Draft Code of Practice on Reasonable Steps to be taken by a Trade Union (Minimum Service Levels)

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 General Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Lady listen to my answer? The employer has a relationship with the employee —without doubt, that is a legitimate interest—and the union has a relationship with its members. I am sure we can give the hon. Lady more detail if she would like me to write to her on the point, but I do not think that there is a complicated situation here. I think she will find that it works perfectly well in practice.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

Maybe the Opposition can enlighten the Minister about workplaces in which there are multiple unions within the same work unit, representing different members. How can he assure us that the proposals set out in the code will not put employers in jeopardy of breaking the GDPR by sharing information about employees with the “wrong” union?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I say, I do not think that it is a complicated situation. As I set out to the hon. Member for York Central, the employer has a responsibility to contact their employees and union members, but I am happy to give more detail on that if the hon. Member for Luton South wants further clarification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins]

I am grateful, Ms Nokes, for the opportunity to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston on his excellent speech, which set out all the problems with the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, the draft regulations and the code of practice that we are considering today. I agree that the measure is draconian, unnecessary and unworkable. Indeed, as the Minister himself said, it is controversial.

The right to strike is protected by the Human Rights Act 1998, article 11 of the European convention on human rights, the International Labour Organisation’s convention No. 87 and paragraph 4 of article 6 of the European social charter. Fundamentally, those standards are flouted by the whole set-up of the regulations, the Act and the code of practice. In the middle of a cost of living crisis, when public services are struggling and many are on their knees, this Government have chosen to play politics and attack a fundamental right of workers through the introduction of these minimum service levels. That is solely to undermine collective bargaining and collective organisation, as set out by others.

Many of the details of my concerns have already been laid out in this debate, but I would like to flag up a couple of areas about not only the principles but the unworkability of this whole set-up. We have heard much about taking reasonable steps and issuing directions to employers on work that they are expected to do on strike days, but the code of practice itself interferes with a democratic trade union’s communications with employees.

As we have heard, disputes may involve many different employees in different workplaces, who may be members of different trade unions or none, yet we have not had real assurances that data will be protected, particularly under GDPR. We must remind the Minister that a person’s trade union membership status is a particularly special category of data, so I would like assurances that he has understood the implications of the complexity of this code of practice, which is still very opaque and, in fact, confused.

On timescales, we have heard how, given the amount of notice given and the ability later to amend the work notice, the measure could leave unions with three days to reach their members, and that could be over a weekend or a bank holiday. How does the Minister expect that to work in practice, or is he, again, just going to let that all fall through to be dealt with by the courts? It is disappointing to see the speed with which the Minister expects this to come into force. Usually employers have a six-month period to get used to legislative change, yet we are led to believe that this process will be in place from 7 December—that is in barely a week.

While we will obviously want trade unions to be able to meet their obligations if this measure is passed— I put on record my desire to vote against it today, and I hope that we will all get the ability to vote against it as a whole House—I ask the Minister why it has been brought in so quickly. Not only are we dealing with a very opaque set of regulations and code of practice—even more time than usual is needed to consider how things will actually work in practice—but I believe that the Minister is setting employers, trade unions and indeed the Government themselves up for failure by bringing in legislation with such speed and without a real ability for all parliamentarians to scrutinise it thoroughly. I would really like to hear the Minister’s view of how employers are going to respond on 8 December when they are faced with having to deal with this alone. Does he have any thoughts on how trade unions will deal with this?

I would like some clarity on the stated design of the code of practice. It is the Government’s recognition of their own failure to just say, “That can be settled by the courts.” There is no confidence that the legislation is actually fit for purpose, but the Government are already washing their hands and saying, “We’ll let the courts decide.” Can we have clarity from the Minister about any Government assessment of the cost of litigation for trade unions, employers and, indeed, the Government themselves? So many questions have not been answered about the lack of clarity in this opaque code of practice. As I said, it is an admission of failure to leave so much to the courts, and far be it from me to say, but there will be plenty of employment lawyers taking up the work, sadly. Is that really a metric of success? I would argue that it is not.

I also want to reiterate the point so well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and the hon. Member for Glasgow South West about ministerial comments in the Chamber that nobody will be sacked as a result of this legislation and that other disciplinary measures can apply. If that is the case, why is there a requirement for trade unions to warn their members that dismissal is an option? The Minister has said that that will not be the case, so can we have some clarity from him on how he reconciles those two points? I reiterate my question about the definition of reasonable endeavours with regard to picketing. It is thoroughly unclear—though, again, I presume that it will just be left for the courts to decide.

