Friend the fantastic Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), who has fought so hard to ensure that improvements are made for those who suffer from recurrent miscarriage. I thank the new ministerial team for retaining the amendments, and I thank my family and friends who were so supportive, both in this place and outside, and all those who contributed to the inquiry that led to this change, including the women who shared their devastating stories and painful experiences. Now they can see that change, because now they have a Government who recognise and acknowledge the pain and the losses for what they are: bereavement.

[Chris Law]

I thank the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her brave and personal testimony, and for sharing the testimonies of many others on the importance of bereavement leave.

Let me begin by welcoming the news that the bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis will keep its sites in Scotland open after the announcement by the First Minister, John Swinney, that the Scottish Government have committed £4 million to a furlough scheme while the company obtains new orders over the next six months. I am sure the whole House will welcome the action taken by the SNP Government in giving domestic manufacturing businesses the opportunity to succeed and protecting skilled manufacturing jobs.

From the outset of this Bill, we in the SNP have been clear in our support for legislation that will strengthen the rights of workers, having long campaigned for many of its provisions. There are progressive attempts to guarantee working hours and protections against unfair dismissal, and the Bill begins to reverse some of the most damaging and insulting anti-union legislation of the previous Government. None the less, throughout its passage in the House of Commons we have called on the Government to be bolder and to use this opportunity to deliver transformational change for workers. We proposed amendments to be more robust on fire and rehire, to improve statutory sick pay and to strengthen protections for migrant workers in accessing their rights, all of which were sadly rejected by the Government. Disappointingly, none of those issues has returned to this House in the amendments agreed to by the House of Lords. Instead, we see a series of amendments that seek to weaken the Bill and weaken the rights of employees by watering down provisions on protections against unfair dismissal, the right to guaranteed hours, and the capabilities of trade unions. Let me be crystal clear: the SNP will not accept proposals that seek to diminish workers’ rights.

One of the most important elements of the Bill is the provision ensuring that workers have rights from day one, a significant change from the current two years. Workers should not have to wait to be protected from unfair dismissal. Unfair dismissal is unfair no matter what time limit is imposed, so there should be none. The Lords amendments would still allow for employees to be dismissed without the right to claim unfair dismissal for the first six months of their employment. Failing to reject this amendment today would fundamentally undermine the principles and objects of the Bill.

The provisions on sexual harassment are also significant, particularly those that void agreements preventing workers from making allegations of harassment or discrimination, and void provisions preventing workers from speaking out about their employer’s response to the relevant harassment or discrimination. We have heard some eloquent speeches today about the very reasons why that can never continue. Astonishingly, the Lords are attempting to except parliamentary staff from the protection from non-disclosure agreements. I have not heard that mentioned today, but it is a disgusting attempt by the House of Lords to protect itself from allegations of sexual harassment and to silence those who are victims of sexual harassment in Parliament. What is it about that unelected Chamber, which brazenly seeks to use its power to protect and entrench its own privileges time and time again? This is just another ludicrous example of why the House of Lords needs to be abolished: it is utterly shameless.

It has long been recognised that insecure work is one of the biggest problems facing our society. I have been listening carefully to what has been said about zero-hours contracts, and I want to register a few facts. Contrary to what was said earlier, in the past decade there has been an increase in the number of zero-hours contract workers—not a small increase, but a 65% increase. More than a million workers are on zero-hours contracts, including over 100,000 in Scotland, and many more are on very short-hours contracts. Rather than providing flexibility, zero-hours contracts offer little or no control or ability to forward-plan. Let me give an example. A recent report from the Work Foundation noted that when Wetherspoons introduced an option for guaranteed hours—guess what?—99% of its workers opted for guaranteed-hours contracts, with only 1% choosing zero-hours contracts.

The Bill seeks to require employers to make an offer of guaranteed hours to a qualifying worker after the end of every reference period, but once again the Lords have attempted to weaken that by taking the onus away from employers and putting it on employees, requiring them to request guaranteed hours. It is important for the Government, as well as rejecting this amendment, to provide clarity on the duration of the reference period and to define what constitutes a “low” number of guaranteed hours.

Similarly, the Government seek to reject Lords amendment 8, which defines “short notice” for the purpose of an employer cancelling a shift as 48 hours, with Ministers in the Lords suggesting that when the regulations are made, “short notice” will be defined as a period greater than 48 hours. That is fine, but, as I have pointed out a number of times today, it is cold comfort for those who are currently on zero-hours contracts, who will have to wait until 2027 at the earliest to find out what comes back from the Government’s consultation.

