Rights at work and season update
Welcome to the final episode of this series of Committee Corridor.
The podcast
In this series of Committee Corridor we’ve been looking at human rights and justice.
Today, we’re updating you on the different issues we covered: modern slavery in the UK, the forced adoption of the children from unmarried mothers from the1940s-1970s, plans to reform the Human Rights Act and the critical issues facing the criminal justice system in England and Wales.
To bring you up to date with work in select committees, we’ll also hear how employment rights are being put to the test. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has launched an inquiry into how far human rights are protected and respected at work.
Select Committee Chairs, Darren Jones MP and Caroline Nokes MP review how their committees have tackled some of the key issues facing workers today, making for some spirited exchanges in the committee rooms. They reflect on how select committees can get to the heart of critical issues.
Your host is Joanna Cherry KC MP.
Transcript
Joanna: Hello, and welcome to Committee Corridor. In this podcast, we leave the hustle and bustle of the Commons Chamber behind and make for the committee corridor.
There are around 20 committee rooms in the Palace of Westminster, and another batch in Portcullis House just across the road. In these rooms, members of Parliament swap opposition for collaboration and get into the detail of some of the most pressing issues of the day.
In this series of Committee Corridor, we've been looking at human rights and justice. Today, we're taking a look back at what's been happening since our episodes aired. To bring you up to date with committee work, we'll also hear how employment rights are being put to the test in an inquiry about rights at work.
Select Committee Chairs, Darren Jones and Caroline Nokes review how their committees have tackled some of the key issues facing workers today, making for some feisty exchanges in the committee rooms.
I'm Joana Cherry, the Scottish National Party member for Edinburgh South West, and I chair the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
What is modern slavery and what does it look like in the UK?
In our first podcast, our guests, former Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, Professor Dame Sara Thornton, Chair of the International Development Committee, Sarah Champion, MP, and member of the Home Affairs Committee, Tim Loughton, MP, gave their views on the urgent priorities around modern slavery and the UK Government's response to it.
Since then, the Government has introduced the illegal migration bill. This would make several changes to the law relating to modern slavery, including by disapplying protections in certain circumstances for people who come to the UK outside the usual ways, including those who come by small boat crossings.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights is currently conducting legislative scrutiny of the bill. In April 2022, Dame Sara Thornton left her post as the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. One year later, it's still vacant. She stressed the need for evidence-based policymaking.
Sara: We need a fearless independent voice to scrutinise what the Government is proposing in its desires to reform modern slavery legislation. But also, more positively, we need somebody who can work with business, with law enforcement, with civil society to improve awareness and improve the effectiveness of responses to modern slavery.
And in particular, an independent anti-slavery commissioner can focus on evidence and data and research. And I think when it comes to public policy, those sorts of contributions are really important to both understanding the problem and developing effective responses to it.
Joanna: From the 1940s to the 1970s, tens of thousands of children were adopted simply because their mothers weren't married, and even though their mothers didn't want to let them go.
Last year, the UK Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report about the adoption of children of unmarried mothers during this time.
In our podcast, Harriet Harman MP described how the inquiry unfolded. We also heard the very striking voices of two women dealing with the lifelong legacy of these decisions, and their calls for a formal apology.
Liz Harvie was adopted at eight-weeks-old, and she set out how that decision has had wide repercussions on her life.
In 1966, Ann Keen was only 17 when she was sent to a mother and baby home, she gave birth to a son who was adopted. She described some of the pressures she faced at that time.
Ann: An expression that's used is often, “This is for the best. This is for the best for the baby, and in the end, the best for you because you will have a life. You won't have to worry. You can go on and do things.”
But most importantly— and it was reinforced by this moral welfare officer when she sent me a photograph of my son at six-weeks-old in the letter, which I gave to the inquiry.
She writes, “You must be so pleased to see him look so well, and you'll now know that he will never grow up with the stigma of illegitimacy.”
Joanna: The UK Government delivered its response to our report in early March. There was no formal apology, although the response repeatedly acknowledged that what had happened to unmarried mothers and their children was profoundly wrong, and the Government was sorry for what they had suffered.
