Anneliese Midgley MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I support the measures set out in this statement to get people who can work into work. I have been contacted by constituents who are worried, such as my constituent Lisa, who has a son with a severe disability. He will never be able to work and relies on support. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that people like my constituent, who cannot work and will never be able to work, will not be worse off under these proposals?

• 6 Mar 2025 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  Every year more than 1.6 million women in this country experience domestic abuse, and my constituency of Knowsley has recently had the highest rate of femicide. I am determined to do everything in my power to keep women safe in my constituency. Paula Leather was from Knowsley and in her family’s words, Paula was “beautiful inside and out…so kind, so loving and she was the person that was there for everyone.” She worked at Asda and was the mum of Jason, Jessica and Matthew and the proudest nanny to her first grandson, but Paula’s husband barbarically murdered her in their home, stabbing her up to 300 times. Behind each statistic we cite are real lives and people, such as Stephanie Owen, Sharon Hayter, Teresa Wishart, Valerie Turner, Magdalena Pacult, Lorraine Cullen, Karen Dempsey and Courtney Boorne—all women from Knowsley killed by male violence against women. Some were murdered by their own sons. One in 10 women killed by men are killed by their own son. I turn to the urgent issue of funding for specialist domestic abuse services. They are a lifeline for many survivors, but the fact is that they are struggling financially. Services are stretched, underfunded and in some cases shutting their doors. We cannot accept that. Many survivors are more likely to turn to them and to have more trust in them than the state and the police, so these services must be at the heart of this Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls. We have to put our money where our mouth is. The First Step, the only independent specialist domestic abuse service in Knowsley, literally saves lives. I commend the chief executive, Caroline Grant, and her team, on what they do for Knowsley. She is up in the Gallery. They are being forced to turn women away, however, because the stability of funding just is not there. That is why I have written to the victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), to ask that sustainable, multi-year funding is committed to specialist domestic abuse services, including the First Step in Knowsley. I welcome Raneem’s law and everything the Government are doing on this urgent matter. We have made incredible progress and have great ambition for women. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is on the Front Bench today, for all her work. No funding was pledged for domestic abuse in the last Budget, and I very much hope that that changes in the spring statement.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Plan for Neighbourhoods · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s statement and the vision that will truly transform communities and constituencies such as mine. I am made up that Kirkby will get a massive funding boost under the Government’s plan. Knowsley is the second-most deprived area in the country, yet communities across the constituency never stop working to improve their home. Centre 63, in the heart of Kirkby, is a vital youth and community hub that was opened by my illustrious predecessor, Harold Wilson, who was mentioned in the Minister’s statement. I invite the Minister to meet me to discuss how we could give Knowsley more power, and the funding and resources we need, to shape the place that we call home.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Constituents in Kirkby have endured a foul stench from Simonswood industrial estate in west Lancashire for years, making some physically sick. My constituent Gina Griffiths says that it is giving her child a persistent sore throat, while Joanne Day and her husband are having breathing problems because of the Simonswood stink. Enforcement from Lancashire county council and the Environment Agency, which are responsible for the site, has been unacceptable, despite repeated efforts by Shevington’s Labour councillors, MPs and Knowsley council. Can we have a debate on tackling lack of enforcement for waste management plants?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I will focus my remarks on the impact of generative AI on musicians. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I am a member of the Musicians’ Union. With a background in the music industry, sharing friendships with many musicians and as a fan, I have been inundated with concerns from musicians about how AI could affect their livelihoods. The music industry has long been structured in a way that exploits musicians. Streaming services have made that far worse, and our musicians will once again lose out if AI copyright laws are not handled correctly. Big tech companies should not be able to generate and profit from music without permission or payment. How can we justify taking money away from British musicians and handing it to tech firms for free? That does not support growth; it undermines it. In reality, many household names—artists whose music we all know, who have had top 10 hits and whose posters once adorned our walls—are struggling. New musicians can barely get a foot in the door and are often not paid for years. Songs are played more than ever, yet songwriters see less of the money. Someone is getting paid, but not the people who create the music. Unless they are at the very top, making a good living as a musician in this country is becoming nearly impossible. Even those who can sell out venues of a couple of thousand people across our towns and cities are barely scraping by. The balance is completely off, but we, in this place, have the power to help to change that. Unlike our European counterparts, in this country we have failed to introduce proper protections for creators’ pay over the past decade. As the party of labour, with a commitment to make work pay, this Government should ensure that artists, songwriters and musicians are fairly paid for their work and protected from exploitation by faceless tech companies. AI can be a powerful tool, transforming industries like healthcare and science by reducing admin burdens and freeing up skilled professionals. But AI that tokenises the toil of artists and spits out soulless imitations does not support human creativity or make it more productive. No one has ever loved a song because of how efficiently it was written. As James Oppenheim wrote in his 1911 poem: Our lives shall not be sweated from birth until life closes; Hearts starve as well as bodies; give us bread, but give us roses. If work is our bread, then music is our roses. Musicians across the country are closely watching today’s debate. The consultation is ongoing and these matters will be addressed more in due course. I thank the Minister for his ongoing engagement in the matter, but will he assure me that the Government will strive to get the Bill right for musicians and that musicians will not be overlooked in the introduction of Al technologies?

