Michael Wheeler
MP for Worsley and Eccles · Labour · United Kingdom
“A recently elected Reform councillor in my constituency believes that the best way to regenerate Eccles, which he described as a problem area, is to turn it into the UK’s Dubai.”
“I strongly welcome the steps that the Government have taken to bring down my constituents’ energy bills from the start of this month. However, the effects of the war in Iran are now beginning to feed through into higher food prices.”
“T9. This Labour Government have ensured that, as of this month, workers in Worsley and Eccles and across the country get sick pay from day one, including low-paid workers. As chair of the USDAW parliamentary group, and having campaigned for this, I welcome this so much.”
“T3. I welcome the upcoming drop next week in the energy price cap, which I know will help my constituents. With the Government’s focus on the cost of living, we are all concerned that events in the middle east will trigger a price shock in the market, making that work more difficult.”
“While cost of living pressures are affecting people across my constituency of Worsley and Eccles, young families face a perfect storm. Whether it is housing costs, expensive childcare or student loans, many young families are struggling, and research shows that the cost of living crisis is holding people back from even starting a family.”
“In my constituency of Worsley and Eccles, residents of Peel Green and the surrounding area, including the enthusiastic pupils of Salford City academy, are looking to get their hands on the Pride in Place money. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that they are at the forefront, they take the lead, and they decide?”
The complete record
Every one of 197 lines we hold for Michael Wheeler, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 4.
“Therefore, 10% has proven to be a high and often insurmountable barrier, and not actually reflective of the will of workers, rather than when a proper choice, in reasonable and neutral conditions, is put to them. The threshold should actually be lower, to allow the process to take place and for it not to become a tool for erecting barriers to trade union recognition.”
“I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my membership of the GMB and USDAW. The shadow Minister is painting a very rosy picture of reasonableness and neutrality, of businesses that sit by and allow these things to happen, and of unions that can wander around and have a nice chat and recruit people. Does he accept that the reality in the world of work is actually one of hostility, of difficulty, and the types of measures that this Bill is trying to address so as to restore the situation to an even keel? The reality out there is hostility to recognition and trade union membership.”
“I thank the shadow Minister for giving way again, because I would not want my words to be misrepresented. In no way was I suggesting that there is universal hostility; I was just talking about the reality on the ground and the way that recognition procedures are often used. Let us bear in mind that voluntary recognition agreements are a thing, so these procedures tend to be used where there is hostility. There is not universal hostility in the workplace. In fact, I worked in a union that had the largest private sector partnership agreement with a large private sector employer, and it was harmonious and beneficial for all involved, so I would not want my words to be taken out of context or misrepresented.”
“It comes with more rights, more democratic involvement and more control over where money and resources go. A fundamentally false analogy was drawn. We heard earlier about businesses. I gently push back on what the hon. Member for Bridgwater said; I do not think I heard the Minister say it would be an annual notice. It was up for consultation, but even one notice was described by Conservative Members as onerous. Yet here we have an amendment pushing not just for reminders but for annual reconfirmation, from people who have already given their consent to pay into a political fund, that they are happy for that to happen, as a compulsory measure. That is deemed reasonable by Conservative Members, but it is not. The amendment is a continuation of a decades-long attack on the trade union movement by the Conservative party.”
“I might surprise Conservative Members by saying that I welcome the amendment. Before those on the Labour Benches start to panic, I welcome it because it is a reminder that the only place in the country where Conservative Members support increasing red tape is for trade unions. It is always nice to follow and to be of one mind with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, so I will try not to repeat too much of what he said—although I agree with it all. The shadow Minister challenged Labour Members who have spoken, but it is fundamental to point out that the analogy he drew is false. A trade union is a member-based democratic organisation designed to protect those who are part of it. It is not a subscription or an entertainment package on TV.”