I appreciate that other Members want to speak, so I will conclude. This is not actually about a situation that the Government are trying to settle. It is fundamentally about attacking individuals’ right to strike, not improving industrial relations. As I said, I will be voting against the code.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking to improve access to mental health services.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

18. What steps he is taking to improve access to mental health services.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)]

We are investing an additional £2.3 billion a year by 2023-24 so that 2 million more people can access NHS-funded mental health support.

[Rachel Hopkins]

Research by the Royal College of Psychiatrists shows that between July 2021 and July 2022, referrals to child and adolescent mental health services increased by 24%. Labour has set out a fully costed plan to recruit 8,500 new staff. Why have the Government failed to produce their own plan to recruit more mental health staff to reduce waiting times?

[Steve Barclay]

We are recruiting more mental health workers, with 7,400 more full-time equivalents in September 2022 compared with September 2021. That reflects the significant additional funding we are providing—the extra £2.3 billion going in by 2023-24.

Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 24th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to respond to the debate from the Opposition Front Bench. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for bringing this important Bill to the House, and for working with Ministers, employers, trade unions and other organisations to get it to this stage. She made an excellent speech, and I commend her for her tireless campaigning for unpaid carers. She knows that the Bill will help many across the country to balance work with caring for their loved ones. Recognition must also go to the TUC for its Flex for All campaign, as well as to other organisations from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, to Working Families and Pregnant then Screwed for their campaigning on this issue and for holding the Government to account.

I reiterate what has been said at previous legislative stages of the Bill. The Bill has Labour’s full support, but we still expect much greater action from the Government to enhance workers’ rights. The data tell the story: there are currently 1.5 million more women out of and not looking for work than men. The number of economically inactive working-age women rose by 124,000 last year, compared with the previous year. Gaps in employment because of a lack of flexibility can cause a loss of confidence to return to work, as well as resulting in reduced pension entitlement and barriers to career progression, not to mention the gender pay gap.

Labour welcomes the provisions in the Bill, which will begin to help create the environment for a fairer and more equitable discussion between employers and employees about flexible working. The covid-19 pandemic has changed how we work, with both employers and employees recognising the business and personal opportunities created by flexible working. The Bill represents an important step to ensuring that legislation reflects where we are as a society.

Many Members have spoken on this common-sense Bill, particularly from the Government Benches, and we heard from the hon. Members for Watford (Dean Russell), for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), for Bury North (James Daly), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and for Aylesbury (Rob Butler). We also heard interventions from the  hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood), for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) and for Aberconwy (Robin Millar). Far be it from me to point out that they are all—as I am—from the 2019 intake, and therefore are the Conservative MPs with the most recent experience of the world of work. Perhaps they are getting their bids in early for when they return to the world of work in a year and a half or two years.

Improving access to flexible working will help the parents of young children, single parents, women, carers, older people and people with disabilities or health conditions. Accessing flexible work is not equal for all: a TUC poll found that one in three flexible working requests were turned down. People want to stay in work and earn a living, but too many are being forced out of the labour market. At present, one in five economically inactive people say that the reason they are economically inactive is that they are responsible for other family members. We know that many women are disproportionately affected by barriers to accessing flexible working, which are compounded by poor access to affordable childcare and to adequate parental leave.

The Bill will contribute to breaking down barriers to the workplace and will help employers to create stronger, more diverse workforces. I stress that flexible working is about not just working from home, but a fundamental change to working practices to improve the lives of all working people. The ability to work flexibly is crucial to achieving gender equality in the workplace and a fairer, growing economy to change our economy and the world of work for the better.

The Bill is a step in the right direction, but workers still need greater protections. Flexible working should not be a nice-to-have or a job perk, but an employment right. We need to see the Bill as a starting point, not the end point.

Following years of dragging their feet on their pledge to make flexible working the default, the Conservatives have agreed to back only these watered-down proposals. They pledged to include regulations on flexible working in their long-awaited employment Bill. That Bill was announced in the 2019 Queen’s Speech, and it was stated that it would

“make flexible working the default”,

but it was seemingly shelved in last year’s Queen’s Speech.

Beyond responding to this private Member’s Bill, the Government have repeatedly failed to follow through on their promises to promote flexible working. Labour is proudly committed to strengthening rights at work. Although the Government are willing to allow workers the right to request flexible working, Labour’s new deal for working people will ensure the right to secure flexible working for all workers, as default from day one, with employers required to accommodate that as far as is reasonable.

[James Daly]

Will the hon. Lady clarify that point? Is it the case that if, for good reason, a small or medium-sized employer cannot afford to accommodate flexible working, because of the nature of their business, a Labour Government would legislate to say that that is unlawful and that it had to, no matter the financial consequences for the business? [Interruption.]