• 3 Feb 2025 · School Accountability and Intervention · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s statement, but in my constituency GCSE results are among the lowest in the country and a quarter of pupils are classed as persistently absent. What message does the Minister have for children, parents and teachers about plans to drive high and rising standards to provide more and better opportunities in my constituency?

• 3 Feb 2025 · AstraZeneca · Hansard source

  More

  AstraZeneca’s decision to pull its £450 million investment in the Speke manufacturing plant is a blow for the creation of jobs across the city region, including in my constituency. I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) for her tireless efforts in trying to get this deal over the line. Will the Minister join me in recognising the brilliant work of the scientists at the facility, and will he meet me and colleagues to explain how he can guarantee investment in R&D in the city region going forward?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Sentencing: Attendance of Offenders · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for that positive response, and I thank her and the Prime Minister for meeting me and my constituent Cheryl Korbel, the mother of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, the nine-year-old who was tragically murdered in 2022. Cheryl is pleased that the Government have committed to implementing Olivia’s law without delay. Can the Minister ensure that Cheryl is involved in the development of this law, placing victims and their families at the heart of the justice system?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Sentencing: Attendance of Offenders · Hansard source

  More

  6. If she will bring forward legislative proposals to enable courts to order the attendance of offenders at sentencing hearings.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Unionised Workers in the Housing Sector: Pay Discrimination · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this debate. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Unite the Union. I have spent my life in the trade union movement, so it is no surprise that my first Adjournment debate focuses on the principle of collective bargaining. A dispute in my constituency appears to expose a gap in the legislation, whereby an employer can offer pay increases exclusively to non-unionised workers—an unacceptable practice that can be exploited by employers not just in Knowsley, but across the country. Livv Housing, the largest housing association in my constituency, manages 13,000 homes across Liverpool and the north-west. In March 2024, Livv reported reserves of £110.6 million. Over the past five years, it has recorded annual surpluses ranging from £14 million to £25 million, yet the workers who keep Livv running have faced years of real-terms pay cuts. Pay has fallen by over 30% in real terms since 2011. It is no wonder that Unite and Unison members have been taking industrial action since October last year. Livv has refused to engage in meaningful discussions with the unions, but it has also declared the negotiations exhausted. The stonewalling has prolonged the dispute, and it is evident from my inbox that it is having an impact on my constituents who depend on Livv’s services. The casework load involving Livv is mounting up, and it is having a bad effect on people’s lives. Nothing is getting fixed, because its management will not sit down and settle the dispute. In December, Livv wrote to all staff to say that they could have a 5% pay rise if they replied in writing to confirm that they were not a member of a trade union. The email says: “If you are a non-union member and would like to accept the pay award offer of 5%, please can you send confirmation of your acceptance and confirm that you are a non-union member. A one-line email to confirm you wish to receive the pay award and that you are not a union member will be enough.” This practice is completely contrary to the spirit of the Employment Relations Act 2004, which sought to protect workers’ collective voice and to stop inducement and similar practices. However, some employers keep trying to find a way around the protections, and we have to put a stop to it. I have personally written to the chief executive officer of Livv on multiple occasions, urging the housing association to engage constructively with the unions and to seek a fair resolution, but Léann Hearne has gone as far as to inform me that she will no longer engage with me in writing. I have written to Livv and asked it to bring an end to the dispute, as has Mayor Steve Rotheram, and Knowsley council has passed a motion that asks it to get around the table and solve the dispute with the unions. This is all that any of us wants, especially the workers currently in dispute. Instead of doing that, Livv has focused its efforts on undermining collective bargaining. We all know that workers get the best deal when they collectively bargain for pay and conditions. The strength of workers standing together is the only thing that can balance the power of an employer, which is why bad employers have done everything they can over the years to undermine the ability of workers to collectively bargain. Some Members of the House will remember the 2021 case of Kostal UK Ltd v. Dunkley, in which the employer tried to undermine the collective voice of Unite workers. Before talks had been exhausted, Kostal made a direct offer to the workforce and informed staff that they would not receive their Christmas bonus if they did not accept it by a deadline. Does that sound familiar? Like Livv, Kostal thought it had found a loophole in the law, but that was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court. In its ruling, Lord Leggatt said: “Such conduct denies the union its seat at the table and does not allow the union’s voice to be heard.” Today, Livv Housing is doing just that. What this behaviour does is create a two-tier workforce, pitting colleagues against each other. Imagine going into a workplace with a culture like that. If some employers can get away with this, you can bet that other employers will follow. It was Winston Churchill who said: “The trade unions are a long-established and essential part of our national life. We take our stand by these pillars of our British society as it has gradually developed and evolved itself, of the right of individual labouring men to adjust their wages and conditions by collective bargaining, including the right to strike.” I understand that the Minister cannot comment on individual disputes, but this is clearly something that can be exploited by employers across the country. The Employment Rights Bill provides a clear opportunity to close this loophole that we thought was closed so long ago, so I ask the Minister to commit to looking at amending the Bill to stop employers seeking to undermine collective bargaining by offering non-union members preferential treatment in pay awards, and to update me on those plans.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Recently, I visited the Royal Mail delivery office in Huyton. Posties spoke to me about serious problems with low-level letterboxes, including bad back and joint issues and an increase in bad dog attacks. One postie even showed me scars across his hand from a dog attack. Will the Minister meet me, the Communication Workers Union and posties to discuss the matter in regard to new builds?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Live Events Ticketing: Resale and Pricing Practices · Hansard source