“For once in this place I will give a direct answer. Yes, I would. As a paid-up member of a trade union I would know exactly how to do that. I do not need the measures in the amendment to do so. Conservative Members talk about trade union members in the hypothetical, trying to understand what they would like. Other than those of us in this place who are trade union members, I wonder how many they have ever met. As someone who worked for one in the background, I think I know the mind of a trade union member.”
“It could be dangerous for me to admit that sometimes I might have wished to instruct a member, but I can reassure everyone here that the instructions flow the other way when someone is a trade union official acting at the behest of members at all times. I was one sentence from the end before the interventions. I have been thoroughly derailed by people in this room, so I will wrap up and say that I do not agree with the amendment. I disagree with a lot of what was raised in the debate and the false analogy around subscription models versus membership of a democratic organisation. I will obviously not support the amendment.”
“Does the shadow Minister accept that the strikes he talks about happened under an incredibly restrictive regulatory and legislative regime? The measures in the Bill seek to foster a better industrial relations environment, which will lead to fewer strikes, not more. Under the previous Government, we saw an incredibly restrictive environment, which ratcheted up the tension and resulted in more strikes.”
“Finally, I note the introduction of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will help break the link between young people’s backgrounds and their future success, providing opportunity for all while delivering on our specific manifesto commitment of free breakfast clubs in every primary school. Less than 200 days ago, the British people endorsed Labour’s manifesto and delivered a resounding call for change. This Government are working hard to meet the commitments made at that election. I welcome the progress that has already been made on delivering the promises, and I know that there is more to come. I look forward to facing my constituents at the next general election—when it comes—and standing on my record and the record of this Labour Government. Until then, I will keep working every day for the people of Worsley and Eccles.”
“In addition, a 6.7% increase in the national living wage will take effect from this April, with this Government changing the Low Pay Commission’s remit so that it will now have to take into account the cost of living when setting new rates. The Government are also taking action to provide the secure homes that people need. I welcome the Government’s commitment to accelerate house building in order to deliver 1.5 million good quality homes and infrastructure. For far too long private renters have suffered from expensive, precarious and poor quality accommodation. I was proud to serve on the Renters’ Rights Bill Committee, working on a Bill that will level the playing field between tenants and landlords, banning the scandal of no-fault evictions and delivering a range of new protections.”
“I am proud to see the important progress being made on delivering many of the other manifesto commitments that I was elected on. Whereas the previous Government oversaw an economy blighted by insecure work, low pay and poor productivity, the Employment Rights Bill introduced by this Government will deliver the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation, meeting our commitment to make work pay. Measures in the Bill—such as the end of exploitative zero-hours contracts, the end of fire and rehire, and the right to statutory sick pay from day one of an illness—will end the poor pay, poor working conditions and poor job security that have held too many people back for too long.”
“I am acutely aware of the vital importance that my constituents place on their children receiving a high quality education. I therefore welcomed the Government’s decision to increase the core schools budget by £2.3 billion next year to support the recruitment of 6,500 teachers and genuinely invest in our state schools. As someone who regularly suffers on the west coast main line and has never understood why the failed model of privatisation was allowed to continue for so long to the detriment of customers, I was also proud to vote for legislation to fix our broken transport system, laying the groundwork for a publicly owned rail system that works for the public once again. The Labour Government are only getting started—we are only six months in.”
“Fourteen years and £22 billion—a challenge of this scale is clearly not going to be fixed overnight. This Government have not sat idly by for the last six months. We have started the hard work of delivering change, our manifesto promises and the better future that the people of this country deserve. Labour has committed an extra £25.6 billion of NHS funding over two years to meet our commitment to fix our broken NHS. That funding will be vital in cutting waiting times, and I was pleased to see the Prime Minister set out measures earlier today to deliver 40,000 extra appointments every single week. Work has already begun on Labour’s commitment to raise school standards for every single child. Since the election, it has been a genuine pleasure of mine to visit so many excellent schools in my constituency of Worsley and Eccles.”
