Employment Rights Bill

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government amendments, and thank those who have steered the legislation to this point.

This is a generational upgrade in employment rights, and as a Labour MP, I am very proud to support it. It is a landmark shift in some ways—a declaration that in modern Britain, hard work should be rewarded with decent, stable work, security, dignity and fairness. Having worked in the private and public sectors at different times in my life, I believe that the Bill strikes a fair balance between the workplace rights of the individual and the rights of the employer. That is why I welcome the extensive consultation that the Government have undertaken with the private sector and with trade unions and other organisations. I am a member of USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—and the National Education Union and have proudly represented and spoken for them in my career to date.

I wish to speak about a number of the Opposition Lords amendments and my concerns about them in short order. I have concerns about Lords amendment 1. Zero-hours contracts have allowed people to be trapped by insecure work, low pay and one-sided flexibility. I know from speaking to shop workers in my constituency that they have not been able to plan ahead with their finances because of the unscrupulous nature of some working relationships with employers. That has left families unable to plan their weekly shopping and childcare as well as their futures, especially in respect of securing loans and other financial settlements. It has become a way for employers to manage down by allowing too many people to take very short hours and then not allowing them to gain other forms of employment.

The Government’s measures to ensure zero-hours contracts are controlled—where the individual can request zero-hours contracts but there is an onus on the employer to support guaranteed hours—strike the correct balance. I therefore reject Lords amendment 1 as the Government’s measures strike a fair balance between the employee requesting and the employer giving.

Lords amendments 23, 106 and 120 relate to sensible changes on unfair dismissal. As has been mentioned, under the last Government the unfair dismissal provision was set at 12 months and that was extended to two years under the current Government. This does not take into account the fact that many who are subject to unfair dismissal might have been working for the employer for a significant period and also be subject to paternity leave, parental leave and other types of support. We should be supporting people with secure provision in work, and I believe that six months is a fair period in which most employers would be able to grade that assessment.

I do not accept Lords amendment 48 on seasonal work. It would add a loophole by which employers could exploit workers. The Bill pays due regard to the realities of seasonal work, both at Christmas and in farming and other types of practice, and I would welcome consultation on such provision continuing.

On political funds, I urge colleagues to reject Lords amendments 61 and 72. We must return to a model that has worked for over 70 years where people choose to opt out of political funds, because securing employment rights is one of the endeavours of a trade union. The trade unions were set up to secure rights for employees, and seeking to achieve that is one of their political endeavours.

I have concerns about Lords amendment 62. The Conservatives complain about the 50% threshold but they did not adopt that in their former leadership election, and perhaps it will not be the threshold in their leadership election to come in the next six months. If they adopted their recommended 50% threshold of members, we might not see a replacement. If they cannot use it for their own internal processes, that raises questions about why others should be made to do so. I also encourage the Government to consider online balloting as a next necessary step. We do online balloting for many of our leadership processes and it is a sensible way forward, as well as other forms of engagement by post.

As a former teacher, I do not support Lords amendment 121. Negotiations should be conducted in a fair way and the Bill covers that, preventing one-sided correspondence between teachers and their professional body.

As a former special constable, while I accept Lords amendment 21 in principle in supporting our special constables on the ground, that should not just be for a single group of people but should be considered for others, perhaps including carers and other support workers. I welcome the Government’s review of employees’ right to take time off; that is the most sensible approach.

On balance, I am not surprised that the Conservatives and others do not support the Bill—I and others have written as USDAW MPs. I believe that we should support a balanced approach between employees and employers. I welcome the work the Government and former Ministers have done to that end. The Bill strikes a fair balance between those who work in the private and public sectors and the obligations employers are to offer, which is why I will be supporting the Government tonight.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to two specific Lords amendments proposed in turn by Lord Burns and Lord Sharpe in the other place. While addressing different clauses, both amendments essentially come down to the same principle: defending fairness, transparency and democratic legitimacy against narrow sectional interests.

On Lords amendment 61, in 2016, after long and at times fraught debate, Parliament reached a carefully constructed settlement on the question of trade union political funds. That settlement was not only fair and balanced but, crucially, was broadly accepted by all sides. The compromise was a simple one: it resulted in new members contributing to a union’s political fund only if that member gave their active, informed consent. In contrast, existing members were left untouched and, importantly, unions were required to remind all members annually of their right to change their decision. This is both a fair and a balanced settlement. It is not a carve-up; it is a genuine compromise. It respected both the collective strength of unions and the personal liberty of individuals.

Yet what do we see now? We see a Government seeking to dismantle that settlement, and the result is a return to an era where consent was assumed and where individuals found themselves supporting causes they did not share simply because the rules made it cumbersome to say otherwise. That is not a positive reform; it is regression. In every walk of life—whether a subscription service, an insurance policy, or a mobile phone contract—the public quite properly expect clarity in respect of the terms they are committing to. Why should those standards of fairness be cast aside when it comes to political funds of unions closely bound to the governing party?