  More

  I am made up at today’s statement, especially as someone with a music industry background and as a big fan. Dynamic pricing made headlines last summer when Oasis’s fans were hit by prices that were two, three, or even four times the face value of the tickets after they had queued for hours and hours. When they got to the payment stage, they had a matter of minutes to decide whether they wanted those tickets. John Robb, the music writer, said that dynamic pricing is “exploiting people’s excitement in the worst possible way” after Ticketmaster behaved no better than the touts they claim to protect fans from. I welcome the call for evidence about this practice, but can the Minister assure me that it will lead to real action so that fans are no longer ripped off by surge pricing?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. About a year ago, one of my constituents in Knowsley was told that she needed IVF. She went to her employer to let them know that she was going to start treatment, and a few days later she was sacked. She was a few weeks short of having worked two years for her employer. She had previously passed probation and had no previous complaints or warnings on her work. Hon. Members will be happy to know that she did get pregnant and she had that baby a month ago, but while trying to get pregnant and in the early stages of her pregnancy she could not find another steady job. No employer wanted to take her on and being unemployed obviously caused immense stress. My constituent did not qualify for maternity pay. She has worked hard all her life; she has studied and has a doctorate. She is now with a small baby on a statutory maternity allowance of £184 and is still not in a job. One in nine women are forced out of the labour market every year due to pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The two-year period in which someone can be dismissed was used unfairly against my constituent. The Bill will protect women across the UK, allowing them the right to a secure job and a family. I am sure we can all agree that the current situation for workers is unacceptable.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite. I want to bring this debate into reality—after all, the Bill seeks to affect real people’s lives and make their life at work better—and talk about my personal experience as a young woman. I was working a couple of jobs to get by, one of them as a silver service waitress on a zero-hours contract and minimum wage. The employer hired only young women, and we worked mostly at high-profile sporting events. To be sexually harassed was seen as normal. We were told to expect it, and we were told that we were expected to accept it—it was part of the job. The employer would also over-hire, so too many of us would turn up and many of us would be sent away, because it was decided that our face or figure did not fit the event that day. Those of us who got to the service were groped, propositioned, reprimanded if we talked back, and threatened with the sack. Travelling home from work together, we would feel completely humiliated and degraded, and we would exchange tales of what had happened to us that day. We took solace in the fact that we were not alone. That behaviour is not something we should accept, but we know it still happens. That is why this part of the Bill is so important. No one should go to work dreading being harassed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester pointed out, the Fawcett Society has said that “40% of women experience sexual harassment throughout their career.” The Bill is intended to prevent workers from being subject to that vile behaviour, and it will ensure that people can get on with their jobs without being filled with fear, dread or humiliation, or feeling unsafe and degraded.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Sixth-form Education: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency there is no A-level provision. Some students have told me that they have to travel for hours just to study, and others consider this a barrier to continuing at school at all. Will my hon. Friend work with me to bring A-levels back to Knowsley?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Can I clarify whether the shadow Minister believes that workers should shoulder all the burden, and that businesses should bear no responsibility?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I refer Members to my declaration of interests. I am also a member of Unite and the GMB. It was said in an evidence session last week that in hospitality—a sector that we are very focused on improving in the Bill— “employers bring in too many workers for shifts and say: ‘Sorry, we do not need you any more. Go home.’ They then cancel a shift without any compensation for the workers for their travel time”. –– [ Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 76-77, Q71.] As many of my hon. Friends have said, while we are considering the burden on business, we must also consider the burden on workers. We are trying to level the playing field and make a more equal way, where workers are considered.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry for referring to the shadow Minister as “you” earlier, Mr Stringer; I was not suggesting that you needed to clarify whether you thought workers should shoulder all of the burden. I want to remind hon. Members of some evidence that we were given last week in support of the right to reasonable notice of a shift. Matthew Percival from the CBI said that “there are areas where the Bill can be a helpful step in the right direction. To give a few examples, we have previously supported the idea that it is wrong that you should turn up for work expecting an eight-hour shift, be sent home after two hours and only be paid for two hours. There should be a right for compensation there.” Jane Gratton from the British Chambers of Commerce said: “As Matthew said on the compensation of shifts, we certainly support that, and we would be very happy about the fair work agency to create a level playing field and measures around workplace equity.” –– [ Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 13, Q6.] Allen Simpson from UKHospitality said: “Again, reasonable notice is an important principle and there should be protections.” –– [ Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 43, Q39.]