“It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I also extend my thanks to the Chair of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). On 4 July 2024, I was proud to be elected as the Labour MP for Worsley and Eccles. I stood on a manifesto of change and, six months ago, Labour was given a clear mandate from the British people to get on with the job of rebuilding the country, fixing our public services and making work pay. There should be no doubts about the size of this task. Fourteen years of Conservative Government have left public services in a dire condition and people feeling the pinch in their pockets. On top of that, a flurry of unfunded promises left the country with a £22 billion black hole that it is up to the Labour Government to fill.”
“I am more than happy to wave in a friendly manner in this festive sitting. As usual, I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests of my membership of the GMB and USDAW. We have heard the phrase “academy freedoms”, with a lot of emphasis put on freedoms. We have also heard the Minister confirm that diversity is not being lost in terms of educational choice. We have heard that teaching assistants, according to the Low Pay Commission, have unfortunately been defined as low-paid workers. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the only “freedom” —I use inverted commas there, for the sake of the record—being lost is the ability of academies and free schools to pay poorly?”
“Gentleman’s concerns, and I hope the Minister will look closely at proposed new section 104I(4) of the 1996 Act, because the words “likely in the immediate future” are doing some precariously heavy lifting. However, if the amendment were accepted, the focus on a business being a going concern, which is the most important part of that subsection, would be removed completely. When we are passing legislation that protects jobs and promotes good employment, we absolutely cannot allow the unintended consequence of mandating redundancy when there are other options. I look forward to the Minister’s comments. I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Dundee Central, but this is a sledgehammer of an amendment to crack a nut of a possible loophole, with significant potential consequences.”
“As ever, it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. As usual, I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and particularly to my membership of the USDAW and GMB trade unions. I am sure it will not surprise the hon. Member for Dundee Central to hear that I share some of his concerns about the practice of fire and rehire, and I welcome the significant steps taken in the Bill to outlaw the practice. However, I disagree with his amendment 160. What might be seen by some as a loophole is actually an important safeguard against the perverse potential for the law to mandate redundancy when there might have been other options on the table. I am sure that none of us would want to be party to including that in the Bill. As I said, I share some of the hon.”
“It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend that I agree with him. It is important that we keep our focus on the reality of work and the need to provide workers with protections and good-quality employment. The Bill has been brought forward in the context of “Make Work Pay” and the “Next Steps” document, and I look forward to what I am sure will be illuminating comments from the Minister.”
“On a point of clarity, is it the purpose of the amendment or an unintended consequence of the drafting that it would completely delete the subsection, rather than adding to it? If the purpose is to completely delete the subsection it is amending, are Opposition Members trying to remove the protections for those going concerns?”
“The amendment seems to refer to the particulars of normal working practices, looking at updating mechanisms to account for modern technology and suchlike, that are much better handled by the existing consensual mechanisms. While I appreciate that it is a probing amendment, it seems entirely unnecessary and does not necessarily speak to the heart of what the clause is about: ending the extreme practice of fire and rehire.”
“I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, but I want to talk to its specifics. It appears to me that there are plenty of consensual mechanisms for achieving most of what the shadow Minister is suggesting about the variation of contracts to reflect working practices. If anything, they are inherently better than anything that is imposed. Quite often, when working practices, organisations and business practices are modernised, communication between those doing the work and the managers and owners leads to a much better outcome. I suggest that we need to remember that we are talking about fire and rehire, which is inherently quite extreme.”
“I will keep my contribution relatively short, but I did not want to let the clause pass without warmly welcoming its inclusion in the Bill. In a previous life, I worked to represent shop and retail workers. While P&O and the scandal of fire and rehire entered the collective consciousness, the Woolworths redundancy situation was burned into the consciousness of the workers I represented at that time. That is exactly the loophole that this measure is trying to close. Thousands of workers affected by the Woolworths redundancy missed out on the compensation they deserved as part of the lack of consultation because they worked in individual establishments that were small and fell below the threshold. The interpretation of the law at that point meant they were isolated, divided and not included as part of what was clearly, to everyone—”
“I speak for myself alone when I say that I would love for every worker in this country to have the benefit of trade union representation. I confirm for the shadow Minister that I would love to see that, because I think it has genuine benefits.”