The Government said they would take on board the recommendations which should serve to make a difference to how those affected deal with the legacy of these adoptions. These include improving the availability of specialised counselling services, the sharing of medical information, and removing administrative barriers.
In Wales the Deputy Minister for Social Services made a personal apology for the suffering of those affected by the historical practice of forced adoption in the 1950s, sixties and seventies.
Only in Scotland has the first Minister delivered a formal apology to those affected. At the end of March, Nicola Sturgeon told the Scottish Parliament that the forced adoptions were unjust and profoundly wrong.
Francesca: The Bill of Rights bill still includes the basic text of the European Convention on Human Rights. So, in that sense, it's fair to say there is little change.
However, there is far more what could be described as micromanagement of judges' interpretation of the texts. Critics have called it a “rights removal bill” because there are three significant ways where it will restrict current protections.
Joanna: That's the voice of Professor Francesca Klug, legal legend, and architect of the 1998 Landmark Human Rights Act.
Last year, the Government brought forward legislation for a British Bill of Rights, which would repeal and replace the Human Rights Act and place limitations on the interpretation and enforcement of the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the face of these plans, who better to ask if the Human Rights Act needs reform? Professor Klug set out the impact of the Human Rights Act with practical examples of its application.
Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Sarah Ludford and Conservative MP, David Simmonds, joined us to reflect on the work by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
We don't know what will happen to the bill now, particularly as its chief mover, Dominic Raab has resigned as Justice Secretary.
Notwithstanding the arrival of a new Secretary of State for Justice, the legal sector is coping with several pressing issues, prompting some to say that the criminal justice system in the England and Wales is in crisis.
The problems the sector faces include a considerable backlog of Crown Court cases, concerns about the investigation of rape, and the low volume of prosecutions, and also, the highest rate of prisoners on remand for 50 years.
I was joined by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and Labour MP, Diana Johnson, and Chair of the Justice Committee, Conservative MP, BobNeill, to hear about the work they've been doing to examine these issues.
For the legal commentator, Joshua Rozenberg however, remuneration in the sector has been so low for so long that only the most idealistic people in the world who'd want to do criminal law.
Joshua: The problem is recruitment, there aren't enough lawyers doing criminal law, and that's not just bad for people who need defence lawyers and even prosecutors, it's bad for the long-term progress of the judiciary because the judiciary is drawn from practitioners.
There's already a shortfall in recruitment to the circuit bench in England and Wales. They can't get enough judges in the Crown Court. And if you are looking at the pool to succeed Lord Burnett of Maldon as Lord, Chief Justice of England and Wales, you look for somebody with criminal experience. There are not so many judges with the criminal experience which is part of, perhaps just a small part of that important job.
So, unless you are bringing people up through the legal profession, you are not going to get the judges of the future, and you are not bringing people up through the legal profession because young people simply can't afford to practise as criminal barristers.
They are not being recruited as criminal trainee solicitors because the money has been so low for so long that who, apart from the most idealistic people in the world, would want to do criminal law.
Joanna: Now, to bring you right up to date with committee work, and to round off our series on human rights and justice, we're going to talk about rights at work.
There are many laws that protect our rights at work here in the United Kingdom. The Joint Committee on Human Rights is undertaking an inquiry and has put out a call for evidence.
We are asking if the current legal framework sufficiently protects and respects the right of workers to be free from exploitation and their rights to freedom of association, to private and family life, to freedom of religion and belief, and to freedom of expression.
To hear how these concerns make their way into select committees, we've paired up the chairs of two select committees where recent sessions have made for some robust exchanges between members and witnesses.
The Women and Equalities Committee holds Government to account on equality, law and policy, including the Equality Act 2010 and cross-Government activity on equalities.
It's chaired by Caroline Nokes, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Romsey in Southampton North. Members have been looking at menopause in the workplace, and they questioned the Minister for Women and Equalities, Kemi Badenoch. She said she would not be adding any new protected characteristics to the Equality Act.
Darren Jones is the Labour Member of Parliament for Bristol North West. You might know him as a former host of this podcast, but he's also chair of the Business Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.