One of the biggest problems with the Bill is that so much of it will not be clarified until further down the line, through secondary legislation and regulations, which means that much of it is still uncertain, much of it will avoid scrutiny, and much of it will be easy for future Governments to reverse. Indeed, the Opposition are on the record as having made that last point today.

Of course, voters in Scotland know that devolution of employment law is a far better way to protect workers’ rights in Scotland from a future UK Government who might remove those protections. Fair work practices are already being delivered by the SNP Scottish Government, such as supporting collective bargaining, achieving real living wage employer status, and closing the gender pay gap faster than other parts of the UK. Workers in Scotland should never again have to see their employment rights eroded by any Tory-led Government, and we in the SNP will continue to campaign—as Scottish Labour was previously committed to doing—to ensure that employment law is devolved to Scotland or, better still, that Scotland gains independence from consecutive Westminster Governments who seek to erode Scottish workers’ rights.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

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

In Bassetlaw, where the average hourly rate is £14.16 per hour for women and £14.69 for men—over £5 per hour less than the national average and not much higher than the national living wage—levels of pay and working conditions are issues that really matter to my constituents. My constituents are not afraid of hard work, but they want to go out each day in the knowledge that they have rights under the law that will protect them from unfair dismissal and guarantee that they can bring home a good wage and put a meal on the table.

The Employment Rights Bill has now ping-ponged its way back to this place, and my constituents cannot wait for the fairness and rights that it will bring. This is their chance to level the playing field. The Bill is not a handout; it is a foundation for fair treatment at work. It ensures that when people go to work they are treated with dignity and respect. It is about strengthening rights, about no more hire and refire, about no more exploitative zero-hours contracts, and about job security from day one. It gives workers the power to have guaranteed hours of work, and to receive compensation for cancelled shifts. It gives them the power to demand safer workplaces where no one has to choose between their pay cheque and their health. It gives them the power to stand up against unfair firing and discrimination. This is not just about the law; it is about restoring a sense of justice in the workplace.

The other House has attempted to water down those rights, and Reform has opposed the Bill all the way through Parliament. While the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) keeps telling us that he “doesn’t know” when he is pushed on the difficult questions, I have no doubt that he and his colleagues will be making their way through the “vote against workers’ rights” Lobbies later this evening. Reform has aligned itself with the powerful interests—the corporate lobbyists and the chief executives—who are fighting the Bill, telling us that it is bad for business and that it will hurt the economy. It is no friend of working people.

As local people often tell me, good business is based on strong partnership, whereby employers and the workforce strive to meet the daily challenges in the workplace and the ups and downs of the economy. This legislation will work to strengthen those alliances. The Bill is aligned with this Government’s ambitious industrial strategy and commitment to rebuild our economy, and I am focused on getting new jobs, and skills and training, into Bassetlaw.

Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency

Chris Law Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

Yes, within the parameters of what we can do legally, in terms of subsidies. We are ensuring, and the Cabinet Office is keen to ensure, that when we spend public money, we buy British. The value of that, and of British jobs around the country, is recognised in the contracts that we pursue. My hon. Friend talks about the importance of steel in his area. I have talked with colleagues about developing a steel corridor, which I think is important. We are pursuing that through the steel strategy.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

The Minister was right to come here today to make a statement on such an important part of the national infrastructure. It is just a shame that no Minister has ever made a statement in this House on Grangemouth. We have now learned that the Chancellor met INEOS chair Jim Ratcliffe just three weeks ago—just three weeks before Petroineos Grangemouth closed—but she did not do so much as raise the refinery with him. In her statement, the Minister said: “the Government stand with the affected steelworkers in Rotherham, in Sheffield and in Wednesbury. We stand with their families”. That is quite right; so do we in the SNP. But why have this Labour Government never stood with the workers of Grangemouth?