“The hon. Gentleman invites to me to say whether I am content. I draw his attention to the fact that the clause removes the single establishment loophole while leaving in place the thresholds that are already part of the law around consultation and the time period. I have not examined and, despite the invitation, I will not speculate on where those thresholds should be, but I warmly welcome the removal of the single establishment loophole, so that where the numbers in a redundancy cross those thresholds—legitimately and apparently to everyone looking at it—there are not legalistic mechanisms for those workers to be left out. Having warmly welcomed the removal of the loophole, let me reassure the shadow Minister. In a previous, previous life I was in a different job—we have all had many jobs—where trade unions were not recognised.”
“I am sure it is not. I worked in a retail establishment that did not benefit from trade union representation and that went through consultation, not on redundancy but on a variation of contracts, so it is relevant to what we were talking about before. It was actually a relatively smooth and easy process for employee representatives to be appointed and elected from among our number, despite the lack of an existing structure, and to engage with the company in those consultation exercises. While I would love there to be a trade union fighting the corner for every worker, when it is absent it is not a burdensome process to have employee engagement in these processes.”
“We can have supportive measures in place to prevent harassment from continuing or from happening again, and to support the individual.”
“I refer the Committee to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of trade unions. It seems that my thoughts align with those of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak on the reasonableness of completely unforeseeable and unexpected things, but I would go a slight step further on what we are looking for from employers. Even in circumstances in which something is so completely unexpected and unforeseeable that it might be reasonable for preparatory measures not to be in place, the duty would also address how employers respond. It is about having systems in place to react to incidents when they happen, rather than foreseeing every possible eventuality of the completely unexpected and unforeseeable.”
“We have talked a lot about unintended consequences in this Committee. I suggest that, whether it is intended or unintended, the consequence of the amendment, which would remove two entire sectors from the scope of the Bill, would be far too broad given the protections that are needed. That is particularly the case in the hospitality sector, and we have heard my hon Friends’ experiences of that sector. I question whether the amendment is at all proportionate, considering the overall aims of the Bill, as well as the experiences and evidence that we have heard from my hon. Friends and witnesses.”
“I draw the Committee’s attention to this year’s “Freedom from Fear” survey released by USDAW, which surveyed retail workers in this country. It is an annual survey and the figures were released as part of Respect for Shopworkers Week in November. It featured responses from 4,000 participants, and the interim results showed that 69% of respondents—69% of a sample of 4,000 retail workers—had been verbally abused while at work, not by colleagues but by customers: a third party. Forty-five per cent had been threatened at work while simply going about their job. That is just one survey of one sample of one sector in our country that demonstrates the need for clauses 15 and 16. On Opposition amendment 131, I must admit that I was slightly confused, but I was listening closely and I gathered that its thrust was primarily around free speech.”
“I did so this morning, but I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, as it pertains to some what I will say. First, I want to take us right back to the beginning of the debate, if we can remember that long ago. The shadow Minister referenced the Regulatory Policy Committee’s assessment, in particular on the need for clauses 15 and 16. I strongly welcome what the Bill is doing in this space, in particular on third-party harassment. I do not profess to be an expert in the procedures and mechanisms of the RPC, but if we look broadly at society and at surveys and analysis of the state of work and what workers go through in this country, I think there is ample proper evidence of the need for these clauses.”
“On hospitality, we heard in oral evidence from the trade union Unite—of which I am not a member—that it had surveyed its hospitality workers and found that 56% of them had considered leaving the sector entirely as a result of the sexual harassment they were experiencing. We have heard throughout the debate about the desire to support businesses. We heard from UKHospitality about struggles with retention and how measures in the Bill, outside of this one, will aid with that. I hope we can all agree that, beyond edge cases that might raise concerns, the significant protections for workers that we are discussing would be not only good for those workers, but fundamentally good for business.”