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Before I ask this question, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am also a member of the GMB. I want to ask about balloting. What are the practical implications for your unions of paper balloting? What sort of difference do you think electronic balloting will bring? Andy Prendergast: It has been a somewhat strange situation in that, as far as I am aware, the only legally required paper ballot relates to industrial action. That sometimes creates a major impediment for us taking industrial action when that is the clear view of the workforce. There was a certain irony, not lost on us, that when Liz Truss was elected, effectively as Prime Minister, that was done via an electronic ballot. We have been told consistently by people in this House that electronic ballots are not safe and secure, yet you can have one to elect a Prime Minister but you cannot have one to take industrial action. If I am absolutely honest, the state of the Post Office does not help. We often have to have a fast turnaround on a ballot. Where I live, I normally get the post about every eight days. We end up with an antiquated system that simply does not work for this purpose. If you look at electronic ballots, the important thing is that people have the opportunity to take part in a democratic process. It is a process that is allowed under the International Labour Organisation freedom of association rules and the European convention on human rights. It is vital that people are able to partake in democracy. We believe it is something of a strange situation that the one area that currently requires paper ballots is industrial action law. If I were cynical, I would argue that that is specifically to stop industrial action taking place. For us, industrial action is always an absolute last resort, but at times it is necessary. People do not always like industrial disputes, but when you look at what they have achieved over the years, from equal pay via Ford Dagenham to the eight-hour working day, having weekends off, and significantly improved health and safety, it is important that workers have the ability to hold their employers to account in that way. Ultimately, something that simply allows them to take part in that democratic process has to be a good thing. Mike Clancy: For too long, the arguments for inhibiting electronic balloting have, in my view, been entirely bogus. If you look at it from an employer’s perspective, they want the most representative turnout if they have a trade union in their midst, particularly in the context of difficult circumstances where industrial action may be in contemplation—and so does the trade union. We want a representative turnout, and we also want to be able to send a clear message if we get to a juncture where bargaining or something else in the process is proving to be difficult. Electronic balloting is going to enable exactly that. The idea—this is where I feel the argument has been very bogus—that it cannot be done securely is in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. The sooner this particular clause can be progressed and made real, the better. Clearly, it will improve not only engagement, but the validity of results, and I believe that is absolutely something that trade unions want. The sooner we can do it, the better.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to follow on from the last question. A previous witness today said, “I think, if you introduce lots of rights like paternity rights and flexible working rights from day one, you risk having more problems and that will be a cost.” I just want to go a bit deeper into your assessment of that and whether you think family leave and flexible working should be viewed as a net cost. Dr Stephenson: I am also an employer, and we have an incredibly flexible working policy. I think flexible work is largely beneficial for employers as well as workers, not least because it enables you to recruit and retain the best staff. At the moment, the labour market is relatively tight, particularly in some parts of the country and in some sectors. We have higher levels of, for example, economic inactivity among women than men and we know that this is something the Government want to do something about. One of the reasons for economic inactivity among women is caring responsibilities. There are large numbers of women who are not in the labour market who said that they would like to be in paid work if they could find a job that gave them the flexibility they needed. That can only be a benefit to wider society, and ultimately to employers, first, because they can attract the best people and, secondly, because we are more likely to have a strong and growing economy.