Lords amendment 62 deals with the threshold for industrial action. Strikes have consequences. We have seen that only in the last week, with transport links across London brought to a standstill, commutes drastically prolonged, and the consequential significant disruption to people’s day-to-day lives. As a former doctor who, I should point out, did not go on strike in years gone by, I have seen at first hand the consequences of medics taking industrial action: operations cancelled; out-patient appointments postponed; and the provision of healthcare delayed. When the livelihoods and wellbeing of citizens up and down this country are so significantly impacted, it is neither unreasonable nor undesirable that such action rests upon a clear majority. The 50% threshold is precisely that safeguard. It serves as a clear assurance that industrial action has broad legitimacy and is not just the preserve of a militant minority. Yet this Government seek to sweep away that protection by voting down this very sensible and considered improvement to the legislation.

Both these amendments remind us that democracy depends upon consent, transparency and legitimacy. Those values have been the bedrock of Britain for generations. It would be a poor bargain indeed if they were set aside to placate the financial and political interests of a narrow few.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clause 22, which will ban the use of non-disclosure agreements in cases of harassment and discrimination.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) who did remarkable work in pushing this huge Employment Rights Bill through in a relatively short space of time. I am incredibly grateful for their support and hard work. I also place on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) who has worked on this issue over many years, and to the countless other campaigners in both Houses who have not stopped until this legislation was to become law.

UK-US Trade and Tariffs

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The creative industries are not just a wonderful cultural asset to the UK but a tremendous economic asset as well. I do not necessarily agree with the commentary in parts of the media that posits a tension between being a creative powerhouse and supporting the tech sector. There is a way through that, and that is what my work in government seeks to achieve. I think we all recognise the economic impact on the UK of our creative sector, the cultural soft power that comes from it and the huge asset it represents. That is always first and foremost in our thoughts.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

It is estimated that 25,000 jobs directly linked to the automotive sector are at risk due to reduced exports to the United States. That is a deep concern to many of my constituents who work at either JLR in Solihull or Aston Martin in Gaydon. Can the Secretary of State set out what specific steps he is taking to protect those jobs, and whether it will involve reforming the regulatory environment in which they operate?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I have seen the Institute for Public Policy Research report that contains that figure. Because the automotive sector is such a jewel in our crown, we are all aware of what would happen if we were not able to find a way through this. Our work to find that deal and remove this threat of tariffs is intended precisely to deliver that way through. I met Aston Martin yesterday, as an example of the work we are trying to do.

The hon. Gentleman asks a specific question about the regulatory environment we inherited. I cannot pre-empt the publication of the consultation, which has just finished, but he will be aware of comments I have made publicly about changing that to reflect different circumstances. He will not have to wait long for the outcome to be published, and I can tell him that the Secretary of State for Transport, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and I are aligned on ensuring that we get the regulatory environment correct for the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

We are looking at working with other GCAP partners. I was in Italy last month to discuss the further potential of GCAP, and other work that we can do with the Italians in this space, but that will not affect the issue about which the hon. Gentleman is specifically concerned.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

3. What steps he is taking to help improve business confidence.

[The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)]

The Government were forced to make difficult choices in the Budget, but the fundamentals of doing business in the UK remain strong. The Government’s agenda of creating an industrial strategy, getting people back to work, reforming our planning system, rebuilding our relationship with the EU, pensions reform and more, is entirely focused on improving the long-term business environment across the UK.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

In the aftermath of the Budget, I spoke with many business leaders in my constituency of Solihull West and Shirley. Invariably, they told me that they are pausing recruitment and freezing their growth plans as a direct consequence of the decisions made around taxation and the Employment Rights Bill. What does the Secretary of State say to those businesses in my constituency that no longer have confidence in the Government and feel abandoned by their policies?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I say that the Budget was seven weeks ago, so if the Conservative party, which did not tell us how it would pay for the promises it made when it was in government, now has a plan to pay for those promises, I would welcome receiving it in writing, or hearing it here at oral questions or in a statement. The raw reality is that the Conservative party made promises that it had no intention of keeping. We are not going to do that; we will fix the foundations and do what we say. The reason this Government will succeed on growth and business investment in a way that the previous Government did not has to do with the fundamentals: the return to political stability in the UK; an openness to the rest of the world, including the EU—a difficult subject for Conservative Members, I know—which is still our major trading partner; and the willingness of this Government to use their mandate to improve the business and investor environment. Those fundamentals mean that the future of the UK is very promising.

Budget Resolutions

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I declare that I have a financial interest in some of the Budget measures.

The Budget is one of broken promises and poorly thought out measures for every generation. For children who attend private schools, their schools will face VAT. Quite apart from the disruption that will cause, it is unlikely to raise the money the Government suggest, because the wealthier parents have already paid, more students will need to be looked after in the state sector, there will be greater demand on SEND services and there will be a reduction in employment among staff who previously worked at such schools.

The Prime Minister told those who go to university that he wanted to abolish tuition fees. I wonder whether they are surprised that he has put them up. Young people wanting to buy their first home will see stamp duty thresholds fall, and many more will pay stamp duty on their first home.

What of those working people the Labour party has found it so difficult to define? First, they have to get to work. Those who use the bus will find that the fare has increased by 50%. Those who have commercial pick-up trucks will see that the tax on them has gone up too. What about the national insurance rise? It is a tax on every single working person and it has not been thought through, as public sector workers will also need to pay the national insurance.