It's taken a strong line of questioning with companies about the working conditions for their staff, including the senior leadership of P&O Ferries, Centrica, Amazon, and the Royal Mail.
Darren and Caroline also compared experience of how select committees can get to the heart of the matter.
Caroline: I'm Caroline Nokes, Chair of the Women and Equalities Select Committee, and today, talking to my colleague Darren Jones about workers' rights and the separate inquiries our committees are doing to promote the rights of different groups of workers.
Darren: Caroline, it's great to be back on the podcast with you and I understand that you've been doing more work on this issue since we last spoke, and your committee's been looking in particular, the experiences of menopausal women at work, where you've concluded there was a significant amount of evidence enough to warrant action from Government.
You had a pretty well-publicised session with the Equalities Minister, Kemi Badenoch. How did that go and did the Government agree with you?
Caroline: Well, we spent well over a year working on menopause in the workplace. Came up with a raft of recommendations.
Five of which the Government agreed with (six, they didn't). But it was a really important opportunity for the voice of older workers to be heard, and for them to put across to the committee the challenges they were facing with necessary adjustments not being made in the workplace, about employers without understanding of menopause or certainly, without any policies in place to tackle it.
And I'm very conscious that women over 50 are hugely ignored in many walks of life. And this was an opportunity for us to put across the fact that there could be legislative change, there could be tweaks to the Equalities Act that might make it easier to keep women over 50 in work.
And we know there's a big drive to keep people working longer, but the menopause has, according to some stats, driven almost a million women out of work altogether. And so, our message to Government, which we’re struggling to get them to agree to, is you can make some small changes, which could have a really beneficial impact.
Darren: And one of those small changes, I understand around the Equality Act that you just mentioned is that, as I understand it, you can't have kind of multiple bases of discrimination. You can't have two or more protected characteristics.
So, let's take a menopausal woman who could be discriminated against based on their age or their gender, but they can't then also be discriminated against under the law for a disability.
I mean, that just seems to be like it was a bit of an oversight when the legislation was being drafted as to something that they genuinely wanted to happen. I mean, do you think the Government recognises that?
Caroline: Well, it's already there in the Act, section 14 is written, not been enacted, and that would have allowed women or anybody in fact, to bring a discrimination claim under dual characteristics.
And so, we suggested to the Government that that could be enacted. Their response was a very firm no to that. And to a certain extent, I can see why. Look, there are all sorts of unintended consequences to making dual discrimination claims possible.
But the stark reality is, is that at the moment, the law isn't working, and women who are trying to bring discrimination cases on the grounds of menopause are finding it more successful if they use disability discrimination.
And that's the stark reality is that menopause is not a disability, and it won't affect everybody, and it will affect some people differently to others. But at the moment, the best advice that women are getting from their lawyers is claim that you're disabled. And to me, that's frankly insulting.
Darren: And one of the things I think you recommended was about highlighting the difference here between menopause and other forms of disability. If you called for, I think, a menopause ambassador in Government, the Chancellor's recent budget had a lot of focus on trying to get older men and women back into work.
Why do you think he didn't take the opportunity of appointing a menopause ambassador?
Caroline: Well, we've seen the DWP bring forward their workplace menopause champion, and I think that's real evidence of a Government department that has listened and does get it.
But there still seems to be this stumbling block, a lack of understanding that if you want to keep the over fifties in work, or if you want to attract them back into work, it's really obvious to me that 51% of the population is female.
They will all, at some point, or other — and some women go through the menopause very early. But at some point or other, usually between about 49 and 51 go through the menopause.
This has to be a target group, this has to be easier to make some small changes that would make it easier to keep these women in work than trying to attract them back if they've been forced out, had to have a career break because their symptoms have been so overwhelming because their employer has been so little understanding.
And it's why we were suggesting a trial. Not even making it a statutory right, but a trial of workplace menopause leave to see if it could work. And I know that some private sector companies are looking at that.
But my message to Government is you could have found a big public sector employer, somewhere like the NHS where there are lots of women, and use that as an opportunity to really champion older people in the workforce. And I think it's really a real shame that the Government hasn't seized that opportunity.