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Minister, you spoke earlier about some of the engagement you have had on the Bill, and some of the witnesses earlier today spoke about tripartite meetings that they had been at between the Government, unions and businesses. Could you set out some of your planned future engagement on the Bill? Justin Madders: Engagement continues, and there will be more next week—we are meeting a group of small and medium-sized businesses—but to date 140 different stakeholders have attended official or ministerial meetings. You will have heard from many of the witnesses that they have been quite impressed, I think, with the level of engagement and how we have listened to concerns expressed about the Bill. We also undertook extensive engagement in opposition. We will continue to do that. We are moving through some live consultations at the moment. As we develop the Bill and some of the regulations and codes of practice that will follow it, there will continue to be engagement throughout. We are very clear that that is the best way to deliver excellent legislation, and we will continue it.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q In our evidence sessions earlier this week we heard concerns about changes to collective redundancy, and particularly the changes to the “one establishment” rules. What are your views on the provisions in the Bill? Liron Velleman: We rarely deal with collective redundancy on multiple establishments, other than for a few establishments, but it is important for the Committee to understand that collective redundancy is not always a huge battle between employers and unions. It gets into the news that this employer and that union are fighting to the death over something, but usually collective redundancy is an opportunity for employers and unions to sit around the table and try to minimise the impact on the workforce. Even with employers that unions might have a difficult relationship with, collective redundancy is usually an opportunity to do that. It is very well known that Tata Steel recently announced collective redundancies at its steelworks in Port Talbot in south Wales. The original stated redundancy figure was around 2,500, but after work between the unions and the employer, that number has been heavily reduced through cross-matching and through finding training opportunities. Unions are not there just to say, “We are going to keep our members’ jobs for the sake of it,” and scream from the rooftops. Collective redundancy is an opportunity to allow mitigations to protect workers. Any improvements to rules around collective redundancy—whether that is reducing the number of employees needed to start a collective redundancy scheme, increasing the timeframe for that to happen, or looking at the establishment rule—are hugely welcome. Joanne Cairns: On the establishment rule, we are very pleased that the loophole is now being removed. We took a significant legal case on behalf of our members who were employed in Woolworths, where 27,000 employees were made redundant in a single redundancy exercise when the company went into administration. In 200 stores with fewer than 20 employees each, there were 3,000 employees who were not entitled to any protective award even though collective consultation had not taken place. That was purely because they were employed in establishments with fewer than 20 people, even though the decisions were being made far above that level and affected 27,000 employees. It is just common sense that that is now being corrected. We are aware that the issue of scope has been raised in this Committee. We went back and looked at the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Clause 23 of the Bill would not alter what section 188 of the 1992 Act says about “the employees who may be affected by the proposed dismissals or may be affected by measures taken in connection with those dismissals.” It would not mean that workers are being consulted over redundancies that do not affect them; it would just mean that workers who are affected by the redundancies, or their representatives, would be consulted regardless of the size of the establishment that they are working at. We do not see people being involved in consultation exercises that do not affect them; that will not be a result of the Bill.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this important debate, and for her bravery. Domestic violence is a massive issue in Knowsley: more than 3,500 incidents are reported each year, and we know that many more are not reported. More than 85% of the victims are women, and the majority of perpetrators are men. Those women often turn to people and institutions they trust, such as doctors, teachers and others who work in frontline services. Does the Minister agree that we need to break down the silos between Government Departments so that public bodies and agencies can spot the signs of abuse and train their staff to offer help to victims at the point they are ready to receive it?