[Rachel Hopkins]

The Minister chunters from a sedentary position. I beg to disagree: Labour is the friend of small businesses. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the end of my sentence before jumping to his feet, he would have heard me say, “as far as is reasonable”. There is a better balance to be had, but there is still a requirement to have a discussion and for it to be as far as is reasonable for the business.

[Gareth Bacon]

I am bit confused about the hon. Lady’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly). How, then, does Labour’s position differ from what the Bill seeks to achieve? It sounds identical.

[Rachel Hopkins]

This gives day one rights at work, compared with—[Interruption.] We would like to see a greater ability for employees to secure flexible working as a right from day one through discussion.

In response to the hon. Member for Bury North, I want to build on the point that the right to flexible working includes flexible hours, compressed hours, staggered hours, and flexibility around childcare and caring responsibilities. There are examples of its being a win-win-win, such as in Luton when, following cuts to budgets, the refuse operatives came up with a new working model that resulted in the same productivity in four days rather than five. It not only met their needs but supported the needs of the business and—sadly—met an objective to make savings.



We know that allowing working people to ask for flexible working is one thing, but ensuring that all workers have the opportunity to benefit is another.

We are committed to ending one-sided flexibility, so that all workers have secure employment and regular and predictable working hours, enabling them to plan their lives around a stable job. We want to ensure that businesses can truly maximise the talent of their employees by creating thriving working environments. Evidence shows that that will greatly increase recruitment and retention. Research by Working Families found that only three in 10 UK parents would be likely to apply for a job that did not list flexible working options in the advert, yet eight in 10 UK parents would be likely to apply for a job if it did list flexible working options in the advert.

[Jo Gideon]

I am confused as to why the hon. Lady’s position seems to be that employers would not want to provide more flexible working and need a labour law to enforce them to do so. That is not my understanding of business. I know that the Labour party claims to be the friend of business, but I am not quite sure how we can be a friend to business and assume that businesses do not have the interests of their employees at heart.

[Rachel Hopkins]

I take the hon. Lady’s point. However, not all employers operate as effectively as the ones that she has experience of, because many people have not had the opportunity to secure the flexible working they need and have had requests turned down.

Importantly, Labour would ensure that businesses can truly maximise the talent of their employees by creating thriving working environments. We would support small and medium-sized businesses to adapt to flexible working practices and to increase the uptake of flexible working, which is good for people and good for businesses. It would boost productivity, employee engagement and staff retention.

In closing, it is right for me to refer to my personal experience. In my career, before having the privilege of being the Member of Parliament for Luton South, I enjoyed the benefits of flexible working arrangements at first hand, both as an employee and as a manager of people. As an employee, I flexibly balanced my working hours both when studying part-time for a Masters degree as well as when I was a local councillor carrying out my duties. While working in human resources, I saw how flexible working—whether it be hours or location—can suit different people’s lives and commitments, especially women, and help to retain expertise and talent in the workplace when people’s circumstances change.

I end my remarks by reiterating that we wholeheartedly welcome the introduction of this Bill. It is a long-overdue and positive step that will help hard-working people across the country, and I am pleased that it has the Government’s support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

Yes, I am afraid that those jobs are at the discretion of the Prime Minister.

I hear what my hon. Friend is saying. We already have extensive coverage through the existing network, but we review the network regularly because we are committed to working with our allies in the Commonwealth to remove the barriers to trade and strengthen trading relationships to foster economic growth. Growing exports to Commonwealth countries is a priority, and trade increased by 25% in the year to September 2022. As for movement, we have a new global immigration system which is vital in supporting trade and economic growth, and the movement of business people on a temporary basis promotes and supports trade in services and goods and investment activities. Recognition of professional qualifications and business travel are always an important part of our trade deals.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking to help increase automotive exports.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The Department is working across Whitehall and with industry to secure export-led investment as the sector makes the transition to zero-emission vehicles, including new electric vehicle models, along with battery gigafactories and the electric vehicle supply chain. We have a dedicated export support system throughout the UK in the shape of our international trade advisers, ensuring that the automotive industry is the country’s biggest single exporter of goods, exporting nearly 80% of vehicle production—about 6% of the UK’s total exported goods.

[Rachel Hopkins]

If we are to continue to drive British automotive exports, it is critical that automotive businesses such as Vauxhall in Luton can make the transition to manufacturing electric vehicles effectively. The rules of origin from 2024 onwards highlight the need to attract the wider electrified supply chain to the UK as soon as possible. How is the Minister working with the automotive sector to expand our domestic electric vehicle supply chain—especially in respect of batteries—to avoid any future tariffs when rules of origin come into effect?