Darren, your committee has been looking at P&O Ferries, which is a fascinating and really uncomfortable issue where the company's actions really caused MPs, the wider public to condemn them for what they were doing. Can you tell us a bit about whether workers' rights are more or less protected today as a result that you've done on that?
Darren: Well, that was a pretty high-profile hearing for us. It was a joint hearing between my Business Committee and the Transport Committee. And our job really at that stage when, — for listeners that maybe don't remember, P&O Ferry sacked 800 workers without following the proper legal process, in order to employ cheaper overseas labour on their ferries.
Our job as the Select Committees was basically to shine a light on that, to apply as much public pressure to the owners and leaders of P&O Ferries and to try and encourage ministers to take action. And at that time, the CEO of P&O Ferries basically said to the committee, “I knew what the law was, I broke it, I did it on purpose, and I would do it again.”
Which, in short, is saying to Parliament and the Government, “What are you going to do about it?” Now, clearly, Select Committees don't have the power to take enforcement action, but ministers promised to do so.
Some of that is still ongoing, but most of the enforcement actions have not culminated in any kind of justice for the 800 workers who were affected. And it was disappointing because ministers at the time, seemed quite energetic about trying to resolve some of these issues.
There was a commitment to bring forward an Employment Rights Bill, to enhance and change the enforcement bodies that exist within Government. And there've been a couple of changes. So, there's been a little bit of law that's changed about how we calculate national minimum wage for seafarers.
There's been some updated advice to Acas, which is one of the statutory bodies that resolve workplace disputes around use of things like fire and rehire and other practices.
But has there been fundamental change? No, not really. There's still a need to bring forward legislation to update workers' rights and to improve the enforcement of workers' rights.
And for various reasons, the Government hasn't taken the opportunity to do that yet.
Caroline: I think you and me both are waiting for an employment bill, but the Government did announce crackdown on fire and rehire and a statutory code of practice. Has that been forthcoming yet? And if not, when it does come out, is that something that the committee will do some follow up work on?
Darren: Because of the changes in the structure of Government we’ll basically be a new committee, so we'll need to decide on our priorities. But certainly, my intention that we will revisit some of these issues.
On fire and rehire, the idea that an employer can say to everybody, “Well, unless you agree to the contractual changes or change in your pay, I'm just going to fire all of you. And then if you want a job, I'll rehire you on the worst terms and conditions.’
There has been some updates to the guidance about that, which is welcome and useful, but the power is still in the employer's hands to threaten workers at an early stage in a negotiation to say, “Well, ultimately, I've got the right here to fire you and rehire you, so you may as well agree to what I'm offering you.”
And the dispute that involved Centrica British Gas, something that we talked about before my Select Committee at the time was a difference in opinion of the interpretation of the law between the employer and the employees. And it's an area like that actually where legislation would be useful to really clarify how these processes should or shouldn't be used.
So, we welcome the code of practice and the update of guidance but I still think there's more to do on it.
Caroline: And Centrica and P&O are both really good examples of where a Select Committee can be pretty nimble and change its programme according to something that is of high public interest, it's very topical.
Do you think that that is one of the examples of where Select Committee's scrutiny role can, in some instances, work faster and more effectively than necessarily, the other levers of Government would?
Darren: Yeah, I mean, you'll know from your committee that we have kind of longer-running inquiries where we look at policy issues in detail, and then we have this opportunity to be more topical in asking questions of ministers or our relevant stakeholders and for the Business Committee, that's often business leaders.
We're able to shine a light on problems, we're able to get things on television and into the press, we're able to ask difficult questions of people and encourage them to answer them and not let them leave until they've answered those questions properly. We're able to publish evidence.
So, we have a really important scrutiny role on behalf of the public, where the public should look at Select Committees and say — if they have an interest in that particular area that they feel like Parliament through the Select Committees is representing them and their voice in these circumstances and making sure that people are being held to account.
That's great, but the public sometimes get a bit frustrated because of course, we're not the Government and we don't have enforcement powers. And that's the limitation. But I wouldn't replace the committee system with anything. I think that scrutiny function is really important.