The Government said to The Times that they were going to provide mitigation, but the Department of Health and Social Care does not seem to know how much it is going to cost to start with. I asked a written parliamentary question and was told it will take longer to prepare an answer. The Department does not seem to know how much it will cost directly or indirectly. Many right hon. and hon. Members have talked today about the indirect costs that will face air ambulances, hospices, general practices, opticians, care homes, mental health services and outsourced laundry, catering and human resources.

What about the private hospitals delivering waiting list initiative work for the NHS? They will also need to put up prices. Will the nurse who works at a private hospital doing a proportion of her or his work for the NHS and a proportion for private enterprise be partly recompensed, or not? It has not been properly thought through. We will need the NHS for all those old people, cold and vulnerable in their homes, who have had the winter fuel allowance snatched from them—people the Labour Government have let down. If they die, they have the prospect of further taxation on their pensions, business assets and family farms.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend raised the issue of family farms; does she agree that it has been hugely disingenuous of the Government to repeatedly say they have farmers’ backs, only to abandon agricultural property relief at the first opportunity?

[Dr Johnson]

I do. As a farmer’s wife, I particularly recognise the effort of families to work together on farms. It is not the most profitable work, but is a labour of true love.

Those who need a pint after listening to all the increases in taxation across the generations may be pleased to hear that pints are going to be a penny cheaper—woo-hoo—but with business rates relief for pubs and other hospitality having gone from 75% to 40%, and the rise in the minimum wage and in national insurance contributions, the likelihood is that prices will not go down at all, leading to further disappointment.

The Budget is bad for business, bad for growth, bad for the young and bad for the old. But most of all it is a break of trust. It is a litany of broken promises from the Labour Government to the public. Labour voters, like the Prime Minister’s favourite singer, may be saying to themselves, “Did you have to do this? I was thinking that you could be trusted.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow so many excellent maiden speeches this afternoon.

The Budget marks a seminal moment in the parliamentary calendar. Irrespective of party politics, there is a collective desire that any Budget provides the foundations for our great nation to succeed.

My constituency of Solihull West and Shirley, with its range and breadth of businesses, is an important economic driver for the west midlands. Having sat down with 17 business leaders last Friday, and having visited multiple businesses in the lead up to the Budget, it is important that I convey their balanced and market-led views.

Businesses look for stability. They want to understand the Government’s growth and economic plan for an industrial strategy. However, as one CEO described it, the Budget represents private industry versus public sector, employer against employee. One cannot have well-funded public services if there is no private industry to pay for them; one cannot have high employment rates if there are no private business to spur job creation; and one cannot have economic growth if private investment is driven out of this country.

This Budget has brought businesses more complexity and uncertainty. As a consequence of last Wednesday’s announcements, businesses in my constituency have already announced recruitment freezes.

By now, the Chancellor will have received my letter, sent yesterday and signed by approximately 40 Members of this House and the other place, regarding the impact that her new national insurance contributions policy will have on general practitioners, dentists, hospices and care homes. These vital services will be forced to decrease staff numbers, thereby creating further pressures on the NHS and public services.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. [Interruption.] Government Members do not like to hear this.

[Graham Stuart]

Not when an intervention is happening. Every Labour Government in history have ended with higher unemployment than when they began. From the look of these measures, does it not seem that this one will be exactly the same?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Although the hon. Gentleman will be very grateful for the intervention, may I remind Members that time is tight?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, and I agree with him entirely. I am mindful of the tightness of time, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Will the Chancellor reconsider the exemption list, to protect the vital services I mentioned, much as she reconsidered when it came to VAT on continuity of education allowance payments? We all understand how much money the Chancellor hopes to raise, but I ask today that she sets out a realistic plan to raise the money. What is her plan to grow the economy? GDP growth predictions are lower than inflation rise predictions, which effectively means the economy shrinking over the next five years.

Finally, I ask the Minister to set a firm date for the publication of the Government industrial strategy, so that businesses have stability, rather than being on the receiving end of the Chancellor’s smash-and-grab tax raid.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Good product regulation and public confidence in our system are important across the board for every sector of the economy. My hon. Friend will have seen the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill in the King’s Speech. It will give powers to the UK Government to regulate in a range of fields. What she raises is exactly the kind of area we will be able to consider and debate in more detail.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

T8. Postmasters in my constituency, like many others, have had their lives adversely affected by errors in the Horizon IT system. When does the Secretary of State anticipate that the Horizon shortfall scheme appeal process will be fully operational?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank the hon. Member for his interest in this incredibly important issue and the work, which he will be aware of, that ensured that we got to this point. I think this is the biggest miscarriage of justice in British history, and the moves to provide some form of redress are extremely important.

We have moved at pace to put the scheme in place. We were able to do so because of the legislation we got through in the wash-up at the end of the last Parliament. The hon. Member will have heard what I said about the letters that we got out to get that information to people. [Interruption.] What was that? We will take that up offline. I welcome his interest and will continue to work with him on it.