“As I said, I listened closely to the points that Opposition Members made. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, I will allow the Minister to come back on the specifics of impact assessments. The point I am trying to make is that we are all looking at the same Bill and the same information. We might desire more information at this point, but we are exercising our judgment. Regardless of the specifics of any impact assessment, I think it is patently obvious that it is a disproportionate response to the concerns raised by Opposition Members to exclude entire sectors from the protections that we are discussing.”
“I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and I will keep my intervention short, Mr Stringer. We are hearing a lot of grandiose threats when it comes to the economy, and I would like to drag us back to the specifics. This measure is not a ban on dismissal; it is not even a protection from dismissal. It is a protection from unfair dismissal, so it is quite narrow. It still allows for dismissal, disciplinary procedures and all of that. Does the shadow Minister have a timeframe in which he thinks it would be acceptable for workers to be unfairly dismissed?”
“Anything like this amendment that would exclude sectors, groups or organisations wholesale feels unnecessary, especially in the light of how the measures would work in practice.”
“On its website it is proud to point out that “Work-life balance is important to us” and that its “flexible working patterns…are designed to help work fit… alongside…personal lives.” If anything, exclusions for entire services sectors would be a retrograde step in places where flexible working provisions are already working perfectly well. Moving on to the broader point, as demonstrated, I believe that sectors, businesses and employers can cope with this change. There are adequate measures for reasonableness in the Bill. Access to flexible working is an incredibly important right for workers in a modern, evolving workplace. Measures such as these gear the world of work for the future by enabling people to enter the workforce and to stay in it—something that the shadow Minister has expressed a concern about.”
“It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. As this is my first time speaking today, I draw everyone’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my trade union memberships. I want to pick up very slightly on some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield. I fully appreciate that we are talking about a probing amendment. I will not revisit my use of the word “ridiculous” on Tuesday—we stayed in that territory for long enough—but the shadow Minister perhaps underestimates the ability of different sectors to accommodate flexible working and to overcome the challenges that he believes the flexible working measures in the Bill might present. In fact, GCHQ already operates a flexible working policy.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for the decisive action that he has announced today and for bringing it to us in the House. Nothing can be allowed to jeopardise the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland. Will he confirm that the thread running through this action, and any future action, is the Government’s firm commitment to the victims and families, and to getting them the answers that they so richly deserve and finally need?”
“I refer the Committee to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my trade union memberships. When the shadow Minister listed the groups upon whom growth depends, he seemed to miss a rather large group—the workers. Does he accept that the purpose of the Bill is to create good employment and valued workforces? As we heard in evidence, good employment and valued workforces lead to increased productivity. Opposition Members are often keen to refer to the cumulative burden. As we are now on their fourth or fifth amendment, all in the same vein—about excluding millions of workers in this country from the benefits of the Bill—does he accept that the cumulative effect is to create a set of wrecking amendments that will remove the benefits of this Bill from millions of people in this country?”
“The shadow Minister invited clarification and an intervention. I do not think that anyone is disputing some of what he says, though we will dispute much. In the context of the Bill, he talks much about, as he put it, the mounting burden, but with little evidence—though he seems to quite like evidence when referencing the RPC. Does he accept, though, that the fundamental principle of the Bill is a rebalancing within the economy between workers and their employers, that nothing in it goes beyond that, and that some rebalancing is actually needed within that relationship for growth across the whole economy?”
“I appreciate that the shadow Minister has said that it is a probing amendment. I wish it was not quite so ridiculous, in all honesty—it is an utter low ball—but I will speak to it and to the clause it seeks to amend.”