I mean, Caroline, do you agree? I mean, sometimes, our policy work feels like it can be quite long-winded and slow, and Government can sometimes be a bit slow in responding. But on other times, the example we've just talked about, you can be a bit quicker and move with the public's interest. Do you find that in your work?
Caroline: So, I think it gives us an opportunity to be quite flexible and respond to things. I think one of my biggest frustrations is that we have a limited amount of time, and there is so much particularly when it's as wide reaching as women and equalities, there is so much to do, and sometimes it's hard to prioritise.
But like the inquiry into misogyny in sport, sometimes opportunities just present themselves to you, that it's topical, it's in the news, and it's effectively an opportunity that you can seize and run with when there's no parliamentary time, there's no legislation coming forward that would give ministers a platform on which to actually highlight how difficult issues are.
Darren: And I think you're looking at misogyny in music now. That's another example where a question on the floor of the House isn't going to get you very far in really understanding the issue, but a Select Committee can really start to grapple with the reality for people.
How are you finding that women are treated, say, in the music industry compared to other workplaces?
Caroline: It's been really enlightening and slightly terrifying. So, I think we initially thought that it would be sort of popular music that there was a real problem in.
It was shocking to me to hear concert pianists and professional musicians in classical music also talking to us about the misogyny they'd faced. It was really interesting to have female music technicians and roadies come and share their experience.
And of course, one of the big challenges that they all face is they are, in many instances, self-employed freelancers reliant upon the same venues, the same music producers for their next job, and a real fear of speaking out.
It was some very, very brave women who came and gave evidence to the Select Committee and were actually prepared to put their head above the parapet. And some really startling evidence of the discrimination and the abuse that they had faced.
Darren: And this is because presumably, the businesses or the people that are contracting them to provide their work as freelancers can just terminate the contract and go somewhere else, and there's no mechanism or root for them to kind of enforce their rights if they have any, as freelancers, or to make complaints about the way they're being treated.
Caroline: And the stark reality is that they don't have anyone to complain to. Even if they did have somebody obvious to complain to, they were scared that to make a complaint would mean that they didn't work again. And these are people who are living … you talk about the music industry and everybody instantly thinks it's a very glamorous and well-paid life.
But actually, for many musicians, it's not that at all. And they really are working incredibly hard to go from one job to the next with no security whatsoever and with no rights. And that was really startling to us, how vulnerable they all felt.
But Joanna, who chairs the Joint Committee on Human Rights, her committee is currently looking at the extent to which human rights are respected and protected in the workplace.
And one of them, of course, is the right to privacy and surveillance at work. It's appeared in your work as well, on the use of artificial intelligence and technology in the workplace. What's the impact on workers of those sorts of developments?
Darren: Well, it's really interesting. We've looked at this in quite a few different workplaces over the last couple of months. And on the one hand, you entirely understand why business leaders will look to technology and investment in technology to improve the productivity, the automation in the workplace, so that they can do more, work more quickly, more effectively, improve their profits.
Indeed, there's a policy ask from lots of us in Westminster that businesses do that in order to be competitive internationally. But what's often overlooked is what is the impact of that on your human workers and their rights in the workplace, and have they been part of the design or the implementation of the technology?
And what we've found in some bad examples is that businesses have used technology, whether it's handheld devices or CCTV cameras, or other ways of tracking productivity or performance, but they've not included workers from the very start of that journey to understand what the impact is on them.
And then you get to a point where the technology might be effective in improving productivity or output in the business, but it's having a really detrimental impact on the worker, not just their right to privacy or their right to not be surveilled in that way, but in the kind of stress or the cultural implications of knowing that this bit of kit that's either watching you or is attached to you is constantly feeding back data to your managers about whether you are quick enough.
And we've had lots of examples in different workplaces where managers have then been performance managing their workers based on that data, which can often undermine workers' rights or their protected characteristics. If you're an older worker working in a warehouse and your technology is telling you you're not quick enough compared to a 21-year-old, there's a reason for that. And if you are then sacked or treated unfairly, your protected characters at your age is being affected as a consequence of that.