[Mr Speaker]

It is up to the Minister to answer that question if she wants to, but the statement is about steel, rather than petroleum.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Law Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

I saw that the general secretary of the GMB was focused on exactly those issues in relation to the ceramics industry this week, and I applaud the concern he has shown for a key part of many local economies across the country. I assure my hon. Friend that we have given regard to every sector of the UK economy when negotiating the three trade deals secured by the Government—with the United States, as we just discussed, as well as with the European Union and, critically, with India.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is a restrictive piece of legislation that centralises power to the UK Government and allows them to override the Scottish Parliament. Yesterday, the Labour Government confirmed they would not repeal or amend that Tory Act. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland previously said that the Act was “bad and damaging” and undermined devolution, and the Business and Trade Secretary voted against it when in opposition. Will the Business and Trade Secretary confirm whether he would vote against it again now? Does he agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland that this Tory Act is an attack on the integrity of the Scottish Parliament?

[Mr Alexander]

Well, well, well; the grievance machine is being fired up again by the Scottish National party, even at the last Business and Trade questions. The reality is that the changes made to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act are proportionate, targeted and focused critically on supporting the many Scottish businesses that contributed to the consultation. I respectfully suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should listen to Scottish business, which disproportionately benefits from the removal of barriers and the avoidance of new barriers going up in the critical single market that is the United Kingdom.

Post Office Horizon Inquiry: Volume 1

Chris Law Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend raises a significant issue, and one that I have no doubt had a bearing on the way in which the scandal unfolded. She will understand that for a formal view on who was responsible and what went wrong, we need to wait for the final report from Sir Wyn Williams. But it is quite clear that a significant number of sub-postmasters from an ethnic minority are still waiting for compensation, as indeed a generally significant number of postmasters are waiting for compensation. We need to ensure that all those from an ethnic minority receive compensation, as equally we must give priority to every single person who has yet to receive compensation.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

The Government have been told routinely by organisations such as Scottish Postmasters for Justice and Redress that compensation for victims of the Horizon scandal is taking too long and that the application process is akin to the trauma of a second trial for victims. We have also heard today that Sir Wyn Williams’ report illustrates that victims continue to face an “unnecessarily adversarial attitude” from the Post Office and that the UK Government continue to drag their feet in offering full and swift redress. Given that the Minister previously stood at the Dispatch Box and said that

“justice delayed is justice denied”,—[Official Report, 18 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 373.]

and given the human toll of the scandal revealed today, will this Government finally and immediately end these obstructive processes so that redress can be tackled straight on without waiting for the second volume?

[Gareth Thomas]

There is no question but that the compensation process has taken far too long. The scandal could have been stopped a lot earlier. Everybody who was a victim of the scandal should have had compensation—certainly by the time we took office. Having said that, we have set out to speed up the delivery of compensation. We have quadrupled the amount of compensation paid out to victims of the scandal. We have moved at pace to plug some of the obvious gaps in the compensation process. I completely accept the challenge made by the hon. Gentleman, by others across the House, and indeed by sub-postmasters who have yet to receive compensation, that there is still a lot more to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Law Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

My hon. Friend knows that I believe the workers at that mill in her constituency are a national asset and that I want them to have a strong future as part of our overall steel strategy. We are closely monitoring the specific situation there, which colleagues will be aware of, and are determined to find the outcome that she and I would want to see.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister routinely states his unwavering support for Ukraine, yet as a result of UK Government inaction, British businesses continue to bankroll Putin’s brutal war on a colossal scale. Since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, a whopping £205 billion of Russian fossil fuel exports have been shipped by our own UK-based maritime companies or by ships with our own UK-issued insurance. Astonishingly, one company, Seapeak, has carried almost a quarter of Russia’s liquefied natural gas exports. Can the Secretary of State give us an update on what the Government are doing, and deal with this immediately?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am concerned by the figures the hon. Gentleman raises; if he writes to me, I will look into that immediately. We have taken extensive action to sanction not just individuals, but the shadow fleet, as it is described, transporting Russian fossil fuels, and are willing to take any action necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Law Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

Having worked so closely with former Prime Minister Gordon Brown over a number of years, I am probably the last person in this Chamber who needs to be convinced of the economic significance of the Rosyth dockyard. As my hon. Friend knows, I have recently had meetings with Babcock’s executive team, both in London and abroad. Due to commercial sensitivities, I cannot discuss details of the deal to which he has referred. I am grateful for his recent letter to the Secretary of State on this matter; a response was issued yesterday. He can be fully assured that the Government value the defence relationship with Sweden and fully recognise the importance of defence industrial partnerships between the United Kingdom and Swedish companies. They contribute greatly to our defence and growth objectives.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Food and drink is one of Scotland’s most successful industries, and it is worth £15 billion to the economy. Over the coming months, the UK Government face a choice in their trade talks with the EU and US: do we align our food and farming standards with those in the EU, or reduce our quality standards at the behest of the United States? Will the Secretary of State guarantee that Scotland’s food and drink industry will not be jeopardised through desperation to satisfy the demands of, and secure a deal with, Donald Trump?