“I am looking forward to hearing the Minister roundly reject this amendment, but I also want him to address some other parts of the clause, specifically the inverse of the amendment, the phrase, “not exceeding a specified number of hours”. I hope we would want to see this measure apply to as many workers—”
“I hope that we would all agree that tackling the insecurity that millions of people in our economy face is a worthy aim, and that that is not limited just to those on zero-hours contracts but includes those on low-hours contracts who regularly work more than their set hours. I spoke of a rebalancing earlier, and that is about fairness and the quality of employment. As part of that, it is only right that, where need is demonstrated, employees are offered—not given; there is still an element of choice—the opportunity to have those hours baked into their contracts, as is set out in the Bill. That would improve their financial security, their work-life balance, the predictability of their hours, and their ability to live their lives, to which their income is incredibly important.”
“Well, I agree on my newness, and maybe as I gain more experience, I will encounter more ridiculousness in this place than I already have—in fact, I am sure I will. I wish to speak to the amendment, despite its probing nature. In my view, and I hope the Minister would agree, the clause is designed to promote stability and financial security for those who currently lack it because of the number of hours that are baked into their contracts. To set the bar as low as two hours would run counter to that purpose. The measure has been widely trailed and debated in the run-up to the election and in this Committee. I highlight a few things that I hope the Minister will speak to with a view to that purpose.”
“The term, “not exceeding a specified number of hours”, could do with some clarity, in order to provide that stability and to ensure that the measure applies to the widest number of people within our workforce, to fulfil the intended aim. There is also the phrase “regularity”. Will the Minister consider how to clarify that term to provide the clarity that we would all welcome? Finally, I come on to the term, “excluded worker”. As I have said, we want to see as many people as possible covered by the Bill, so that they feel the benefits of it. The provisions are measured, for both workers and employers. I would welcome the Minister’s commitment to consider those points, as well as his roundly rejecting the ridiculous premise on which the amendment is based.”
“I would not agree, which will not surprise the hon. Member. I gently suggest that the number of Government amendments will possibly provide the clarity that he asks for—they will be baked in, and will provide that clarity. This is part of the process of getting the provisions right for all involved. I would suggest that it reflects exactly the opposite of what the hon. Member suggests. I return to the point about stability and instability. If the basis of the provision is to have hours regularly worked included in contracts, having that contractual term would provide not only stability for the employee, but predictability and stability for the employer. I am sure we can agree that stability all round is beneficial. However, I come on to possible unintended consequences.”
“It is a quick intervention: I am just wondering whether the amendment’s reference to 18 months is another example of the ridiculousness that we were talking about.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I will speak to these Government amendments collectively, because although they are incredibly technical, we must not lose sight of their purpose, which is to promote good employment. If there are loopholes and readily available routes by which employers can avoid the measures laid out in this Bill, we will see good employers undercut and workers not feeling the benefits. I welcome this as part of the Government doing their job to strengthen the legislation by introducing well thought out amendments to close loopholes and ensure that it is as strong as it can be. I commend this and the other amendments as being not simply technical—although they are—but part of what really gives the Bill teeth in achieving its purposes.”
“Does the shadow Minister accept that it is not the fault of the worker either? In fact, the employer has more control over the situation, on balance. On his example of planning out work, especially bookings, employers would know that there were no bookings further in advance than on the day—there are comparable examples across other industries—so giving notice of that on the day is completely and utterly unacceptable. The cost, in terms of proportion of income, is disproportionately borne by the worker, not the business, and these measures we are discussing are a proportionate way to rectify the situation.”
“The question is how you implement it, and whether there is a way to implement it that gives the employee the right to request, rather than putting the onus on the company to put in a whole load of process that actually, at the end of the day, might not be what the employee wants.”
“From an employee perspective, they should absolutely have the right to request flexibility, or to be able to have future hours that reflect something that they have over whatever reference period it is, whether it is 12 weeks or longer. If the regulations end up requiring that reference period—and, by definition, requiring employer to offer whatever that period is to the employee, just by process—peaks and troughs around peak trading periods and employees’ other commitments will cause the company to end up in a continual process of changing people’s hourly patterns, all the time and for a lot of people. When a company has multiple locations, and tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of employees, it could be quite difficult. I think we are absolutely agreed on the principle.”