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I refer once again to the most high-profile case that we have seen in recent times, when P&O unlawfully sacked 800 workers, many of whom were your members and were impacted by that. At this morning’s evidence session, Matthew Percival from the CBI said: “In the fire and rehire proposals, there is a risk that we might be making it easier to make people redundant than to change contracts”. Do you agree? Mick Lynch: No, I do not agree with that at all. Defending fire and rehire, or fire and replace as P&O were doing, is defending the immoral. Maybe the CBI knows a thing or two about immoral behaviour—I do not know why they would be standing up against that. We negotiate contract changes all the time, and the great problem with P&O is that they deceived us. They told us that they were going to negotiate change for new technology, new vessels and new ways of working. There probably would have been some job losses, and we would have dealt with that through normal processes. They decided to sabotage that because it was quicker, and they wanted to get imported foreign labour on those vessels at £4 and £5 an hour, rather than a collective agreement. I do not see good employers struggling with that. I do not see decent businesses struggling with negotiating contract changes, staffing level changes or new technology agreements, which we will all need right across business. We will talk to DFDS about that, hopefully in the near future, as well as Stena and all the other good shipping companies. We are talking about it on the railway. Every trade unionist who comes in front of any of you will say that we are constantly negotiating change. At the end of the second world war, my union had half a million members, while the railway employed 1.2 million people—that has obviously changed. We had sectoral collective bargaining all through that, and most employers had never heard of fire and rehire. You can retool an economy inside collective arrangements, and our European partners have shown us that. If you refit your economy based on consensus, change and looking after people who have to leave, you will have a more successful business. If you just guillotine the whole process, your reputation will be in ruins. I do not accept the CBI’s position. It was probably against the health and safety at work Act and the sex equality Act. All those Acts brought impacts on business, and there is no doubt that the Factories Act was a bit burdensome for the mill owners and mining companies of this country. Everything is difficult for a business, but you have to live inside the regulations in a democracy, and that is what it should be about. Martyn Gray: I suppose to some extent it is the difference between doing what is easy and what is right. It is disappointing that there is an attitude among some elements of business in this country to opt for what is easy, as opposed to doing what is right. Negotiating with trade unions is fairly straightforward. To use the example of P&O Ferries in 2020, at the height of the covid pandemic, we negotiated redundancies as it reduced its operations and went through that process. Mr Hebblethwaite did not want to get back around the table with us because we held P&O Ferries to account over its business proposals in 2020, and we ensured that the redundancies it made were absolutely necessary and were to rightsize the business. We fed back on all its proposals and we engaged very heavily in that process in 2020, when we went through two rounds of redundancies with that particular employer. P&O Ferries then said that we could not engage with what it was proposing, because it knew the proposals were wrong and morally reprehensible. It wiped out a long-standing, collectively bargained workforce that offered quality jobs, as well as employment and training opportunities, across many deprived coastal communities. The loss of those jobs is still being felt in Kingston upon Hull, Birkenhead, Liverpool and Dover. P&O Ferries was able to say, “Actually, because what we are suggesting is so wrong, we have just decided to push ahead and do it anyway, knowing that there will be limited repercussions,” and that is to some extent why we are here talking about it. That highlighted just how easy it was for businesses to make the wrong decisions. It is shocking and abysmal, but unfortunately not surprising, that the CBI did not recognise that those easy options are what are putting us in this position, where regulation needs to be developed. I disagree with what the CBI said, and I disagree that this Bill would make it the preferred option to go through a redundancy, or fire and rehire, rather than to engage with trade unions. When negotiating with trade unions, we understand the business operations and we can help, and we have helped. I have been engaged in countless redundancy conversations with employers in the maritime industry where we have been able to look at things differently. We have been able to support what those businesses are going through by talking about the number of redundancies that potentially need to be made, and we have supported them in building jobs back in, in their plans for growth and in their changes to terms and conditions. That has protected jobs, and we have negotiated our way through that for the betterment of the business and the people that it employs. For the CBI and some business elements to take the approach that it is easier to fire and rehire, instead of negotiating, is really short-sighted and problematic for the future.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I refer to my declaration of interests and my membership of Unite and the GMB.