[Mr Alexander]

At exactly this point tomorrow morning, I will be visiting a farm in East Lothian, so I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am fully aware of the importance of food and agriculture to the Scottish economy and, more broadly, to the UK economy. I also respectfully refer him to the Labour manifesto at the last general election, which made very clear our commitment to maintaining important standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The amount of working capital provided to British Steel to date stands at £94 million, which is considerably less than if we had given a large amount of money to Jingye, or if we had had to deal with the complete loss of the entire British Steel site and business.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Modelling by the Scottish Government has shown that Brexit-made barriers are likely to have reduced Scottish exports by £3 billion, compared with continued EU membership. Greater co-operation and a closer relationship with the EU will always be encouraged by SNP Members, but does the Secretary of State recognise that anything short of full single market and customs union membership continues to damage Scotland’s economy?

[Mr Alexander]

In substantive terms, the hon. Gentleman’s point is important: we should be looking to reduce unnecessary barriers to trade between the United Kingdom and our friends, neighbours and partners in the European Union. However, on a political level, it is worth recognising that, had Scotland voted in 2014 to leave the United Kingdom, it would also have left the European Union. There is a certain irony in being told that a politics of flags, borders and manufactured grievances are wrong in one context, when his party continues to argue for them in another.

British Steel

Chris Law Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work and for the support that he has provided to me, officials and others because of his expertise in this space. He is right to thank staff; they have worked unbelievably hard, and I am very grateful for what they have done. He is also right to talk about how we ensure that the product market develops in the way that we want it to. We are looking at how we increase demand in the UK, as well as at procurement and other issues, so that we are not just trying to save our existing provision, but to expand our provision so that the steel industry can start to grow, instead of halving as it has done over the past 10 years under the Tories.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Despite recent comments by a Scotland Office Minister, may I make it crystal clear that it is not “manufacturing grievance” to suggest that Grangemouth, like Scunthorpe, should be nationalised to protect a critical economic and security asset that has been run down by foreign owners? What we have seen from the UK Government in the last weeks, including today, is that when push comes to shove, they can take bold action in crisis, as they have done in Scunthorpe. Therefore, is it not the case that if the UK Government fail to act in a similar fashion at Grangemouth, highly skilled jobs will be lost, Scotland’s only capacity to refine oil will be shut down and critical energy security will be further diminished?

[Sarah Jones]

We deeply regret the choices that INEOS has made. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Grangemouth does not provide the only refining capacity in the UK, but he is right to say it is the only provision in Scotland, which is why we intervened with a package of support and a £200 million commitment from the national wealth fund for what happens to the site. The hon. Gentleman is right to stand up for people in Grangemouth over the issues that they are facing, and we are doing all we can. As I said in my statement, the position in Scunthorpe was unique and particular, but that does not mean that we do not care just as much about the people in Grangemouth and that we will not ensure that we do everything that we can to pursue to the future development of that site in a way that supports jobs.

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Chris Law Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Increases to the national living wage and national minimum wage will always be supported by Scottish National party Members. Indeed, we have been pushing for the UK Government to adopt the real living wage for those of all ages since 2011. Disappointingly, we have to continue to do so, as the Labour party has failed to take the opportunity to do that, now that it is in government.

While we support the changes that are being introduced today, the SNP’s position is clear: we want the real living wage for all workers, not just a politically convenient definition of the living wage that falls short of meeting the actual costs of living, and not just for those who are 21 and over. The Resolution Foundation has the real living wage set at £12.60, whereas this regulation increases the national living wage for workers aged 21 or over from £11.44 to £12.21 per hour. It is evidently still short of where it needs to be.

Furthermore, for those aged between 18 and 21, the national living wage is 18% lower, at £10 per hour. Given that the Minister today said that there would be a consultation looking at the cost of living, can he tell me if rent is 18% lower for those under 21? Do 18-year-olds get a special rate on their electricity bills, or on petrol for their car? Do supermarkets give them an 18% discount?

[Jayne Kirkham]

On that point, will the hon. Member give way?