And we've started to shine a bit of a light on these bad practices, but there's definitely a need in terms of enforcement bodies from Government probably in terms of guidance, possibly in terms of regulation to either encourage or force employers to think much more about the impact of this technology on workers from the very start of them thinking about implementing it, as opposed to thinking about it when a problem arises.
Caroline: And you recently had Royal Mail in to talk about this. How did that go?
Darren: Well, the Royal Mail hearings are a bit bumpy for a whole host of issues, but one of the particular areas of questioning was around the use of technology. They're called Postal Digital Assistance or PDAs.
And this is kind of handheld device that poster workers carry perfectly legitimately to allow those of us that want to know when our parcel might arrive to be able to log on and see where the poster worker is and the time it might come, whether it's been left behind the bin at the back or given to a neighbour.
That type of customer data that we quite like from a tech perspective is legitimate. But we found on the committee that what it was being used to do was also to track the speed at which postal workers were delivering their items.
It tracked when they'd stopped and how long they stopped for. And if they'd stopped for a long period of time, this yellow dot would grow bigger on the map. And then we found that delivery offices were kind of printing out league tables of who was the quickest, who was the slowest.
And ended up with some examples being given to the committee where it became a kind of performance and disciplinary type discussion. Even though Royal Mail disputed that, we had evidence that it was being used in that way where there was signs saying things like, “Don't get caught.”
And this all at the same time as the delivery round’s getting bigger and bigger for postal workers and a lot of pressure on the system was yet another example, much like our discussions with Amazon where workers were being put in a very difficult, stressful environment because of the use of technology, which if it was done in the right way, probably would be a good experience for everyone involved.
Caroline: Yeah, and I think we look at that technology when we're tracking our own parcels and don't necessarily think of the impact that that might have on the postal workers.
And going forward, rejigging your committee so that it covers business and trade how do you think that'll impact your work on … that you are able to scrutinise how workers' rights are being protected or no change there?
Darren: So, my committee splits into three essentially so, there'll be a new Energy and Net zero committee that will scrutinise that department and will take the energy and net zero brief from us.
My committee then becomes the Business and Trade Committee. So, it takes on the international trade work to mirror the fact that the Prime Minister has merged those two departments in Government.
And then the work of the new department for Technology, Innovation and Science will be scrutinised by Greg Clark and his team on the Science and Technology Committee. So, there'll be some overlap on some of these issues around technology and AI between the science committee and my committee.
But the Business Committee will still be the responsible committee for things like employment rights and enforcement of workers' rights. And so, in theory, at least, we should have more time to look at these issues given the brief, which was traditionally very big, has been shared out a bit more.
Joanna: To underline the role of select committees and Government scrutiny, we marked an important anniversary during this series. It's 25 years since the Environmental Audit Committee was established to check and challenge whether the Government of the day is living up to the policies and ambitions that it sets for environmental protection.
At an anniversary event, the committee and guest speakers reflected on how scrutiny in this area of political life has developed over the last quarter of a century and looked forward to the challenges for the next quarter of a century.
Committee Corridor was there to hear former Prime Minister Theresa May set out why bodies outside Government must continue to provide assessment and challenge. She told the audience that Parliament and the Environmental Audit Committee have a critical role to play.
Theresa: If you look at the landscape now, we have a plethora of targets from the Net Zero target through the targets for Net Zero delivery, the environmental targets under the 2021 Environment Act, and of course, the recommendations set by Chris Skidmore in his excellent report.
The focus now has to be on delivery. Not on proving the science, not on making the case, not on determining a vision, not on setting the goals. We know the science, we know the case, we know the overall vision, we know the goals, the targets, and the staging posts. Now, is the time for delivery, and Parliament has a key role in ensuring that delivery takes place.
Joanna: My thanks to all my guests today. This is the last episode in this series of Committee Corridor, and sadly, my last turn as the host.
If you've enjoyed this series, you might like to watch the Human Rights Committee at work. As well as rights at work and the Government's illegal migration bill. We are examining the human rights of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom.
You can find all select committee proceedings on parliament live.tv, watch live or on demand. Committee Corridor will be back with a new series in May.
I'm Joanna Cherry, MP, and this has been Committee Corridor, thank you for listening.