[Chris Law]

I will not, as I would like to make this point very clear, because it is important. The answer to my questions is obviously no. While I welcome the Minister’s comment that the national living wage may be looked at next year, and may be increased so that there is parity for everybody, we are not there yet. I would like the Government to go further, and I look forward to hearing more about how they will consult on doing so next year.

It is worth noting that in Scotland, the SNP Government have taken proactive steps to ensure that the real living wage is implemented wherever we have control, particularly in our public sector. The Scottish Government have paid all staff within their pay scheme, including NHS staff, the real living wage since 2011—that is 14 years ago. Scotland has the highest proportion of employees paid the living wage of any nation in the UK, with 25% of accredited real living wage employers in the UK based there. The Scottish Government are also providing funding to enable adult social care workers to be paid the living wage, benefiting up to 40,000 care workers, and they are working to ensure that all staff in private nurseries delivering our childcare pledge are paid the real living wage, too.

The Labour Government should demonstrate similar willingness to tackle the scourge of low pay. In their manifesto, they pledged to make changes in line with the real living wage, and to take into account the cost of living, but they have failed, at least today, to do so. They were voted in with a mantra of change, and it is in their power to legislate for the introduction of the real living wage for all, but so far, they have chosen not to. They must go further and adopt the living wage for people irrespective of their age, as the SNP has called on successive Governments to do for the past 14 years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Law Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

rose—

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Bloore. [Laughter.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Now it is Chris Law’s turn.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

T5. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The US President said that the EU was created to “screw over the US”. However, while the EU stood up for its economy and imposed a $28 billion counter-tariff, the UK is being screwed by the US, which has made it clear that the UK will not be an exception to its levies, despite the Prime Minister’s pleading. Will the Secretary of State tell me whether the Government are content to remain a bridge between the EU and the US if it is a bridge that the US continues to walk all over, risking the UK economy with every single step?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The simple position is that we will represent the UK’s national interest in this matter. The US has objections about its significant deficits in manufacturing goods with China and the EU, but that is not the relationship between the US and the UK, so there is a chance for the UK to pursue a different policy —one that produces greater benefits for every part of the UK than perhaps are available to other countries. Of course we are cognisant of the overall impact—no one wants to see this type of turmoil in the global economy—but our job is to deliver for the UK, and that is exactly what we are focused on doing.

Employment Rights Bill

Chris Law Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

In conclusion, I am pleased to have been afforded the opportunity to speak for a second time on Report. We have, in this Employment Rights Bill, a momentous uplift in workers’ rights and protections, which addresses the balance that has swung far too far in the opposite direction. However, the appetite remains for yet further improvements. I commend the Government for their work in bringing forward the legislation, which I wholeheartedly support. I look forward to working together further on the journey to delivering well-paid, secure and unionised employment.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Although I have broadly welcomed the Bill as it has progressed through the House, I have caveated that by stating that the Labour Government should be bolder and must go further in future for the rights and protections to become entrenched rather than rolled back. Indeed, on Second Reading I quoted the Scottish Trades Union Congress general Secretary, Roz Foyer, who summarised the Bill by saying:

“the Employment Rights Bill isn’t the terminus. It’s the first stop. This can be the foundations on which we can build.”

I agree.

[Antonia Bance]

The hon. Member may not have had a chance to look at the Government website and encounter the document entitled “Next Steps to Make Work Pay”, which sets out a programme of continuing work to improve rights at work and parental leave and the review of employment status to come. I am sure he will be glad to hear that.

[Chris Law]

No, I have not had the chance to look at the Government website, but I thank the hon. Member for raising that. As I have broadly said, I support the Bill, but there are reasons why I am contributing to the debate, not least because of a lack of devolution to the Scottish Parliament, which I will come to shortly.

On Second Reading, the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and local Government, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), made it explicitly clear that the foundations will not be built upon in the long term, as a future Conservative Government would simply repeal protections. He declared that

“many of the measures will be brought in through secondary legislation, therefore making it easier for a future Government to reverse some of the catastrophic changes.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 58.]

Employment rights for workers in Scotland cannot be dependent on the merry-go-round of Westminster politics. They have seen their rights attacked and diminished by years of Conservative Governments, and where the Bill reverses some of the worst excesses of those Governments’ policies, that must be protected and strengthened in the long term. Westminster cannot guarantee that for the people in Scotland, so I have tabled new clause 77, which would amend the Scotland Act 1998 to devolve employment and industrial relations to the Scottish Parliament.

Back in 2014, all Unionist parties, including the Labour party, promised maximum devolution for Scotland, as displayed on the front page of a national newspaper days before the independence referendum, in which Scotland voted no. This Labour Government have failed to devolve a single power to Holyrood since coming to power in July—not a single one—despite the Scottish Parliament voting for employment rights to be devolved.

In November, the STUC called on the UK Government to

“end the excuses and devolve powers over taxation, migration and, importantly, employment law from Westminster to Holyrood.”

Moreover, Scottish Labour’s 2021 election manifesto stated:

“We support further devolution of powers to Holyrood including borrowing and employment rights”.

Here is a question for Scottish Labour MPs: will they respect the wishes of the Scottish Parliament?

[Antonia Bance]

indicated dissent.

[Chris Law]

The hon. Member shakes her head, but I am speaking to Scottish Labour MPs.

[Antonia Bance]

I care about the people of Scotland.

[Chris Law]

I care about the people of Scotland and what they say. Will Scottish Labour MPs listen to trade unions and deliver on the promises made by their party by supporting the new clause, or will they continue to follow instructions handed to them from No. 10? Silence. I thought so. They are too scared to stand up for the people of Scotland.

[Johanna Baxter]

The hon. Gentleman says that he is a big supporter of workers’ rights. Would he like to comment on the fact that for every year of the last nine years that I was lead negotiator for local government workers in Scotland, they had to have consultative ballots for industrial action just to get a decent pay rise out of the Scottish Government? Does that really mean standing up for workers in Scotland?

[Chris Law]

I thought I was asking a question of the Scottish Labour MPs, only to be asked another question. The hon. Lady will be well aware that the Scottish Government have worked collectively with both unions and other bodies to ensure that the living wage in Scotland is higher than in any other part of the UK. I remind her that it was Scottish Labour in November 2023 that voted with the SNP for employment rights to be evolved through the Scottish Parliament.

Throughout its existence, when powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, decisions are taken in the interests of the people of Scotland and outcomes improve: publicly owned rail and water, higher per-head education and health spend, free prescriptions, free tuition, a more humane welfare system and a progressive taxation system. Fair work practices are being delivered already by the SNP Scottish Government, such as supporting collective bargaining, achieving real living wage employer status and closing the gender pay gap faster than anywhere in the rest of the UK.

[Katrina Murray]

Does the hon. Member agree that it is an absolute failure of collective bargaining for the Scottish Government to have walked away from the commitments they made in a deal with health service unions two years ago on the reduction of the working week? They are failing to go through with reducing the working week by half an hour as of 1 April 2025.

[Chris Law]

I listened to the hon. Member with interest, but I suggest that she has that debate in the Scottish Parliament. After all, we are talking about the devolution of powers here in the UK Parliament.

A framework for collective bargaining in the adult care sector has been developed by the Scottish care unions—Unison, the GMB and Unite—along with the Scottish Government and care providers, with a Scottish social care joint council proposed. The Scottish care unions have intimated that the constitution, composition, remit and function of the Scottish social care joint council is preferable and should assume the role of the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body for England. Scotland already has a 10-year history of joint commitments to fair work, whereas England is only embarking on that journey. Furthermore, there is a need to extend sectoral bargaining to all sectors of the economy, not just adult social care.

Measures such as creating a single status of worker for all but the genuinely self-employed, strengthening protections for those with unfair contracts and increasing the minimum wage to at least the national living wage, and then in line with inflation, are all missing from the Bill. The SNP Scottish Government would support those measures if employment law were devolved, and they would be delivered if this Government respected the votes of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Labour manifesto.

Just as the Bill should be the first stop rather than the terminus, devolution is a process, not an event. Not only has devolution moved at a glacial pace, but we live in the world’s most asymmetrical political union, where each nation has differing devolved powers. Why is it that employment law is devolved in Northern Ireland but not in Scotland? I want to see employment rights strengthened continually rather than in a cycle of piecemeal progress when Labour is in power, only to be reversed when the Tories next get their turn. The gains for workers’ rights in the Bill must therefore be protected. That is why the SNP remains committed to advocating for, at a minimum, the urgent devolution of employment powers. That is the best way, short of independence, of protecting workers’ rights in Scotland.